Put another way, the structure is sound enough. Trump, Ryan and the rest are misrepresenting things, mostly to justify their ill-conceived intervention.
The CBO analysis reveals the severe shortcomings in the House Republican proposal. The plan would make coverage less affordable for many who are least able to pay, especially the old and the sick. One striking example is a 64-year-old with
This and other unsettling news, including a reduction of
How about taking seriously a bipartisan approach to making repairs? If the framework of the Affordable Care Act makes sense, expanding and improving coverage through
Take, for instance, the many lower- and moderate-income households with premiums and deductibles still beyond their means. They need more help in the form of larger tax credits or subsidies, something that is affordable, in part, because individual buyers make up 7 percent of the market.
Residents in many smaller counties now have just one choice for coverage. A public option would add competition. Effective, too, would be engineering improved incentives for healthier (and often younger) people to buy coverage. In their plan,
One logical improvement would be a stronger individual mandate, increasing the penalty for failing to have insurance, stressing the virtue of personal responsibility. The mandate incentive once was a Republican idea, just as the insurance exchanges were.
Perhaps after the tumult of the past week, the party of repeal exposed as lacking a replacement along the lines it promised, more coverage at lower costs than the Affordable Care Act, enough
The makings of a compromise long have been there,
(c)2017 the Akron Beacon Journal (Akron, Ohio)
Visit the Akron Beacon Journal (Akron, Ohio) at www.ohio.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.