The massive $3.5 trillion social-welfare spending bill being pushed by Democrats contains more problems than the cost of it. Two Democrat Senators – Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona – are opposing the bill because of the cost. Their opposition caused the bill to stall in Congress.
The cost is too high, but the policies in the bill have the potential to change America as we know it. The agenda of the bill is to shift more power and control to the federal government and away from the states and individuals. Nina Owcharenko Schaefer is a senior fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, and she sees problems in the bill regarding health care.
The so-called Build Back Better plan,
moving its way through the Democrat-led Congress, is jammed full of policy
changes that drive the country closer to a government takeover of health care
than ever before.
Trying to slim down the cost or water down
the proposals will not resolve those fundamental policy concerns.
Schaefer listed seven ways that the
bill will make it more difficult for individuals to keep their health plans,
while also making it “more likely you’d get the subpar benefits” of government-run
health care. Here is her list.
1) Creates a New, Government-Run Health
Plan
Part of the legislative package would put
in place a new federal health care program. The program would be modeled after
Medicaid, a joint federal-state program to provide medical services to certain
low-income Americans, and would be made available to those individuals in
states that did not adopt the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.
While seemingly narrow and targeted, the
proposal could easily be scaled up and expanded to new groups. Under such an
arrangement, the government would set regulatory rules in favor of the
government plan, drive out private competition, compel participation,
consolidate enrollment, and shift costs on to health care providers and
taxpayers….
2) Expands Government Subsidies to
Insurance Giants, the Rich
The proposal would make existing Obamacare
subsidies more generous and make them available to more people, regardless of
income.
Specifically, individuals with income
between 100% and 150% of the federal poverty line would no longer have to
contribute to the cost of their Obamacare premiums…
Since the subsidies are tethered to
Obamacare, these changes are intended to drive more people to the government-run
Obamacare exchanges, including some of whom would have otherwise had insurance.
The more people enrolled in Obamacare, the
more the government controls the delivery of care and benefits. Moreover, these
changes attempt to cover up the fact that Obamacare is driving up – not down –
the cost of coverage….
3) Undercuts Private, Employer-Based
Coverage
The bill changes the requirements for
those with access to employer-based coverage to qualify for Obamacare
subsidies.
Under current law, individuals with access
to employer-based coverage are not eligible for Obamacare subsidies unless
their share of the premium costs exceed 9.2%. The bill would lower that
threshold to 8.5%.
The private, employer-based market is
where the majority of Americans still get their health care and remains a
critical obstacle to a full-blown government-run health care plan. Lowering the
threshold is a small, but significant, shift in the opposite direction….
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 non-[Affordable Care Act] compliant health insurance
coverage” and explicitly defines short-during and association health plans as
such options….
5) Expands Size, Scope of Medicaid
The 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-based services.
The proposal would also impose new federal
requirements on state Medicaid programs and would weaken oversight and
accountability through various policy changes….
6) Puts New Obligations on Outdated
Medicare Program
The legislation proposes adding dental,
hearing, and vision to the traditional Medicare program. To avoid an even
bigger price tag, the benefits would be phased-in over time. Seniors would
still be responsible for a portion of costs, but taxpayers would be responsible
for the rest….
7) Sets Government Controls on
Prescription Drugs
Under the bill, the federal government
would set prices for certain prescription drugs in the Medicare program, based
on prices paid in other countries….
Government control over the price of
pharmaceuticals means government control over access to pharmaceuticals. Like
residents in those selected other countries, seniors would face less access and
fewer choices under this model….
Government should not be involved in
the health care business. Schaefer points out that Canada and the United
Kingdom are good examples that show “the impact such controls have on access to
care, where wait lists are common and expected, and where access to treatments
are limited or denied.”
Schaefer summarized her article by
explaining that there is “a common health care thread running throughout the ‘Build
Back Better’ plan.” That thread is the desire to remove “private coverage
alternatives and consolidate enrollment in the government-run plans.” The
government would then control the dollars and the decisions.
This post discusses only the affects that
would take place in the health care arena. The “Build Back Better” plan has an
agenda to take over the lives of Americans. That is the reason the policies
contained in the proposal are just as bad or worse than the price tag.
