Republicans love this new health care plan. Too bad it's basically a tax cut for the rich.
True to form, conservatives are praising a policy proposal that will deprive millions of Americans of insurance
The Affordable Care Act has been a policy success. It has substantially reduced the number of uninsured, while slowing the growth in American health care spending. The people who have been newly insured under the ACA like it.
None of these things have made the law popular among the population as a whole. But if there's one thing that's less popular than the ACA, it's repealing the ACA. For this reason, Republicans opposed to ObamaCare have to at least pretend to have an alternative.
One of these alternatives was put forward last week by Ed Gillespie, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and more recently a failed candidate for Senate. The plan has been praised on the right for being a serious alternative to ObamaCare. However, it doesn't really solve the Republican health care problem. That's because as an alternative to the ACA it's far worse than nothing.
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.
The core of Gillespie's plan is a proposal for tax credits to purchase insurance. Gillsepie's case for the credits is unintentionally revealing:
Note that Gillespie carefully describes his model family as two people making $63,000 a year, rather than more honestly discussing a household with an income of $126,000 — well more than twice the national per capita household income. In other words, Gillespie is proposing an upper-class tax cut, the one Republican solution to every problem under the sun. (Except global warming, which doesn't exist.)
But it's worse than that. The credits will be inadequate for most people to purchase decent insurance. This is not necessarily a huge issue for Gillespie's model six-figure earners, but a bigger problem for the more typical household. And because Gillespie would eliminate the ACA's crucial provisions guaranteeing insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, insurance will not be available at all for many people. (The high-risk pools Gillespie proposes as an alternative would have to be subsidized at unrealistically high levels or they would fail.)
Gillespie is proposing to make the individual insurance market worthless for most people, and offering only inadequate tax subsidies in exchange. But we haven't even touched upon the poor, whom the ACA sought to cover through a historic Medicaid expansion that would be covering more than 10 million people had it not been ineptly re-written by the Supreme Court.
This is Gillespie's answer to the poor newly covered by the ACA: drop dead. Under his plan, "Medicaid would revert to pre-ObamaCare eligibility levels." In other words, the millions of people already covered under the ACA's expansion would be out of luck, and those who would be covered if their states eventually decide to take the large amount of federal money on offer would be out of luck as well.
What we have here, then, is definitive Republican policy circa 2014: funding tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy on the backs of the most vulnerable people in society.
What could possibly justify such cruelty? Gillespie asserts that the Medicaid expansion would be "unsustainable," arguing that health care costs can only be controlled by market competition. But this argument is theoretically and empirically indefensible. As the Nobel Prize–winning economist Kenneth Arrow long ago explained, markets in health care don't work like markets for other consumer goods. And Arrow's theory has been proven right in practice again and again. Other liberal democracies have more state intervention in health care markets, and all of them cover more people for less money (and often much less money) than the United States. The fact that the ACA's provisions have bent the cost curve underlines this point.
Just to add to his total detachment from all known facts about health care policy, Gillespie also proposes that old Republican standby, tort reform to limit malpractice lawsuits. Alas, this approach has been a proven failure at either controlling costs or reducing the number of uninsured.
Gillespie's proposal, in other words, is a disaster. It would result in a huge spike in the ranks of the uninsured and medical bankruptcies, with horrible human consequences, without significantly addressing the horribly inefficient American health care system. As an alternative to the ACA, it represents what the de facto Republican alternative for the uninsured has always been: nothing.
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
Scott Lemieux is a professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose in Albany, N.Y., with a focus on the Supreme Court and constitutional law. He is a frequent contributor to the American Prospect and blogs for Lawyers, Guns and Money.
-
Melting polar ice is messing with global timekeeping
Speed Read Ice loss caused by climate change is slowing the Earth's rotation
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The Week contest: Stick guitar
Puzzles and Quizzes
By The Week US Published
-
'Sports executives ushered a fox into the henhouse'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US 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