2014: Schweikert Voted For The Republican Study Committee's "American Health Care Reform Act" (AHCRA). In April 2014, Schweikert voted for the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution for fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Republican Study Committee, their budget would "[i]mplement real patient-centered health care reform that would lower costs and improve access with the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act. [...] Republicans aren't simply opposed to Obamacare, and we are not blind to the problems that existed pre-Obamacare. Rising costs, limited access to the health care marketplace, and a serious need for medical malpractice reform were issues that existed both before and after Obamacare. The American Health Care Reform Act (AHCRA), the only comprehensive Obamacare alternative to be endorsed by a majority of House Republicans, was born from this realization." The House considered the RSC budget as a substitute amendment to House Republicans' FY 2015 budget resolution; the amendment was rejected by a vote of 133 to 291. [House Vote 175, 4/10/14; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 615; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
Washington Post's Wonkblog: AHCRA "Likely To Cover Fewer People Than Obamacare." According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "The Republican Study Committee put out a new proposal Wednesday, billed as legislation that could replace the Affordable Care Act. Dubbed the American Health Care Reform Act, H.R. 3121 starts by repealing President Obama's health law and standing up a whole other set of reforms in its place. The component parts are likely to cover fewer people than Obamacare." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
AHCRA Would Add Standard Tax Deduction For Health Insurance; The Deduction Would Be $7,500 For Individuals And $20,000 For Families. According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "Perhaps the biggest idea in the RSC plan is to give everyone a standardized tax deduction-- $20,000 for families and $7,500 - to help make the purchase of health insurance more affordable. The whole idea here is to level the playing field between people who buy health insurance on their own, and those who receive a plan through their employer." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
While Employers Could Continue To Pay Employees' Health Insurance Premiums Pre-Tax, AHCRA Would End Employees' Ability To Do The Same. According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "Right now, since I get health insurance through the Washington Post, I get to pay my monthly premiums with pre-tax dollars. If tomorrow I left to become a freelance writer, I would have to head onto the individual market and use my post-tax earnings to buy my own health plan (or, alternatively, remain uninsured). The tax-exclusion for employer sponsored health insurance ends up making coverage a whole lot cheaper when purchased through a workplace. The Republican plan would still let the Washington Post pay for my health plan with pre-tax dollars. But any contribution that I make, out of my pay-check, would have to be with post-tax money. That would essentially put me on more similar footing to the people who don't have employer-sponsored insurance." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
2007: CBO Estimated That Similar Bush Administration Tax Deduction Proposal Would Lead To 6.8 Million People Gaining Coverage. According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "The RSC doesn't estimate how many people would gain coverage under this provision, but the Congressional Budget Office did score a similar proposal from President George W. Bush in 2007. His plan included a $15,000 standardized tax deduction for health insurance coverage, and the CBO estimated that 6.8 million people would gain coverage. The tax deduction would, on average, cover about 70 percent of the premium's cost." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
CBO Noted That Tax Deductions Would Benefit Higher Income Earners More Because They Are Subject To Higher Marginal Tax Rates, But Said Most Newly Insured Would Be Middle- And Low-Income Households. According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "The RSC doesn't estimate how many people would gain coverage under this provision, but the Congressional Budget Office did score a similar proposal from President George W. Bush in 2007. [...] The CBO noted, back then, that using tax deductions, which reduce taxable income, would likely make this a more desirable benefit for higher-earning Americans who have a higher marginal tax rate. 'Compared with people who would be uninsured in 2010 under current law, those gaining insurance coverage under the President's proposal would have higher income, on average,' the agency wrote. 'The reason is that the value of the new deduction would be greater at higher marginal tax rates, which are associated with higher incomes. Nonetheless, the majority of newly insured people would come from lower-middle- and middle-income households.'" [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
AHCRA Would Permit Health Insurers To Sell Insurance In Other States, While Meeting Only The Requirements Set By Their Home State. According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "Another big change would be allowing health insurers to sell across state lines, which conservatives often contend could lower the price of health insurance by reducing the number of benefits that insurers have to cover. If a health plan from Montana (a state with few insurance mandates) were to set up shop in New York (which has lots of mandates), it would likely be able to offer lower premium prices--and bring down the rest of the market players in the process." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
Liberal Critics Argue Permitting Inter-state Insurance Sales Would Lead To Reduced Benefits, While Conservatives Argue It Would Increase Consumer Choice. According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "Liberals worry about that this would create a 'race to the bottom,' with insurers offering the skimpiest plans possible to stay competitive; conservatives contend that it would give individuals more choice. If someone had significant health needs, they could still purchase a more robust plan." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
Research Has Suggested That Permitting Inter-state Insurance Sales Would Not Significantly Impact Coverage. According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "[University of Minnesota health economist Sean] Parente co-authored a paper with Roger Feldman that estimated 12 million people would gain coverage if any person could buy any policy sold in any state. A Congressional Budget Office score of a similar proposal, in 2005, to allow insurance sales across state lines concluded that it would not have a significant impact on insurance coverage. Separate research from Georgetown University - which looked at states that have actually opened their markets to outside insurers - have not yet seen new entrants actually come in." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
AHCRA Would Provide $25 Billion For High-Risk Pools For Those With Pre-Existing Conditions; Pool-Offered Coverage Premiums Would Be Twice As Much As Standard Rates. According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "The last big set of changes would affect people with pre-existing conditions, since the RSC proposal repeals Obamacare's guarantee issue provisions. Instead, this plan would put $25 billion towards high-risk pools where people with pre-existing conditions could be guaranteed coverage. The rates there would be twice as high as the standard rates charged in the private market. Obamacare's high risk pools, which are relatively similar, have enrolled just over 100,000 people over the past three years." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
AHCRA Would Prohibit Insurers From Denying Coverage To Anyone With "Continuous Coverage," But Many Americans -- An Estimated 89 Million Between 2004 And 2007 -- Have Experienced Coverage Gaps. According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "Alongside those high risk pools, the RSC plan would allow people with continuous coverage to transfer between large group, small group and individual plans without any chance of being denied. The phrase 'continuous coverage' is crucial here: Many Americans do have gaps in coverage that would preclude them from participating in the portability provisions. The Commonwealth Fund estimated in one recent report that, between 2004 and 2007, 89 million Americans had at least a one month break in insurance coverage." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
AHCRA Would Expand Health Savings Account Eligibility And Limits. According to the Republican Study Committee, "Other reforms included in the AHCRA include expanding access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to groups who have previously been unable to take advantage of them, and increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses. HSAs are proven to lower health care spending by putting patients in charge of their money and encouraging those who hold these savings accounts to shop for the best prices for medical services." [Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14]
