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 legislation—which would have replaced Obamacare with a less generous health care program while dramatically cutting Medicaid—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 people—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.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

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