GOP O’Care Repeal Defector Throws Hail Mary Pass To Bring Moderates Back On

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., which has responsibility over matters relating to healthcare, speaks about President Obama's health care law after Republican lawmakers met at th... House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., which has responsibility over matters relating to healthcare, speaks about President Obama's health care law after Republican lawmakers met at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2013. Upton has proposed a bill that would allow insurers to keep selling insurance that doesn't offer the type of benefits required by Obama's health care law. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

A prominent Republican who defected from the GOP’s Obamacare repeal legislation Tuesday is working on an amendment to win over himself and possibly other skeptical moderates, the Associated Press, Axios and the New York Times reported.

The idea is being floated by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), a former Energy and Commerce chair who has worked on the health care legislation in the past and came out against the latest iteration of the repeal bill due to its weakening of pre-existing-condition protections. He is seeking an additional $8 billion over five years for the bill’s “Patient and State Stability Fund,” which offers states funding to set up high-risk pools or other market stabilization programs.

According to the Axios report, the funding would specifically be for consumers with pre-existing conditions who see their insurance premiums jacked up for not maintaining continuous coverage, as could be possible under the Republican plan.

It’s unclear whether the funding would undermine the point of the penalty to encourage consumers into maintaining insurance, or whether it would incentivize insurers to charge the penalty in order to sop up the public funding.

Other outlets described the measure more broadly as funding to boost high-risk pools, which Republicans say will act as a safety net for consumers who potentially couldn’t afford coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Upton’s office has not yet responded to TPM’s request for clarification. His aides told CQ he was slated to visit the White House this morning with other Republican lawmakers key to the House’s repeal effort.

The proposal is the latest of a series of ad hoc changes that the legislation, the American Health Care Act, has undergone in order to shore up the 216 votes it would need to pass the House. The bill was pulled dramatically from the floor in March, with GOP leadership facing a revolt from its hard-right as well as centrist factions. Last week, an amendment was unveiled allowing states to opt out of certain Affordable Care Act insurer mandates, including its requirement that plans offer coverage in 10 broad coverage areas and its ban on upping premiums based on an individual’s health states.

That change won over many of the conservative resisting the bill, but spooked the moderates, who worried it violated their vows to preserve protections for pre-existing conditions. GOP leaders have pointed to the high-risk pools states could set up using the bill’s stability fund as an answer to that concern. Most health care experts estimate that the cost of a high-risk pool to cover those with pre-existing conditions far exceeds what Republicans were offering in the legislation: $100 billion over 10 years. An extra $8 billion over five years is still short of the $20-$30 billion a year that has been the conservative estimate of what such a program would cost.

Latest DC
13
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for mymy mymy says:

    Guess he got a lot of blowback. Seriously though just discussing this so called bill will give a lot of people the impression it’s a done deal.

  2. It’s unclear whether the funding would undermine the point of the penalty to encourage consumers into maintaining insurance, or whether it would incentivize insurers to charge the penalty in order to sop up the public funding.

    No, it’s not unclear. The penalty doesn’t encourage consumers to maintain insurance. By nature, people don’t think of what could happen with their health. They’ll drop coverage and worry about a 30% hike in premiums when they’re sick at some future point. Most likely when they’ll be screwed out of the system. That’s how it goes.

    The last bolded sentence doesn’t make any sense to me. Insurers don’t have to be incentivized to hike premiums by 30%.

  3. It still lets red states deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. It is not even a guarantee that the risk care pools would even be funded by republicans. LOL.

  4. Ever known a kid incapable of doing anything but kicking and breaking things that other kids make?
    Ever know a guy who thinks he is an ace mechanic but always has 5 parts left over whenever he does a job and tells you they were apparently extras because he didn’t need them?
    Ever known a person whose sole contribution to any conversation was to disparage what someone else said as obvious or uninformed (like our resident troll)?

    The Republicans have for years made fun of any and all efforts to make the world better through government. They have this magical thinking that says whenever they dismantle something there is this god-like thing called the “free market” that will fix any problems they have created, sort of like an enabling parent. They are the embodiment of all things horrific in the American character from unfettered greed to white privilege on steroids. They are the servants of the new aristocracy (as are many Dems, unfortunately), and they currently have a virtual hegemony so we get to spend our days watching them stumble from disastrous destruction to another while we get to comment on it.

    Today’s vow - I will not read the news or log on to TPM tomorrow for my own mental health.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

7 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for alliebean Avatar for austin_dave Avatar for clunkertruck Avatar for mymy Avatar for fourlegsgood Avatar for rssrai Avatar for califdemdreamer Avatar for zlohcuc Avatar for meta Avatar for birdford

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: