You think health insurance is a hassle now? Just you wait.
Donald Trump is about to make ObamaCare much, much worse
Since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, America has failed to become a health care nirvana. Premiums have continued to rise, though at a slower rate than before the law was passed. Likewise, overall health spending is still increasing, though it has slowed. There are still people without insurance, though 20 million more have coverage because of the law. And, believe it or not, you can still get sick and even die.
Now that Republicans are about to take control of the entire federal government, they have an answer to these shortcomings of the ACA: They're going to make things much, much worse. You think health insurance is a hassle now? Just you wait.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump announced that Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) will be his secretary of health and human services, making him the administration's point person on health care. This was a clear signal of Trump's intentions, so far as he has them. Price, a hard-right conservative with an ardent hatred of the ACA, will now be the second most important player in shaping whatever form "repeal and replace" takes, after House Speaker Paul Ryan. (And yes, that includes Trump himself, who has amply demonstrated that he neither knows nor cares a whit about the details of health care policy; he'll sign whatever they put in front of him.)
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Price has his own health care plan, which as Sarah Kliff explains, "would replace the law with a plan that does more to benefit the young, healthy, and rich — and disadvantages the sick, old, and poor." While his plan probably won't be adopted in full by Congress, he and Speaker Ryan are in agreement about many things. Here's some of what they're inclined to do:
When you hear Republicans talking about their preference for "patient-centered" care, this is what they're talking about. Or in other words, "You're on your own."
There's obviously a complicated political and policy history underlying this issue, but at its heart is a basic conflict of values and priorities. When they passed the ACA, Democrats had two primary goals rooted in their values: Get as close as possible to getting everyone insured, and make health care secure for everyone. There were other things they very much wanted to do, including bringing costs under control, but those two were the most critical. As liberals, they believe no one should go without coverage, and that everyone's coverage should be secure — not based on your income, or the whims of your employer, or whether you've had an illness before, or how cruel your governor and state legislature happens to be.
This is really important to understand: Republicans do not believe in either universality or security. That's not to say that in the abstract they actively oppose everyone getting coverage or people's coverage being secure; it's that neither of those things is particularly important to them. They aren't going to try to accomplish them, except in half measures meant to insulate them from political blowback. Millions of Americans being uninsured didn't bother them before the ACA was passed, and it won't bother them in the future. Nor will the idea of everyone being vulnerable to losing their coverage. What's far more important is that government have as minimal a role as possible.
That's the primary value they want expressed in health care: Government is bad, and the private sector is good. You can see this in their response to the expansion of Medicaid. Before the ACA went into effect, each state set their own eligibility limits, and Republican states (particularly in the South) were extraordinarily stingy. For instance, Texas' eligibility level is 18 percent of poverty, or $3,628 — make more than that as parents in a family of three, and you're too rich to qualify (and single people aren't eligible for coverage there at all). The ACA tried to change that by allowing anyone making up to 133 percent of the poverty line ($26,812 for a family of three) eligible, including single people. But Republicans sued, and successfully got permission to opt out.
Which means that Republican states like Texas turned down a huge pot of federal money — under the law the federal government picks up almost the entire tab for the expansion — because they literally would rather have their poor citizens go without health insurance than see them get it from the government.
That's also why they've wanted to privatize Medicare for so long. It's not that they want secure, quality health coverage for seniors, because seniors already have that with Medicare as it exists (which is why the program is so popular). And it's not that they genuinely believe that privatization is going to save money overall, because Medicare is less costly than private insurance, both because it has lower overhead costs and because its size allows it to dictate lower prices for the care it reimburses. No, they want to privatize Medicare because its very success — as a huge, single-payer government program its recipients love — is an ongoing offense to everything Republicans believe about government.
Chances are that they're going to abandon Medicare privatization, because the political backlash will be too intense to withstand. But they'll repeal the ACA in some form, and make health insurance, which was maddening enough already, significantly less secure and more cumbersome. If you're lucky enough to have employer-sponsored care and you never lose your job, you'll be insulated from the worst of it. But otherwise, you should watch out — and if you're poor, you're in real trouble. It isn't going to be pretty.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Paul Waldman is a senior writer with The American Prospect magazine and a blogger for The Washington Post. His writing has appeared in dozens of newspapers, magazines, and web sites, and he is the author or co-author of four books on media and politics.
-
Why are people and elephants fighting in Sri Lanka?
Under The Radar Farmers encroaching into elephant habitats has led to deaths on both sides
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
Indie film's 'very brief' use of AI sparks backlash and calls for boycotts
Talking Points Did the creators of a new horror movie make a deal with the artificial intelligence devil?
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Could Taylor Swift swing the election?
Today's Big Question The pop star has outsized influence — and that extends beyond the music industry
By Anya Jaremko-Greenwold Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Xi-Biden meeting: what's in it for both leaders?
Today's Big Question Two superpowers seek to stabilise relations amid global turmoil but core issues of security, trade and Taiwan remain
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Will North Korea take advantage of Israel-Hamas conflict?
Today's Big Question Pyongyang's ties with Russia are 'growing and dangerous' amid reports it sent weapons to Gaza
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published