Republican Healthcare Proposals Insufficient for Chronic Conditions

Key Quotes

"But shockingly the gop doesn't really have a plan to make healthcare more affordable or more available and they know that's a giant problem but they came up with a concept of a plan a maximum of 1 500 in the health savings accounts of people on the cheapest aca plans"

The author highlights that Republicans lack a concrete plan for healthcare affordability and accessibility. Instead, they propose a limited concept of a plan involving a small amount in health savings accounts for those on the cheapest Affordable Care Act plans. This suggests a superficial approach to a significant issue.

"The Senate plan would not extend these subsidies in fact it would give pretty much everybody in this individual market who buys their coverage on the Obamacare marketplaces 1 000 if they're under age 50 and 1 500 if they're over age 50 to put in a health savings account which they could at least at the moment not use to pay premiums they can only use it to pay for their health expenses"

Julie Rovner explains that the Senate's Republican proposal would not continue the existing subsidies for ACA marketplace plans. Instead, it offers a fixed amount for health savings accounts, which cannot be used for premiums and are limited to health expenses. Rovner points out that this amount would likely be insufficient for significant medical costs.

"The Republicans want to say everybody should have, you know, only catastrophic insurance, which is basically only being insured for something that's catastrophic, so it means that you have a gigantic deductible that basically if you end up in the hospital, your bills will be covered, but otherwise you're going to be on the hook for the first however many thousands of dollars of coverage."

Julie Rovner clarifies the Republican approach to healthcare, which she characterizes as promoting "catastrophic insurance." Rovner explains that this type of insurance involves a very high deductible, meaning individuals would only be covered for extreme medical events, leaving them responsible for substantial initial costs. This approach, according to Rovner, leaves sick individuals largely unprotected for everyday health needs.

"There are also some potential plans from those bipartisan groups you mentioned earlier, how are those going to get to a vote without Speaker Johnson's support? Well, there is something called the discharge petition, which is of course how the Epstein files bill got to a vote without the Speaker's support and apparently there are a couple of discharge petitions that enough Republicans have signed onto that if all the Democrats in the House sign onto also, they would have to have a vote on."

The author discusses a procedural mechanism in the House of Representatives, the discharge petition, which can force a vote on legislation even without the Speaker's approval. The author notes that this method has been used previously and suggests that enough Republicans have signed onto discharge petitions for bipartisan healthcare proposals. This indicates a potential pathway for these proposals to reach a vote, contingent on Democratic support.

"The Trump administration is too online. It's not just the actual president being mind-bogglingly racist pretty much all the time; the Department of Homeland Security's Twitter account reads like white nationalist fan fiction and right-wing pundits with the ear of the White House seem physically unable to denounce actual white supremacy."

The author criticizes the Trump administration for being excessively focused on online discourse and rhetoric. The author specifically points to the Department of Homeland Security's social media activity and the influence of certain right-wing pundits as examples of this problematic online engagement. This suggests a disconnect between the administration's online focus and the concerns of the general public.

"I wrote a piece I should go back and look it up again in 1988 before George H W Bush was elected saying to the effect of how bad things have to get in healthcare system before we absolutely have to fix it and that was oh no yeah a really long time ago and we really haven't fixed it we've had some bigger band aids I would say the ACA was a really big band aid the one perhaps silver lining out of all of this is that maybe things will get bad enough that Congress and President Trump are going to have to actually sit down and hammer something out."

Julie Rovner reflects on the long-standing issues within the U.S. healthcare system, noting that problems have persisted for decades without fundamental resolution. Rovner views the Affordable Care Act as a significant, but ultimately temporary, measure. She expresses a cautious hope that the current crisis might compel Congress and the President to address healthcare policy more substantively.