Mitch McConnell’s New Obamacare Repeal Plan Is Somehow Even Worse

And it might already be dead.

Ron Sachs/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Senate Republicans’ plans to dismantle Obamacare appear to be quickly crumbling. After a group of senators announced their opposition to the current version of the bill Monday night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) conceded defeat. McConnell said that legislationā€”which would have replaced Obamacare with a less generous health care program while dramatically cutting Medicaidā€”won’t be moving forward.

Instead, McConnell pledged to introduce a bill that would simply repeal huge chunks of Obamacare without any sort of replacement; congressional Republicans passed similar legislation in 2015, but it was vetoed by President Barack Obama. The bill would have a two-year delay before implementation, offering a grace period during which Congress could theoretically dream up a replacement plan.

But McConnell’s new plan quickly encountered trouble Tuesday morning, with GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Shelly Moore Capito (W. Va.), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) all saying they couldn’t support a bill that just repeals Obamacare. “As I have said before, I did not come to Washington to hurt people,” Capito said in a statement explaining her opposition. That would be enough to kill the bill, assuming every Democrat opposed it, as well. Meanwhile, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said he still needed to see the language of the bill and indicated he was “concerned” about any bill that “would simply repeal.”

There’s good reason why Collins, Capito, Murkowski, and Portman are quickly objecting to McConnell’s repeal-only plan: Getting rid of Obamacare without any replacement policy would be an utter disaster that would instantly wreck the insurance market. Republicans are using a procedure called budget reconciliation that would allow them to avoid a filibuster and pass the bill with just 50 votes in the Senate. But the reconciliation process comes with a set of byzantine rules that limits what can actually be included in the legislation. When Republicans tried to do this in 2015, their bill would have eliminated Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, subsidies for lower-income families, and the individual mandate. But it would have left in place most of Obamacare’s regulations. Under the 2015 bill, insurance companies would still be required to offer a range of essential health care benefits without charging higher rates for sick peopleā€”but without financial support from the government or any requirement for healthy people to buy in. That would result in a so-called “death spiral”: Healthy people will stop purchasing coverage, which will cause premiums to rise, which will cause more people to stop buying insurance, which will cause premiums to rise even further.

Capito, Murkowski, and Portman actually supported the 2015 bill, but it was a much easier vote, since they knew Obama would never sign it into law. But while it was engineered as a show vote back then, the Congressional Budget Office took the bill seriously and wrote a damning analysis earlier this year explaining what it would do to the country’s health system. The CBO concluded that the uninsured rate would immediately skyrocket, rising by 18 million under the first year after the repeal went into effect. By year three, 27 million more people would be uninsured than under Obamacare. That number would rise to 32 million by 2026. By that point, the individual marketplaces would have imploded, with 75 percent of people living in a part of the country without an insurance provider offering individual coverage. And even if you are lucky enough to still have an insurer offering plans, the cost will be far, far higher. In the first year alone, premiums would jump between 20 to 25 percent compared with current law, according to the CBO.

Even if McConnell does attempt to use reconciliation to eliminate the essential health benefits and preexisting-condition protections, the repeal bill would likely be catastrophic. In that scenario, the insurance market would revert back to the way it was prior to Obamacare, where people with preexisting conditions couldn’t get any coverage, low-income families couldn’t afford coverage, and everyone else bought plans with skimpier benefits.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate