Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell had indicated he would tie the Obamacare bills to the must-pass government-funding bill this week. That plan faced backlash from pro-life groups because McConnell had not said whether or not the new funding streams would be protected by the Hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion.
The plan also faced strong opposition from House Republicans. One GOP representative told The Hill Tuesday afternoon that House Speaker Paul Ryan told the Republican caucus that they’re “not going to pass something without Hyde protections.”
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate who strongly backs additional funding for Obamacare, said in a statement Wednesday afternoon: “Speaker Paul Ryan called me and said that the House remains committed to passing legislation to provide for high-risk pools and other reinsurance mechanisms similar to the bipartisan legislation I have introduced. He pointed out that by waiting until early next year, we will be able to use a new CBO baseline that will result in more funding being available for reinsurance programs.”
Bloomberg’s White House reporter Jennifer Jacobs tweeted Wednesday:
The abortion issue remains unresolved, but, as a WEEKLY STANDARD editorial argued on Tuesday:
“The issue could be easily addressed by adding Hyde amendment language, or by putting any new health-care funding in laws to which the Hyde amendment is permanently attached. (If Democrats want to kill what are mostly unnecessary additional subsidies out of deference to the abortion lobby, that’s on them.)” […] It should be noted that it’s not even clear why a congressional Obamacare bailout is necessary. Some have argued that the bipartisan bailout bill known as Alexander-Murray is needed because the Trump administration cut off some subsidies to insurers who must reduce the cost of health expenses for low-income Obamacare enrollees. But as THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s Chris Deaton explained on October 18, “when the Trump administration announced it would discontinue making the payments to insurers, the president was not ending the relief insurers provide to the people they cover.” Insurers are still obligated by law to lower the health expenses of individuals earning 100 percent to 250 percent of the federal poverty level, and they have made up for the loss of the Trump administration’s payments by raising premiums. As the Kaiser Family Foundation reported on October 27, “Eighty-four percent of marketplace enrollees receive premium subsidies through tax credits, and those tax credits will increase dollar for dollar along with benchmark silver premiums. These enrollees should not be affected financially by the premium surcharges. Lower-income consumers eligible for cost-sharing reductions will likely want to continue to enroll in silver plans to qualify for those reductions.” The Kaiser Foundation noted that those on Obamacare earning between 250 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line “could in some instances be better off. They will receive bigger premium subsidies, and could use those to pay less than they would now for a bronze plan (with higher patient cost-sharing) or a gold plan (with lower patient cost-sharing).” Those who don’t qualify for Obamacare subsidies—Americans earning more than 400 percent of the poverty level—could be better or worse off depending on how states and insurers responded to the Trump administration move. “[C]onsumers will generally be protected,” the Kaiser Foundation concluded.
