GOP to Working Poor: Drop Dead

[babylonsister]

http://prospect.org/article/gop-working-poor-drop-dead

GOP to Working Poor: Drop Dead

Scott Lemieux

January 29, 2014

Republicans finally have a comprehensive alternative plan to Obamacare—and it's horrible.


In one of the better lines in last night's State of the Union address, President Obama chided House Republicans for their endless series of votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act: "{L}et's not have another 40-something votes to repeal a law that's already helping millions of Americans ... The first 40 were plenty." He followed up by observing that "we all owe it to the American people to say what we're for, not just what we're against." As it happens, last week three Republican senators outlined a plan that can be fairly described as a Republican plan to replace Obamacare. (The basic features of the plan are clearly described by Sarah Kliff of Wonkblog here.) Because most of the Republican Party convinced themselves in 2009 that a tax penalty for people who don't carry health insurance was a grave threat to the American constitutional order, the plan does not include an individual mandate. But otherwise, in its general priorities the plan strongly resembles the Heritage Plan of the late 1980s. That is, it's radically different than the ACA, and it's horrible, immoral public policy.

In fairness, the Richard Burr-Tom Coburn-Orrin Hatch proposal does maintain some of the salutary features of the ACA. Parents will be able to maintain coverage for their children until age 26 (although states would be able to opt out of this provision). Insurance companies would be banned from imposing lifetime limits on benefits, and the ban on the rescission of insurance except in cases of fraud or misrepresentation would be maintained in at least some form. Even conservative Republicans are no longer willing to explicitly oppose some of the consumer protections and the core of the ACA.

But the differences between the Republican proposal and the ACA are great, and they involve denying exactly the rights and benefits that Obama highlighted during the State of the Union.

"And here's another number: zero. Because of this law, no American, none, zero, can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a pre-existing condition like asthma or back pain or cancer."

The Burr-Coburn-Hatch proposal would repeal the ACA's guaranteed coverage. In many cases, insurance companies would be able to deny people insurance based on pre-existing conditions. The plan would protect people who have been continuously insured for 18 months. But if you've never had health insurance? You're out of luck. If you've lost health insurance at some point in the last year and a half or haven't had it at all because you've lost your job? You're out of luck. The plan would offer a narrow one-time only enrollment period for those with pre-existing conditions, but anyone who missed that narrow window would not be guaranteed the ability to purchase insurance that contained the continuous coverage protections. This change is a classic illustration of Republican priorities: more protection for corporate interests, much less protection for consumers.

snip//

And yet, using this awful proposal as the baseline for Republican health care policy is probably too charitable. History suggests that absent the need to pretend to have an alternative to the status quo the Republican proposal for reform is non-existent. But even if one assumes that this proposal is in good faith, it shows Republicans treating those without access to decent medical care the same way they're increasingly treating the unemployed and those who can't afford to put food on the table: with callous indifference.

[butterfly77]

1. Kick...

[Gothmog]

2. Why do so many poor people vote for the GOP?

The GOP is hostile to people who are not rich and yet most of their votes come from people who are not rich. Why do people vote against their economic interests?