In States Without Medical Malpractice Case Limits, AHCRA Would Cap Non-Economic Damages In Medical Malpractice Cases To $250,000, Limit Punitive Damages, Permit Limits On Attorney Fees And Set A Deadline For Filing Suit. According to the RSC's description of Title 5 of the AHCRA, "It's widely accepted that defensive medicine is driving up health care costs. These provisions address this problem by: placing a statute of limitations on bringing a case; capping non-economic damages to $250,000 with assignation of proportional responsibility; allowing courts to restrict lucrative attorney contingency fees; clarifying and limiting punitive damages; and protecting states with existing functional medical liability laws. These provisions set no caps on economic damages, which are often the largest component of liability awards, thus patients will continue to have their rights to economic damages protected." [Republican Study Committee, 9/17/13]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Repealing The Auto-Enrollment Mandate From The Affordable Care Act As Part Of The Bipartisan Budget Act Of 2015. In October 2015, Schweikert voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act's auto-enrollment mandate. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill repeals the requirement in the health care overhaul (PL 111-148; PL 111-152) that employers with 200 or more full-time employees automatically enroll new full-time employees into employer-sponsored health care coverage and continue that coverage, unless the employee opts out within 90 days. [...] CBO estimates that repeal would reduce deficits by $7.9 billion over 10 years, increasing revenues by $12.2 billion while spending increases by $4.3 billion. " The measure was part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which also "would suspend the debt limit until March 15, 2017 and increase[d] the discretionary spending cap for fiscal 2016 by $50 billion and for fiscal 2017 by $30 billion, with the increases split equally between defense and non-defense spending" among other provisions." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 266 to 167. The Senate later passed the bill and the president later signed it into law. [House Vote 579, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1314]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Repealed The Cadillac Tax. In December 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2020 minibus spending bill, which represented 8 of the 12 appropriations bills. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill permanently repeals three major health industry taxes that were imposed under the 2010 healthcare overhaul to help pay for Obamacare. Specifically, it repeals the so-called 'Cadillac Tax' on expensive employer-provided health insurance plans provided by wealthy companies and major labor unions, and also repeals a 2.3% tax on medical devices and an annual health insurance fee." The vote was a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 297-120. The Senate later passed the bill and the President signed the bill into law. [House Vote 689, 12/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1865]
CBO: The Repeal Of The Cadillac Tax Would Cost $377 Billion In Lost Revenue Over Ten Years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Cadillac tax in particular was intended both to pay for Obamacare and to help 'bend the cost curve' of spiraling healthcare costs by encouraging individuals to insist on lower cost plans. CBO estimates the repeals would cost $377 billion in lost revenue over ten years." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/19]
Politico: Repealing The Cadillac Tax "All But Guts The Funding Provisions" For The ACA. According to Politico, "Congress preserved a moratorium on the 'Cadillac' tax until 2022 [...] The move all but guts the funding provisions for the Affordable Care Act, with the Cadillac tax repeal alone projected to cost nearly $200 billion." [Politico, 12/16/19]
2019: Schweikert Voted For Repealing The "Cadillac Tax". In July 2019, Schweikert voted for a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "repeal the 40 percent excise tax, known as the 'Cadillac tax' on the incremental costs of employer-sponsored health care plans above certain thresholds. The tax was imposed by the 2010 health care overhaul and is currently set to take effect at the beginning of 2022." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 419-6. [House Vote 493, 7/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 7/17/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 748]
The Cadillac Tax Was Enacted As A Key Way TO Pay For The Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "Would permanently repeal the 40 percent excise tax on high-cost employer-provided health insurance, which was envisioned as a key way to pay for the 2010 health care law." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/16/19]
Congressional Quarterly: Without Offsets To Pay for The Repeal, It Could Cost $1 Trillion By The 2030s, Which "Makes Health Economists Shudder." According to Congressional Quarterly, "the prospect of repeal, especially without offsets to pay for it, makes health economists shudder. The Congressional Budget Office projected in May that rolling back the excise tax would cost $193 billion between 2019 and 2029. Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, wrote this week that could reach $1 trillion in the 2030s." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/12/19]
Congressional Quarterly: The Repeal Was A "Top Priority For The Insurance Industry." According to Congressional Quarterly, "There's bipartisan support in both the House and Senate for its repeal and it has been a top priority for the insurance industry and labor unions." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/12/19]
2018: Schweikert Voted For A $100 Billion Tax Bill That Delayed ACA Taxes, Included Tax Relief For Disaster Victims And Offered Fixes For The 2017 Tax Reform Bill. In December 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] tax relief to individuals and businesses who have been harmed by certain natural disasters during 2018 and [...] [made] it easier for small businesses to offer retirement savings plans for their employees while also giving individuals greater flexibility to contribute to and use funds from their retirement accounts. It also allow[ed] churches and other non-profits to become politically active while maintaining their tax-exempt status; delay[ed] or repeal[ed] four taxes created by the 2010 health care overhaul to finance that law; [made] certain modifications and technical corrections to the 2017 tax overhaul; and modernize[d] the IRS to improve customer service and help prevent identity theft and tax return fraud." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with a further House amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 220 to 183. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 470, 12/20/18; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 88]
2018: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2018 Continuing Resolution Funding The Government Through February 8 And Delayed The Cadillac Tax For Two Years. In January 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] funding for federal government operations and services at current levels through Feb. 8, 2018. The measure would [have] fund[ed] the state Children's Health and Insurance Programs at $21.5 billion annually starting in fiscal 2018 and would gradually increase the funding annually through fiscal 2023." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill also suspends or delays for one or two years three health-related taxes that were enacted as part of the 2010 health care overhaul to help finance the law --- the medical device tax, the tax on high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans (the so-called 'Cadillac' tax), and annual fees on health insurance companies." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 266 to 150. The Senate had already agreed to the version of the bill. President Trump later signed it into law. [House Vote 44, 1/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/22/18; CBS, 1/23/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 195]
2018: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2018 Continuing Resolution Funding The Government Through February 16 And Delayed The Cadillac Tax For Two Years, But Did Not Offer Any Fixes For DACA Recipients. In January 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] funding for federal government operations and services at current levels through Feb. 16, 2018, at an annualized rate of $1.23 trillion for federal departments and agencies covered by the 12 unfinished fiscal 2018 spending bills, of which an annualized rate of $621.5 billion would be designated for defense and an annualized rate of $511 billion for nondefense discretionary spending. The measure would [have] fund[ed] the state Children's Health and Insurance Programs at $21.5 billion annually starting in fiscal 2018 and would gradually increase the funding annually through fiscal 2023." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill suspends or delays three health-related taxes that were enacted as part of the 2010 health care overhaul to help finance the law --- the medical device tax, the tax on high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans (the so-called 'Cadillac' tax), and annual fees on health insurance companies." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230 to 197. The Senate later blocked the bill, shutting down the government for three days. A revised version of the legislation, funding the government through February 8th was later signed into law. [House Vote 33, 1/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/22/18; CBS, 1/23/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 195]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Delaying The Affordable Care Act's So Called 'Cadillac Tax' For Two Years As Part Of The FY 2016 Omnibus. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against delaying the Cadillac Tax for two years and afterwards would allow the tax to be tax deductible. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure delays for two years the health care law's tax on certain high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which is scheduled to go into effect at the start of 2018. It would instead go into effect in 2020. [...] For future years, the agreement makes the Cadillac tax deductible as a business expense. JCT estimates this provisions would cost $3.9 billion over 10 years." The legislation was, according to Congressional Quarterly, a FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 316 to 113. The legislation was later combined with a tax extender bill. The Senate passed the larger measure and the president signed it. [House Vote 705, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The American Health Care Act That Would Have In Part Repealed Cost-Sharing Subsidies In 2020. In May 2017, Schweikert voted for the American Health Care Act which would have significantly repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act by cutting Medicaid, cutting taxes on the rich, removing safeguard for pre-existing conditions and defunding Planned Parenthood. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "ACA cost sharing subsidies are repealed effective January 1, 2020." The overall legislation would have in part "ma[d]e extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would [have], in 2020, convert[ed] Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide[d] fixed federal payments to states and end[ed] additional federal funding for the 2010 law's joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. It would prohibit federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. [...] It would [have] allow[ed] states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217 to 213. The bill, in modified forms, died in the Senate. [House Vote 256, 5/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/17; Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Delay , For One Year, The Penalties For Not Complying With The Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate. In March 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "[would] eliminate[] the tax penalty for 2014 for persons who fail to purchase health insurance under the individual mandate, reducing the penalty to 'zero.' It also delays certain phase-ins and indexing related to the individual mandate penalty under the 2010 health care overhaul." The House passed the bill by a vote of 250 to 160; however, the bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 97, 3/5/14; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4118]
February 2014: The Obama Administration Announced It Would Delay Enforcing The ACA's Employer Mandate For One Year For Businesses With 50 to 100 Employees. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In implementing the law, the Obama administration has unilaterally made numerous modifications, including twice delaying the employer mandate: a one-year delay announced in July 2013 and an early February [2014] decision that small businesses with between 50 and 100 employees would not have to pay a penalty for failing to provide health insurance to their employees until 2016. The administration generally has not, however, delayed or modified the individual mandate --- although it is allowing people to keep for another year those policies from the individual market that were canceled because they did not meet new insurance standards." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Supporters Argued That Fairness Demanded That The Individual Mandate Also Be Delayed, And That, Without A Delay, Government Subsidy Costs Could Skyrocket Due To The Imbalance In Penalties. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, maintain that a delay or reduction in the individual mandate is the only fair action when considering the administration's delays for businesses facing the employer mandate. They argue that millions of Americans have lost the health insurance they liked and access to their doctors since major elements of the law took effect in October while also facing unaffordable premiums and subjecting their personal data to a federal website that is not secure. It is not fair to give relief to businesses with big checkbooks while ignoring the needs of working families who have been hurt by the health care law, supporters argue. They also contend that if the employer mandate is delayed while the individual mandate is not, more businesses will decide against providing coverage, which means employees would have to get their coverage through the exchanges and the costs of taxpayer-funded subsidies could explode." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Opponents Argued That Bill Was Simply Another Attempt In A Long Line Of Attempts To Undermine The ACA, This Time By Targeting The Individual Mandate, Upon Which The Law's Success Depends. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, say it represents the 50th attempt by Republicans to repeal or undermine the health care law and that it would drive up premiums for millions of Americans. They say opponents of the health care law ignore its positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans --- including 4 million who have signed up so far on the health insurance exchanges, 3.1 million young adults covered on their parents' plans and millions more who have gained coverage through Medicaid. They say that while the administration's delay of the employer mandate is simply an effort to remain flexible and implement the law in the most effective manner possible, maintaining the individual mandate is essential to the law's success. The individual mandate will help keep premiums affordable, they say, since without it only people who are less healthy and more costly to insure would purchase health insurance, which would drive up health insurance costs." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Add A One Year Delay Of The Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate To The Senate's "Clean" Continuing Resolution That Would Have Prevented A Government Shutdown. In September 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] fiscal 2014 continuing appropriations. The House amendment would fund the government until Dec. 15, 2013, and delay for one year a requirement in the 2010 health care overhaul that all individuals purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty. It also would require the president, vice president, members of Congress, congressional staff and political appointees to purchase health insurance through the health care law's state insurance exchanges and would limit the subsidies they may receive for purchasing insurance." The vote was on a motion to recede from prior House amendments and concur, with the specified amendment, to the Senate amendment to the continuing resolution. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 228 to 201. The Senate subsequently rejected the House's amendment. [House Vote 504, 9/30/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 59]
Senate Had Sent The House A "Clean" Continuing Resolution That Funded The Government Through November 15, 2013, And Did Not Include Provisions Defunding The ACA. According to Congressional Quarterly, "At the insistence of conservative Republicans and outside conservative groups, the CR as originally passed by the House would have permanently defunded the 2010 health care law. Senate Democrats over the course of the past week, working through the Senate's often lengthy parliamentary procedures, passed the bill after amending it to drop the Obamacare defunding provisions, as well as House language giving Treasury certain limited borrowing authority (Treasury now estimates that it will be unable to fully finance government operations unless the statutory debt limit is raised by Oct. 17). The Senate also made several other changes to the measure, including by shortening the CR's duration from Dec. 15 to Nov. 15." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/28/13]
House's Amendment To Senate CR Delayed ACA's Individual Mandate For One Year And Barred Federal Contributions To Lawmakers' And Staffers' Health Insurance Premiums. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The leaders' latest plan would delay for a year a mandate in the Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) that individuals buy insurance and include a proposal from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to roll back federal contributions provided to lawmakers and staff to offset some of the cost of health insurance, a benefit many other employers provide their workers." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13]
Supporters Said Individual Mandate Delay Was Fair In Light Of Administration's Year-Long Delay Of Employer Mandate And Alleged Exception For Members Of Congress. According to Congressional Quarterly, "'It's pretty clear that what our Members want is fairness for the American people,' Boehner said in a statement issued after a House Republican Conference meeting. 'The president provided a one-year delay of the employer mandate. He's provided exceptions for unions and others. There's even exceptions for Members of Congress. We believe that everyone should be treated fairly.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13]
Backers Of Barring Federal Contribution To Cost Of Members' And Staff's Health Care Premiums Argued That It Would Put Congress In The Same Position As Ordinary Americans With Regards To The ACA. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House plan also would include language long pursued by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would roll back contributions provided to members and staff. He and other Republicans say it would ensure that Congress is subject to the same law as ordinary citizens. 'The entire cabinet and the president and all his political appointees will have to live under Obamacare, the same as members of Congress,' said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. 'We still continue to believe the individual mandate being delayed is in the best interests of the American people.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13]
