For no particular reason, here is the maximum Obamacare premium under the terms of the January stimulus bill. The $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill would make this permanent:
This fixes one of Obamacare's worst problems: the subsidy cliff at (approximately) $80,000 for a family of three. At that point, all subsidies ceased and the cost of insurance was suddenly at the market price, which would most likely be in the range of $15-30,000, depending on age.
Under the new terms, the cost of insurance is reduced for low-income families and capped at 8.5% of income (or less) for everyone. A middle-class family of three making $100,000 now has a maximum premium of $8,500.
This is a huge change and finally makes Obamacare genuinely universal. We can do better, and eventually we will, but for now this is one of the most important provisions of the reconciliation bill.
Despite all that’s happened, Obamacare has been a winning issue for the last few elections. This would cement that achievement and create a lasting platform for fighting for the next improvement in every election.
The other two health related provisions are also winners: allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices (because everyone hates big pharma, and lowering the cost of Part D is also a winnter), and expanding Medicare to cover dental and vision are also important.
Obamacare took a while to implement, and the Republicans were able to go after it as the government going after your Medicare (yeah, I know). They weren't going to go after the provision letting you keep your kids on your plan until they are 26, oh no, they support that--it was everything else they had to destroy. And they won elections that way. Not to mention the initial roll out was a bit of a mess--the Obama administration should have expected Republican governors to hurt their own states for personal political gain.
This update should be implemented rather quickly--though there will be some rough spots. Republican administrations attack governance--typically gutting civil service--so the next administration has to do a lot of repairs before they can move forward. So expect well funded nonsense attacks on the new provisions. Will it work--well, look at the attacks against mask mandates and vaccines...
For strictly personal reasons, this is the provision I most have my eye on although it usually seems to be mentioned only in passing, at best. But it has big implications for me, as I'm 54 and would really start to move into semi-retirement in the next 5 years.
Right now I'm pretty much locked into full-time work with benefits till I can qualify for Medicare, as those premiums for crappy insurance would be unrealistic, especially with reduced income from only working part of the time. But that 8.5% cap would really free me up for a more flexible schedule and life.
So therefore I assume it'll be the first part of the bill Manchin insists on cutting :-/
I'm guessing that provision has a better chance of survival than the Medicare drug negotiation feature (which would directly impact pharma profits). The Obamacare premiums cap simply means more taxpayer dollars for health insurers, and thus by rights should face much less opposition.
We can do better, and eventually we will, but for now this is one of the most important provisions of the reconciliation bill.
I would argue it's the single most important provision of the bill. Truly universal, government-guaranteed, taxpayer-backed up national healthcare has long been a goal of the Democratic Party. And, while gaps would remain even with this measure (and yes, we can and must do better), it's a huge step in the right direction.
The reconciliation bill could be reversed under a 2024 admin change? No real staying power...spend a bunch of money to get it off the ground...then grounded by next admin.....from what I understand about the "recon" measures
I dare them to try and take away a benefit which helps pretty much every family in the US. They weren't able to axe the ACA itself, and this makes it benefit way more people. This is a sure political loser.
Sure, a political loser -- for the Democrat Party. It's not Medicare4All.
-- as seen at jacobin-dot-com
Well, that's universally and eternally true of all legislation: no Congress can bind a future Congress. Even if this were a regular order bill ultimately passed with ten Republican votes, a future GOP Congress could always enact an "evisceration" bill (narrowly targeting key provisions) via reconciliation. IIRC this is what they did with the Obamacare penalty/tax: the Affordable Care Act itself was a regular order bill passed by the Senate with sixty votes in 2009. But Republicans tried to gut that bill with 51 votes in 2017. And they partly succeeded.
If Republicans had 51 votes to repeal then they would end the fillibuster pronto.
Or, more likely, they'd create a carve-out for an Obamacare repeal bill. Same exact situation if the Democrats had 51 votes for a voting rights bill.
No need to repeal the filibuster. The 2017 attempt to replace the ACA was done under reconciliation.
True, but taking away existing benefits is politically much more problematic than branding it as "socialism" in order to prevent it from getting passed in the first place.
Making a family that earns $85K pay $16K for health insurance vs $7500, and that too to a private company, is a real winning election issue, surely.
As long as Republicans think it will keep those lazy Urbans and diseased illegals from benefiting from a single dime of their Hard Earned Tax Dollars, it is, at least in Republican primaries.
They do not vote with their heads.
Kevin, it would be helpful when sharing your posts on Facebook when any graphics associated with a post would be transferred as the graphic used in the FB post. Right now it looks like a random photo from your gallery gets used, which is pretty but a lot less informative ;.) . Perhaps there is some way to define that in your blog settings?
It will be interesting to see what Joe Manchin will accept on issues such as the Federal negotiation on drug prices and increased ACA subsidies: his daughter is the CEO of a pharma firm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Bresch#:~:text=Morgantown%2C%20West%20Virginia%2C%20U.S.&text=Heather%20Manchin%20Bresch%20(n%C3%A9e%20Manchin,a%20Fortune%20500%20pharmaceutical%20company.). Also, many of the ‘green’ elements of the reconciliation proposal might be a challenge in a coal heavy state.
Manchin has never been particularly hostile to the ACA, though the lure of pharma money might induce him to oppose Medicare Rx negotiations.