Repealing Mandate That Was ‘Weak’ In First Place May Not Radically Change Customers’ Behavior
“We don’t think many people would lose insurance if the mandate goes away,” said Deep Banerjee, an analyst at Standard & Poor’s.
Politico:
Obamacare Mandate Repeal May Not Deliver Predicted Blow
Repealing Obamacare's individual mandate might not be the devastating blow to health insurance markets that supporters of the law fear. Because the tax penalty for not having insurance is far less costly than what many Americans would have to pay for coverage, many have chosen to take the fine. Eliminating it, therefore, might not radically change behavior — or fulfill the dire predictions of spiking premiums and vast increases in uninsured people that economists, health providers and politicians once predicted. (Haberkorn and Demko, 11/20)
The Hill:
Study Finds Less Coverage Loss From Repealing ObamaCare Mandate
A new report from Standard & Poor’s predicts less savings and coverage loss from repealing ObamaCare’s individual mandate compared to the most commonly-used estimate. The study from S&P finds that repealing the mandate, as Senate Republicans are proposing in their tax-reform bill, would result in three to five million more uninsured people and $60 billion to $80 billion in savings over 10 years. That estimate is far less than the more commonly-used Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, which predict 13 million more uninsured people and $338 billion in savings over the same period. (Sullivan, 11/17)
The New York Times:
Will Cutting The Health Mandate Pay For Tax Cuts? Not Necessarily
Alexia Manon Senior is 27 and healthy — the type of person who might be most tempted to forgo health insurance if Republicans enact a tax bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that most Americans have coverage or pay a penalty. But Ms. Manon Senior, a graduate student in Miami, said she would hold tight to her coverage, at least as long as she keeps getting nearly $5,000 a year in government subsidies to pay for most of it. (Zernike and Goodnough, 11/19)
The Associated Press:
White House Open To Striking Health Provision From Tax Bill
The White House says it's willing to strike a health-care provision from Senate legislation to cut taxes and overhaul the tax code if the provision becomes an impediment to passing one of President Donald Trump's top legislative priorities. The provision would repeal a requirement that everyone in the U.S. have health insurance or pay a fine, but has emerged as a major sticking point for Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, whose vote the White House needs. Collins said Sunday that the issue should be dealt with separately. (11/20)
The Hill:
Collins: Pass Bipartisan ObamaCare Bills Before Mandate Repeal
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Sunday that she wants two bipartisan ObamaCare bills to pass before the Senate takes up a tax bill that repeals the health law’s individual mandate. Collins, a key swing vote on the tax bill, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that she did not think the mandate repeal should be in the tax bill, but she indicated she thinks the rise in premiums from repealing the mandate could be mitigated if two other bills passed first. (Sullivan, 11/19)
The Hill:
Murkowski Signals She Can Support Tax Bill — If Alexander-Murray Is Part Of Package
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is signaling she can support the repeal of ObamaCare’s mandate in the Senate tax bill if Congress also passes a bill to stabilize individual health insurance markets. “I think that there is a path and I think the path is a reasonable path,” Murkowski told Roll Call, highlighting how she could vote for the legislation. (Roubein, 11/17)