Opponents Of Ending Federal Contribution Said It Meant Members And Their Staffs Would Be Treated Differently Than Ordinary Federal Employees. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said he's not sure he'd vote for the plan because it puts legislative branch employees in a lower class than other federal employees. 'Making us different than any other federal employee is unfair to everybody. We should be treated like everybody else who works in the federal government,' he said." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Modifying The Definition Of A Full-Time Worker Defined In The Affordable Care Act From 30 To 40 Hours Per Week. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for modifying the so called "employer-mandate" from the Affordable Care Act from full time work defined as 30 to 40 hours worked per week. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill modifies the definition of who is a full-time employee for purposes of the employer mandate in the 2010 health care law, repealing the 30-hour-a-week threshold and replacing it with 40 hours a week. Consequently, only employees who work an average of 40 hours a week would be considered full-time workers and count toward the 50-employee threshold that triggers the requirement under the 2010 law (PL 111-148; PL 111-152) that businesses offer affordable health coverage to their employees or pay a tax penalty." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill 252 to 172. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 14, 1/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 9/29/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 30]
Bill Would Result In 1 Million Fewer People Receiving Health Insurance From Employment, Increase Of Nearly 500,000 Uninsured. According to Congressional Quarterly, "CBO and JCT have estimated that similar bills would result in 1 million fewer people receiving health coverage from their employer; between 500,000 and 1 million people having to move to Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program or the health insurance exchanges to get health coverage; and almost 500,000 becoming uninsured." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15]
Bill Would Increase Deficits By Over $50 Billion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In an estimate released on Jan. 7, CBO and the JCT estimated that the bill would increase deficits by $53.2 billion over a 10-year period, as employer penalties for failing to provide insurance would be decreased (reducing revenues by a net $31.8 billion) and workers and their families would increasingly get federal support for medical coverage through Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or the health insurance exchanges. It is estimated that direct spending on exchange subsidies would increase by $14.2 billion over 10 years, while spending on Medicaid and CHIP would increase by $7.8 billion." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15]
Jared Bernstein Via The Washington Post: Millions More Would Be Exposed To Incentive To Cut Work Hours. According to Jared Bernstein via the Washington Post, "Take this quiz, which you have a 50 percent chance of passing: Do more people work a) 30 hours a week or b) 40 hours a week? The answer, by a long shot, is b. According to my Center on Budget colleague Paul Van de Water, 44 percent of the workforce was employed 40 hours per week last year, while seven percent works 30 to 34 hours (the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not provide the exact 30 hours share of workers, but it would, of course, be less than seven percent). Now, suppose an employer decided to cut its workers' hours to avoid facing the coverage mandate (important point here: this would only apply to employers that are not already providing coverage). There's little evidence of this happening so far, though the mandate is just phasing in. But it's certainly a possible reaction. What the House bill does then is expose millions more workers to this incentive." [Washington Post, 1/8/15]
Supporters Claim That The Mandate Has Caused Business To Cut Hours Or Reduce Hiring. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that the 30-hour rule has caused businesses to stop hiring or to reduce employee hours, which has hurt millions of workers who rely on hourly wages. They point to a Hoover Institution study that estimates that 2.6 million Americans making less than $30,000 per year will be the ones most adversely affected by businesses reducing hours because of that definition of full-time worker. They say the 40-hour week has long been the standard for full-time work, with both employers and employees having adapted to a system where health benefits are voluntarily offered to full-time employees and rarely offered to part-time employees who work less than 40 hours. The health care law's 30-hour rule is forcing employers who have been providing coverage to alter their plans or drop coverage. As a result, they say, hourly employees could lose up to 25% of their hours or wages as a direct result of the 30 hour work-week provision. And they contend that complaints are coming not just from employers in the private sector but that this requirement is creating problems for many public sector employees as well." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Increasing The 30-Hour Definition As Full Time Work From The Affordable Care Act To 40-Hours Per Week. In September 2014, Schweikert voted for increasing the number of hours defining full-time work from 30 to 40, defined in the Affordable Care Act. According to House Republicans, the provision "Repeals the 30-hours-per-week definition of full-time employee and the 120-hours-per-month definition of full-time equivalents, and replaces those thresholds with 40-hours-per-week for full-time employees and 174-hours-per-month for full-time equivalents." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. President Obama signed HR 3236, which included the Hire More Heroes Act. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
Congressional Budget Office: Increasing The Full Time Definition To 40 Hours Would Decrease By 1 Million The Number Of People Receiving Insurance From Their Employers And Increase The Number Of Uninsured By 500,000. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "Specifically, in most years over the 2015-2024 period, CBO and JCT estimate that the legislation would: Reduce the number of people receiving employment-based coverage---by about 1 million people; Increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or health insurance exchanges---by between 500,000 and 1 million people; and Increase the number of uninsured---by less than 500,000 people." [Congressional Budget Office, 2/25/14]
Jared Bernstein Via The Washington Post: Millions More Would Be Exposed To Incentive To Cut Work Hours. According to Jared Bernstein via the Washington Post, "Take this quiz, which you have a 50 percent chance of passing: Do more people work a) 30 hours a week or b) 40 hours a week? The answer, by a long shot, is b. According to my Center on Budget colleague Paul Van de Water, 44 percent of the workforce was employed 40 hours per week last year, while seven percent works 30 to 34 hours (the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not provide the exact 30 hours share of workers, but it would, of course, be less than seven percent). Now, suppose an employer decided to cut its workers' hours to avoid facing the coverage mandate (important point here: this would only apply to employers that are not already providing coverage). There's little evidence of this happening so far, though the mandate is just phasing in. But it's certainly a possible reaction. What the House bill does then is expose millions more workers to this incentive." [Washington Post, 1/8/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Authorize The House Of Representatives To Sue The President Over His Non-Enforcement Of Provisions Of The ACA, And In Particular, His Delay Of Its Employer Mandate. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for a resolution that, according to the House Rules Committee's report on it, "authorize[d] the Speaker to initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions to seek any appropriate relief regarding the failure of the President or any other official of the executive branch to act in a manner consistent with that official's duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related statutes." In particular, according to Politico, "the suit is expected to focus narrowly on the Affordable Care Act and the [administration's] decision to defer for one to two years a requirement that employers provide health insurance starting in 2014." The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 225 to 201. [House Vote 468, 7/30/14; House Report 113-561, 7/28/14; Politico, 7/16/14; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 676]
House Republicans Argued Suit Was A "Direct And Proportionate Response" To Obama's Alleged Flouting Of His Constitutional Duty To "Faithfully Execute The Laws Passed By Congress." According to The House Rules Committee's report on the resolution, "The evidence gathered during the Committee's hearing process demonstrates that the President has failed on numerous occasions to fulfill his duty under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. He has ignored certain statutes completely, selectively enforced others, and bypassed the legislative process to create his own laws by executive fiat. These unilateral actions have led to a shift in the balance of power in favor of the presidency, challenging Congress' ability to effectively represent the American people. Such a shift in power should alarm Members of both political parties because it threatens the very institution of the Congress. On July 16, 2014, in his testimony before the Committee on Rules, Professor Jonathan Turley warned the Committee that '* * * the arguments that are being made today [by this Administration] could be used [by the next President] to nullify or suspend or change environmental laws * * * That is what happens when you have an über-presidency.'' A lawsuit on behalf the House of Representatives is a direct and proportionate response to the alarming increase in executive actions that have usurped the House's law-making authority under Article I of the Constitution. Critics of the litigation have argued that the House could attempt to use tools otherwise available to the legislative branch to remedy executive encroachment into legislative powers. However, those options are inappropriate remedies to address the President's unilateral actions, as none of them force the President to reverse course. One suggestion was to defund agencies or legislate again 'for emphasis'. However, the Founders never intended that Congress legislate twice just to ensure its laws have meaning" (brackets in original). [House Report 113-561, 7/28/14]
NY Times: Boehner's "Impeachment-Light" Rejected By Conservatives, Who Argued It Was A Wasteful Political Stunt. According to The New York Times, "The lawsuit was Mr. Boehner's version of what might be termed impeachment-light --- a way to send a signal that Republicans would fight the president's efforts to revise laws Congress had passed while not going as far as many on the right would like. But, as the speaker has found with other efforts to appease the right wing of his party, he was not well received. Sarah Palin responded by calling for Mr. Obama's impeachment, stirring up the kind of intraparty fight that Mr. Boehner had hoped to avoid. (Five Republicans voted no on Wednesday [...] ) Other prominent conservatives ridiculed the lawsuit. Erick Erickson, the blogger and pundit, also called it 'political theater' that wasted taxpayer dollars. Mark Levin, the popular radio host and former Reagan administration official, called it a 'foolish move' that made him cringe." [New York Times, 7/30/14]
Democrats Seized On Lawsuit As Both A Waste Of Time And Representative Of Republicans' Desire To Impeach The President. According to The New York Times, "In a speech in Kansas City on Wednesday, Mr. Obama's mere mention of the lawsuit drew boos from the crowd. 'Everybody recognizes this is a political stunt,' he said. 'But it's worse than that, because every vote they're taking like that means a vote they're not taking to actually help you.' And he offered Republicans some advice: 'Stop just hating all the time. Come on. Let's get some work done together.' Democrats have turned the lawsuit and rumblings of impeachment into a financial boon. The party claimed to have raised $1 million on Monday alone. [...] Representative Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said, 'When they decide to obsess on suing the president, they shouldn't be surprised that our base is as energized as they've become.' Recent polling shows that Republicans overwhelmingly favor impeaching the president. A Fox News poll released last week found that 56 percent of Republicans believe that Mr. Obama should be impeached. That compares with just 36 percent of all registered voters. CNN found nearly identical numbers in a poll of its own last week." [New York Times, 7/30/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Change The ACA's Definition Of "Full-Time" From 30 To 40 Hours-Per-Week; The ACA's Employer Mandate Only Covers Businesses With At Least 50 "Full-Time" Workers. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "[would] modif[y] the definition of who is a full-time employee for purposes of the employer mandate in the 2010 health care law, repealing the 30-hour-a-week threshold and replacing it with 40 hours a week. Consequently, only employees who work an average of 40 hours a week would be considered full-time workers and count toward the 50-employee threshold that triggers the requirement under the 2010 law [...] that businesses offer affordable health coverage to their employees or pay a tax penalty." The House passed the bill by a vote of 248 to 179; however, the Senate has taken no substantive action on the measure. [House Vote 156, 4/3/14; Congressional Quarterly, 3/31/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2575]
Under Bill, Each 43.5 Hours Of Part-Time Hours Worked Per-Week Would Be Considered "Full-Time Equivalent," Up From 30 Hours Per Week. According to Congressional Quarterly, "[The bill] also modifies the calculation for determining the number of a business's 'full-time equivalent' employees that count toward the 50-employee threshold. Under the measure, instead of dividing the aggregate number of hours worked in a month by part-time workers by 120, it would be divided by 174 (which represents an average of 43.5 hours a week for four weeks)." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/31/14]
CBO: Bill Estimated To Lead To 1 Million Fewer Employees With Employer-Provided Health Coverage; Almost Half Of Whom Would Be Uninsured Instead. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) say the bill's changes would act to reduce the number of employees classified as full-time employees that count toward the 50-employer threshold and thereby reduce the number of businesses subject to the employer mandate or who have an incentive to provide health coverage in order to avoid tax penalties. As a consequence, CBO and JCT estimate that it would result in 1 million fewer people receiving health coverage from their employer; between 500,000 and 1 million people having to move to Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program or the health insurance exchanges to get health coverage; and almost 500,000 becoming uninsured." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/31/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Delay The Affordable Care Act's Employer Mandate For One Year, Until January 2015. In July 2013, Schweikert voted for delaying until January 2015 the employer mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act that required businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance or pay a penalty. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "would [have] delay[ed] for one year, until the beginning of 2015, the requirement in the 2010 health care overhaul that businesses with 50 or more full-time employees provide health insurance to their workers or pay a penalty. It also would delay by one year associated reporting requirements for employers and insurance providers." The vote was on final passage. The House approved the bill by a vote of 264 to 161. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 361, 7/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/17/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2667]
ACA's Employer Insurance Mandate Required Companies With More Than 50 Employees Offer Affordable Comprehensive Health Insurance Or Pay A Fine. According to NOLO.com, "The main component of the PPACA that employers have to worry about is the employer mandate, sometimes called the "play or pay" requirement. The mandate applies to employers with at least 50 employees, who must provide affordable health care benefits that meet certain minimum coverage requirements or pay a penalty. [. . .] Employers are covered by the play or pay mandate if they have at least 50 full-time or full-time equivalent employees. Independent contractors are not included in the count. [. . .] The play or pay mandate requires employers to either provide health insurance coverage that meets certain requirements or pay a penalty. A covered employer that doesn't provide health insurance benefits is subject to the penalty. But even an employer that provides benefits might have to pay, if the coverage doesn't meet minimum standards. [. . .] A plan qualifies as adequate if it meets the coverage requirements of the PPACA and it pays for at least 60% of covered health care expenses allowed by the plan. [. . .] The employer may also have to pay a penalty if the coverage it offers isn't affordable. Any employee who has to pay more than 9.5% of his or her family income for coverage may instead buy coverage through a health insurance exchange and receive a tax credit. If any employee does so, the employer will be subject to a penalty." [NOLO.com, Viewed 12/9/13]
In Early July 2013, The Obama Administration Decided To Delay Enforcement Of The Employer Mandate Because Businesses Said They Needed More Time To Correctly Set Up The Reports They Would Need To Provide The IRS To Show Compliance. According to a White House blog post, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett said, "As we implement this law, we have and will continue to make changes as needed. In our ongoing discussions with businesses we have heard that you need the time to get this right. We are listening. So in response to your concerns, we are making two changes. [. . .] Second, we are giving businesses more time to comply. As we make these changes, we believe we need to give employers more time to comply with the new rules. Since employer responsibility payments can only be assessed based on this new reporting, payments won't be collected for 2014. This allows employers the time to test the new reporting systems and make any necessary adaptations to their health benefits while staying the course toward making health coverage more affordable and accessible for their workers. [White House Blog Post, 7/2/13]
Republicans Said Administration's Delay Of Employer Mandate Showed That It Knew The ACA Would Not Work -- Further Evidence That The Law Should Be Scrapped. According to Huffington Post, "Putting off a major element of the 2010 health care reform law less than six months before the expansion of health insurance coverage to millions is supposed to take effect nevertheless stands as a setback for the administration and gives fodder to Obamacare critics to proclaim the law isn't ready for prime time. 'This announcement means even the Obama administration knows the 'train wreck' will only get worse,' House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. 'This is a clear acknowledgment that the law is unworkable, and it underscores the need to repeal the law and replace it with effective, patient-centered reforms.'" [Huffington Post, 7/3/13]
Democrats Said Bill Was Another Republican Attempt To Undermine The ACA. According to ABC News, "Democrats complained that Republicans are wasting time with legislation that is unlikely to advance in the Senate, much less get signed into law. 'My Republican colleagues have set out on an extreme mission, this time to re-argue a bill that has already helped millions of Americans,' Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, said. 'Instead of playing political games with legislation that they know is going nowhere, let's pass a jobs bill and do the work we were sent here to do.'" [ABC News, 7/17/13]
Associated Press Called Votes On This Legislation And Another Delaying The Employer Mandate "Dual Political-Show Votes." According to the Associated Press, "After a day of heated rhetoric, the House voted largely along party lines [...] to delay by one year the so-called employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. It voted [...] to extend a similar grace period to virtually all Americans who will be required to obtain coverage beginning Jan. 1, the linchpin of the law. The dual political-show votes marked the 38th time the GOP majority has tried to eliminate, defund or scale back the unpopular law since Republicans took control of the House in January 2011. The House legislation stands no chance in the Democratic-run Senate." [Associated Press, 7/17/13]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Exempting Veterans Who Already Receive Health Insurance Through The VA From Being Counted Toward The Number Of Employees That Triggers The Affordable Care Act's Employer Mandate. In July 2015, Schweikert voted for the Hire More Heroes Act as part of a larger bill that included a 3-month extension of surface transportation funding. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill included a measure that would have "allow[ed] the Veterans Affairs Department (VA) to use $3.4 billion from the Veterans Choice Fund to pay for care provided - from May 1 to Oct. 1, 2015 - to veteran patients by non-VA providers under VA Care in the Community programs. It also would exempt veterans who already receive health insurance through the VA or reservists covered under Tricare from being counted toward the number of employees that triggers the employer mandate under the 2010 health care overhaul." Also according to Congressional Quarterly, the bill [...] would extend the authorization for federal-aid highway and transit programs through Oct. 29, 2015. Authority to spend money from the Highway Trust Fund would also be extended through that date. The bill would transfer $8.1 billion from the Treasury to replenish the Highway Trust Fund and cover projected shortfalls so that construction projects could continue to be fully funded during that time (the amount transferred would cover projected trust fund shortfalls through the end of the year)." The vote was on passage of the bill. The House passed the bill by a vote of 385 to 34. The Senate later passed the bill and it was later signed by the President on 7/31/15. [House Vote 486, 7/29/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 8/25/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3236]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Modifying The Affordable Care Act's Employee Mandate To Exempt Hired Veterans From Counting Towards From The Mandate. In September 2014, Schweikert voted for modifying the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate to exempt hired veterans from the mandate. According to House Republicans, "H.R. 3474, the Hire More Heroes Act [...] incentivizes businesses to hire veterans by excluding them from Obamacare's employer mandate threshold. [...] [A]n employer, when determining whether it must provide health care coverage to its employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), to exclude employees who have coverage under a healthcare program administered by the Department of Defense (DOD). This includes TRICARE or coverage provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)." This bill was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. In July 2015, President Obama signed HR 3236, which included the Hire More Heroes Act. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Speaker.Gov, 7/31/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH): The Hire More Heroes Act Makes It Easier For Veterans To Find Jobs. According to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), "Starting today, it will be easier for veterans to find good-paying jobs. This new law, the Hire More Heroes Act, offers small businesses much-needed relief from ObamaCare mandates that make it harder to hire veterans. The unemployment rate among recent veterans remains higher than the national average, and of course, we owe it to them to make sure they have every opportunity to earn a good living." [Speaker.Gov, 7/31/15]
Peter A. Gudmundsson, CEO Of RecruitMilitary: "There Is No Veterans' Unemployment Crisis." According to Peter A. Gudmundsson, CEO of RecruitMilitary, "Americans may be shocked to learn that there is no veterans' unemployment crisis. The unemployment rate in 2014 for post-9/11 veterans was 7.2 percent, the lowest level in seven years of tracking these veterans. Although post-9/11 veterans did have a higher rate of unemployment than the overall workforce last year --- which was at 6.2 percent --- the disparity is more attributable to the relative youth of those in this group rather than their military experience. In fact, compared with civilians in the same age ranges, post-9/11 veterans experienced lower rates of unemployment." [Washington Post, 1/15/15]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against Strengthening The ACA By Expanding Access To Health Insurance And Medicaid. In June 2020, Schweikert voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "include a number of provisions to expand enrollment in and reduce consumer costs for state- and federally-operated Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces; incentivize Medicaid expansion by states; and authorize maximum price negotiations for prescription drugs under Medicare. Title I of the bill would expand eligibility for federal tax subsidies toward insurance premiums and increase the percentage of premiums such subsidies would cover. It would provide $10 billion annually beginning in fiscal 2022 to help states lower costs of ACA plans, including to provide reinsurance payments to health insurance issuers and subsidies to individuals. It would provide $200 million for grants to states to establish and operate state-based ACA health insurance marketplaces; $100 million annually for Health and Human Services Department consumer outreach related to ACA marketplace plans; $100 million annually for the HHS "navigator" program, which helps individuals enroll in qualified plans; and $200 million annually through fiscal 2024 for grants to states to encourage plan enrollment. It would also prohibit implementation of August 2018 regulations related to health insurance plans that are not required to meet ACA patient protection requirements, including short-term, limited-duration plans. Title II of the bill would provide for full federal reimbursement of state Medicaid expansion costs for new enrollees for three years, then gradually decrease the federal medical assistance cost-share to 90% for those enrollees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 234-179. [House Vote 124, 6/29/20; Congressional Quarterly, 6/29/20; Congressional Actions, H.R.1425]
The Bill Expanded ACA Eligibility, Incentivized States To Expand Medicaid, And Allowed Medicare To Negotiate Drug Prices. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would make more people eligible for federal financial assistance to purchase health insurance, incentivize states to expand Medicaid eligibility and allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. It is not expected to be taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/29/20]
The Bill Reduced Federal Funding For The 14 States Who Have Not Expanded Medicaid. According to the Washington Post, "The legislation would place financial pressure on states that have not expanded Medicaid [...] The ACA originally expanded Medicaid nationwide, but a 2012 Supreme Court ruling, in which justices upheld the law's constitutionality, gave each state the choice of whether to expand Medicaid. For 14 states that have not expanded the program, the bill would reduce federal funding for traditional Medicaid. It would also add an inducement, paying for the entire initial cost of an expansion --- as the law did when expansions first were allowed in 2014." [Washington Post, 6/29/20]
By Eliminating The 400 Percent Threshold, The Bill Mandated That No One Would Be Required To Pay More Than 8.5% Of Their Income On Popular Marketplace Health Plans. According to the Washington Post, "Under [the ACA], federal insurance marketplaces and similar state ones opened in 2014 for individuals and families who cannot get affordable health benefits through a job. The law provides federal subsidies for insurance premiums for those with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level --- about $51,000 for an individual and nearly $105,000 for a family of four. The bill would eliminate the 400 percent threshold, saying for the first time that no one would be required to pay more than 8.5 percent of their income on the most popular tier of marketplace health plans." [Washington Post, 6/29/20]
The Bill Included A Long-Sought After Provision For Democrats Allowing Federal Health Officials To Negotiate The Price Of Drugs Under Medicare. According to the Washington Post, "The bill also includes a longtime Democratic goal of allowing federal health officials to negotiate the price of drugs under Medicare, the vast federal insurance program for older and disabled Americans. Trump used to support that idea but turned against it." [Washington Post, 6/29/20]
CBO: The Bill Would Reduce Deficits And Spending In Future Decades And Increase The Number Of Insured Americans By 4 Million. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), "According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the coverage provisions would cost $586 billion over a decade while the drug provisions would save $582 billion and interactions would save $23 billion. Overall, the bill would be fully paid for over a decade ($18 billion of net deficit reduction) and would likely reduce deficits and spending in future decades. CBO estimates the bill would reduce the number of uninsured by 4 million people per year and reduce pre-subsidy (but post-reinsurance) non group premiums by about 10 percent." [CRFB, 6/29/20]
