7 Ways Democrats’ $ 3.5 Trillion Tax and Spending Bill Would Support Your Health Care


Reducing the cost of the Democrats’ massive $ 3.5 trillion social spending bill is a compromise that misses the point.

Opposition to the tax and spending bill is not just about cost, it is a political agenda that transfers more power and control to the federal government and away from patients and families .

So-called Build Back Better plan, which weaves its way through Democrat-led Congress, is full of political changes driving the country closer to a government takeover of healthcare than ever before.

Trying to cut costs or water down the proposals will not resolve these fundamental political concerns.

Here are seven reasons why it will be more difficult for you to maintain your health plan and increase your chances of getting on. below average benefits that too many people are already doing on government-run plans.

1) Create a new government-run health plan

Part of the legislative package would establish a new federal health care program. The program would be modeled after Medicaid, a joint federal-state program to provide medical services to select low-income Americans, and would be made available to people in states that have not adopted the Obamacare Medicaid extension.

Although seemingly narrow and focused, the proposal could easily be scaled up and extended to new groups. Under such an arrangement, the government would establish regulatory rules in favor of the government plan, eliminate private competition, compel participation, consolidate registrations, and shift costs to health care providers and taxpayers.

Ultimately, it sets up the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to carry out a fully-fledged health system managed by the government.

2) extend government subsidies to insurance giants, the rich

The proposal would make existing Obamacare grants more generous and make them accessible to more people, regardless of their income.

Specifically, people with incomes between 100% and 150% of the federal poverty line would no longer have to contribute to the cost of their Obamacare premiums. Obamacare’s grants would be extended to the “rich” – defined here as people with incomes above 400% poverty, and no person receiving a grant would be required to pay more than 8.5% for their premiums.

Since the grants are tied to Obamacare, these changes are intended to attract more people to the government-run Obamacare scholarships, some of whom would otherwise have had insurance.

The more people registered with Obamacare, the more the government controls the delivery of care and benefits. Additionally, these changes attempt to cover up the fact that Obamacare drives up, not down, coverage costs, and that means Obamacare’s mega-insurance plans will continue to raise premiums, knowing that ultimately the taxpayers will recover the costs.

3) Undermines employer-based private coverage

The bill changes the requirements for those with access to employer-based coverage to qualify for Obamacare grants.

Under current law, people with access to employer-offered coverage are not eligible for Obamacare grants unless their share of premium costs exceeds 9.2%. The bill would lower that threshold to 8.5%.

The private, employer-based market is where the majority of Americans still receive their health care and remains a critical barrier to a full-fledged government-run health care plan. Lowering the threshold is a small, but significant, change in the opposite direction.

This change, along with the increased availability of grants, could disrupt the employer market by driving more people out of their existing coverage and into the government-run plan. A recent estimate by the Congressional Budget Office notes that all of the policies incorporated into the plan would result in 2.8 million fewer people with employer-sponsored coverage.

4) undermines non-Obamacare options

The proposal blocks access to information about non-Obamacare coverage options. The bill would prohibit federal funds from being used to “promote[Affordable Care Act] Compliant health insurance coverage ”and explicitly defines short-term health and association plans as such options.

This follows the Biden administration’s decision earlier this year to use taxpayer money to fund a marketing campaign to promote Obamacare.

With increased costs and fewer options, many Americans have sought alternative health care arrangements. Promoting Obamacare over non-Obamacare alternatives is another attempt to end private competition and drive people to government-run Obamacare exchanges, where the government determines access to coverage options.

5) Expands the size, scope of Medicaid

Legislation assumes a larger role for the federal government in Medicaid. The proposal would create a new grant program within Medicaid that would add $ 190 billion for home and community services.

The proposal would also place new federal requirements on state Medicaid programs and weaken oversight and accountability through various policy changes.

Congress has already provided significant federal Medicaid resources to states, including for home and community services earlier this year. Using Medicaid to Solve Canada’s Health Problems myopic and poorly targeted, and replacing state flexibility with federal mandates only makes matters worse.

These efforts would rule out private alternatives and expand an already overburdened safety net program.

6) Imposes new obligations on an outdated health insurance program

The legislation proposes to add dental, hearing and vision care to the traditional health insurance program. To avoid an even higher price, the benefits would be phased in over time. Seniors would still be responsible for some of the costs, but taxpayers would be responsible for the rest.

While traditional health insurance does not include dental, vision, or hearing coverage, Medicare Advantage, private alternatives to Medicare, already offers these benefits to seniors without government intervention or interference.

Not only does this proposal inject government where it isn’t needed, but it also adds new obligations to the already overdrawn Medicare program, which will only accelerate the fragile tax circumstances the program faces.

7) Establish government controls on prescription drugs

Under the bill, the federal government would set the prices of certain prescription drugs in the Medicare program, based on prices paid in other countries.

Companies that refused to accept the government award would be subject to an excise tax.

Government control over the price of pharmaceuticals means government control over access to pharmaceuticals. Like residents of the other selected countries, older people would have less access and less choice under this model.

In addition, government price controls would not stop at pharmaceuticals. Similar mechanisms are envisioned with a full-fledged government program, where the government sets payment rates for all health services.

Americans just have to look Canada and the UK to see the impact of such controls on access to care, where waiting lists are common and expected, and access to treatment is limited or denied.

In summary, there is a common thread to health care throughout the “Build Back Better” plan: eliminating private coverage alternatives and consolidating enrollments in government-run plans.

This is because at the end of the day whoever controls the dollars controls the decisions.

This piece originally appeared in The daily signal


Comments are closed.