Democrats Passed The Health Care Bill Days After The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court To Rule The Law Unconstitutional. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House passed, 234-179, on Monday legislation to enhance the 2010 health care law, days after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to scrap it [...] Democrats hope to contrast their plans to expand the health care law with the administration's efforts to overturn the law ahead of the November election, in which health care is expected to be a top issue for voters." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/29/20]
Democrats Emphasized The Importance Of Health Care Access During The COVID-19 Pandemic. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats also have sought to underscore the significance of the law during the current COVID-19 pandemic, which has sickened millions and led to millions of job losses. As some Americans lost their jobs, they also lost their employer-sponsored health insurance. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a report last week that found about 487,000 consumers signed up for a marketplace plan during a special enrollment period after losing their workplace coverage this year, an increase of 46 percent compared to the same time period last year." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/29/20]
Republicans Opposed The Partisan Nature Of The Bill And Stated That The Drug Pricing Conditions Would Make It Harder To Develop New Treatments. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans argued that Democrats should instead work on a bipartisan fashion to improve the health care system. They said the drug pricing conditions in the measure would make it more difficult to develop new cures and treatments, which are needed even more with the new coronavirus." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/29/20]
Both Senate Republicans And The White House Opposed The Bill, Making It Nearly Impossible For The Bill To Become Law. According to the Washington Post, "The 234-179 vote, almost entirely along party lines, was a hollow exercise in terms of any chance the bill would become law and reshape federal health policy. Moments after the debate began, the White House announced the president would veto the legislation if it reached his desk, though a wall of Senate Republican opposition to the measure makes that a moot point." [Washington Post, 6/29/20]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Extending Tax Subsidies Toward Affordable Care Act Insurance Premiums For Eligible Individuals Through 2025. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which would "extend through 2025 tax subsidies toward Affordable Care Act marketplace insurance premiums for individuals under a certain income level." The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to President Biden for final signage. President Biden signed the bill and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 420, 8/12/22; Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
The Inflation Reduction Act Included $64 Billion To Prevent Health Insurance Premium Increases For Approximately 13 Million Americans Who Purchased Policies Through The Affordable Care Act Marketplace. According to The Washington Post, "The bill also includes $64 billion to stave off health insurance premium increases for about 13 million Americans who buy coverage through state and federal exchanges under the Affordable Care Act." [The Washington Post, 8/7/22]
Individuals Covered Under The Affordable Care Act Received A Discounted Price Under A Coronavirus-Era Program, Which Was Expected To Expire In Late 2022. According to The Washington Post, "These beneficiaries currently receive discounted coverage under a coronavirus-era program set to expire this year, threatening them with premium increases into hundreds of dollars next month." [The Washington Post, 8/7/22]
The Inflation Reduction Act Provided A Three-Year Extension On Federal Health Care Subsidies In The Affordable Care Act, Which Retained Premiums At $10 Per Month Or Less For The Majority Of The People Covered By The ACA. According to NPR, "There's also a three-year extension on healthcare subsidies in the Affordable Care Act originally passed in a pandemic relief bill last year, estimated by the government to have kept premiums at $10 per month or lower for the vast majority of people covered through the federal health insurance exchange. That helps millions of Americans avoid spikes in their health care costs." [NPR, 8/7/22]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Extending Expanded Eligibility For Tax Credits Through 2025 For Affordable Care Act Marketplace Insurance Premiums. In November 2021, Schweikert voted against the Build Back Better act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish or extend expanded eligibility for certain tax credits toward Affordable Care Act marketplace insurance premiums through 2025." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-213. [House Vote 385, 11/19/21; Congressional Quarterly, 11/19/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against The American Rescue Plan Act Of 2021, Which Expanded Eligibility For Insurance Premium Tax Subsidies In 2021 And 2022, Including Covering Premium Costs For People Earning Up To 150% Above The Federal Poverty Level And Capping Premiums At 8.5% Of Household Income. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "expand eligibility in 2021 and 2022 for federal tax subsidies toward Affordable Care Act marketplace insurance premiums, including to fully cover premium costs for individuals earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level and cap premiums at 8.5% of household income." The vote was on concurring in the Senate amendment to the bill. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote of 220-211 and sent to the President and ultimately the bill became law. [House Vote 72, 3/10/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1319]
The American Rescue Plan Expanded Eligibility For Federal Subsidies To Purchases Health Insurance Through The Affordable Care Act, Which Was A Controversial Provision For Republicans Who Opposed The Legislation. According to CBS News, "The measure expands eligibility for subsidies to purchase health insurance to people of all incomes under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a provision that was particularly controversial for Republicans who oppose the bill." [CBS News, 3/12/21]
The American Rescue Plan Modified Health Insurance Tax Credit Formulas To Make Them More Affordable For Most Individuals, And Also Expanded The Pool Of People Who Would Qualify. According to AP via CBS News, "The bill would change the formulas for health insurance tax credits to make them more generous for most people, and also allow a wider number of individuals to qualify." [AP via CBS News, 3/9/21]
The American Rescue Plan Expanded Health Insurance Tax Credits To Middle-Class People Who Usually Do Not Qualify For Premium Assistance, Including Self-Employed Individuals And Business Owners Who Did Not Qualify For ACA Benefits But Were Hit With Higher Premiums. According to AP via CBS News, "In a politically significant change, the bill would provide health insurance tax credits to people with solid middle-class incomes who don't now qualify for help with their premiums. That's a demographic that includes many self-employed people and business owners who were hit with higher premiums as a result of the ACA, but cut out of the benefits." [AP via CBS News, 3/9/21]
The American Rescue Plan Permitted Individuals Who Have Collected Unemployment Checks To Qualify For Affordable Care Act Tax Credits And Reductions In Copays And Deductibles. According to AP via CBS News, "Another inducement is aimed at people who have lost jobs. Those who collect unemployment this year, if even for one week, would qualify for the most generous ACA tax credits as well as its biggest reductions in copays and deductibles." [AP via CBS News, 3/9/21]
Republicans Argued That The Health Insurance Provisions In The American Rescue Plan Were An Overreach By Democrats That Were Unrelated To The COVID Pandemic. According to AP via CBS News, "Republicans cite the health insurance provisions as an example of coronavirus overreach by Democrats." [AP via CBS News, 3/9/21]
The American Rescue Plan Made Individuals Earning Under 150% Of The Federal Poverty Line Eligible For Full Coverage Of Premiums, People Earning 150% To 400% Above Were Eligible For Lower Cost Premiums, And People Making Over 400% Were Eligible For Tax Credits And Capped Premiums At 8.5% Of Income. According to Health Law, "Individuals earning less than 150% FPL will be eligible for a health insurance plan with $0 premiums. Individuals between 150-400% FPL will benefit from lower required contributions to their premiums. And for the first time, individuals over 400% FPL will be eligible for tax credits and their premium contributions would be capped at 8.5% of income. These changes last for two years as follows." [Health Law, 3/12/21]
The American Rescue Plan Permitted Individuals Who Received Unemployment Insurance In 2021 To Obtain Marketplace Coverage, Including People Living In A Medicaid Non-Expansion State, And Many People Received Free Coverage. According to Health Law, "individuals who received unemployment insurance in 2021 can get marketplace coverage even if they live in a Medicaid non-expansion state (which would usually prevent eligibility). For many of these individuals, the cost would be zero." [Health Law, 3/12/21]
The American Rescue Plan Waived Requirements To Pay Any Excess Tax Credits For Those Who Received Advanced Premium Tax Credits In 2020. According to Health Law, "Anyone receiving APTCs in tax year 2020 will not have to pay back any excess tax credits received. The provision recognizes that the economic challenges of the pandemic makes it extremely difficult for many families to pay an unexpected tax bill. Individuals who already filed their 2020 taxes will have to wait to see how the IRS will refund those payments." [Health Law, 3/12/21]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against The American Rescue Plan Of 2021, Which Would Expand Eligibility For Federal Tax Subsidies In 2021 And 2022 For Marketplace Insurance Premiums, Including Coverage For Those Earning 150% Above The Poverty Level And Capping Premiums At 8.5%. In February 2021, Schweikert voted against the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "expand eligibility in 2021 and 2022 for federal tax subsidies toward Affordable Care Act marketplace insurance premiums, including to fully cover premium costs for individuals earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level and cap premiums at 8.5% of household income." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219-212, sent to the Senate and President, and the Senate version ultimately became law. [House Vote 49, 2/27/21; Congressional Quarterly, 2/27/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1319]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Allow Insurance Companies To Continue Selling, Through 2018, Any Non-ACA-Compliant Business Health Policy That Was In Effect During 2013. In September 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would "allow[] health insurance companies to continue offering for sale through 2018, outside of the state insurance exchanges, those non-qualified health policies in the group market that were in effect at any time during 2013 --- thereby allowing businesses and employees with such policies to keep them, and for other businesses to purchase them. Under the measure, those policies would be treated as a grandfathered health plan that satisfies the minimum essential health insurance coverage requirements set by the 2010 health care overhaul. [...] The bill states that nothing in it should be construed as affecting the authority of states with respect to the regulation of health insurance coverage in the group market." The House passed the bill by a vote of 247 to 167. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 495, 9/11/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/8/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3522]
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Requires That, Starting In 2014, All Americans Have Health Insurance That Meets Law's Minimum Coverage Requirements, Or Pay A Tax Penalty. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the 2010 health care overhaul (PL 111-148; PL 111-152), all individuals are required, beginning in 2014, to purchase or be covered by health insurance that meets certain minimum standards, or pay a tax penalty that grows in future years." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/11/13]
The ACA Exempted Insurance Policies That Were In Effect In March 2010 From Meeting ACA's Minimum Requirements, So Long As No Substantial Changes Had Been Made To Those Policies. According to Politifact, "Under the new law [the Affordable Care Act], policies must cover a comprehensive set of benefits, including emergency care, maternity care, mental health or prescription drugs. If they don't, they can be 'grandfathered' in, but only if the plans have not been changed at all. To be grandfathered, the plans must have operated continuously since before the law's enactment in 2010 and have made no significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new law's requirements. But the regulations defining what constitutes a significant change are tight -- and if it's breached, the plan is on the road to oblivion." [Politifact, 11/6/13]
President Obama Repeatedly Said That If Someone Liked Their Current Health Insurance Plan, They Could Keep It Under The ACA. According to Politifact, "We decided to look back from all the public statements we could find about people being allowed to keep their plans. We found at least 37 times where Obama made a variation of the pledge that if you like your plan, you can keep it. Obama used the phrase 26 times between his inauguration and when the law passed. [...] We found 10 instances after the law was signed when Obama made the pledge again. [...] Obama then repeated the remarks during several campaign events in 2012, as well as at the first presidential debate in Denver on Oct. 3, 2012: 'If you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around.' [...] Overall, we didn't find one instance in which Obama offered a caveat that it only applies to plans that hadn't changed after the law's passage." [Politifact, 11/6/13]
In Late 2013, Health Insurers Notified Many Individual Health Policy Holders That Their Policy Would Be Cancelled As Of 2014 Because It Did Not Meet The ACA's Requirements. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Meanwhile, health insurance companies over the past few weeks have begun notifying individuals who previously purchased policies in the individual market that their policies are being discontinued and will terminate at the end of December, and that they need to re-enroll in new policies in order to avoid a break in coverage. The individual market serves an estimated 15 million persons who do not receive health insurance through their employers. Under the health care overhaul, beginning in 2014 insurance policies must meet certain minimum coverage standards in order to be offered through state exchanges or be sold off the exchanges in the individual market and still meet the law's requirement for fulfilling the 'individual mandate' that a person have qualified insurance to avoid a tax penalty. Among those standards are a package of essential health benefits that a policy must provide, including emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, and mental health coverage. In sending out policy cancellation notices in the individual market, many insurers have noted that the policy being canceled does not meet the law's minimum standard requirements." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/11/13]
Researchers Later Estimated That 2.6 Million Had Had Their Individual Policies Canceled Due To ACA Requirements, And That About Half Of Them Would Not Be Eligible For Medicaid Or ACA Subsidies To Pay For Compliant, Potentially More Expensive Insurance. In a post on the Health Affairs blog, Urban Institute researchers Lisa Clemans-Cope and Nathaniel Anderson wrote, "The findings from HRMS [the December 2013 Health Reform Monitoring Survey] show that nearly one in five (18.6 percent) of those with nongroup health insurance at the time of the survey report the plan they had in 2013 will no longer be offered to them because it did not meet new coverage requirements. Estimates from the NHIS indicate that approximately 14 million people had non-group coverage at a point in time. [...] Using this estimate, our findings imply that roughly 2.6 million people would have reported that their plan would no longer be offered due to noncompliance with the ACA. Another 6 percent reported that their plan was cancelled for other reasons, and 75.4 percent reported that they did not receive a notice of cancellation (figure 1). Many whose non-group policy was cancelled appear to be eligible for Marketplace subsidies or Medicaid. [...] While our sample size of those with non-group health insurance who report that their plan was cancelled due to ACA compliance is small (N=123), we estimate that over half of this population is likely to be eligible for coverage assistance, mostly through Marketplace subsidies. Consistent with these findings, other work by Urban Institute researchers estimated that slightly more than half of adults with pre-reform nongroup coverage would be eligible for Marketplace subsidies or Medicaid." [Clemans-Cope and Anderson post, Health Affairs Blog, 3/3/14]
The Obama Administration's November 2013 Administrative Fix Permitted Insurers To Continue Offering Existing Non-Compliant Policies, But Did Not Allow Insurers To Offer Those Policies To New Customers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On Thursday, Obama announced a narrower administrative fix to the canceled plans. The president's fix would permit insurers to continue to offer through the end of 2014 millions of individual policies for people currently enrolled that are set to be canceled as early as Jan. 1 because they do not meet the health care law's standards of offering comprehensive benefits. Insurers would not be required to continue the plans, and insurance commissioners would not be required to force them to do so. Insurers would have to give notice of benefits that consumers forgo by not signing up with plans that meet the essential-benefits standard of the overhaul. Unlike the [November 2013 proposal by House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred] Upton [], it would not allow enrollment of those not currently covered." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/15/13]
Some Small Businesses Had Temporarily Protected Their Policies From Meeting The New ACA Requirements By Renewing Through November 2014, But They -- And Their Employees -- Now Faced Potential Health Plan Cancellation As Well. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some businesses with group plans are on different renewal cycles, which last year allowed many (before the administration delays were announced) to lock in non-qualified policies through November 2014. Individuals enrolled in those non-qualified policies, particularly those in larger companies, could face cancellation notices this fall." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/8/14]
Backers Of The Bill Said It Would Prevent Cancellation Of Tens Of Millions Of Americans' Existing Policies, Stop Potential Hefty Rate Increases For ACA-Compliant Policies, And Ensure That Americans Who Can Buy A Less Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan If That Is What They Want. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, mostly Republicans, say it's just a matter of time before 'the other shoe drops' and plans on the group market start issuing cancellations. They argue that tens of millions of people could see the phase-out of their plans and a spike in premiums for new plans, an even greater scale of people who dealt with their plans ending on the individual market. They argue that the legislation is needed to protect those Americans whose health plans are being canceled and allow people to keep their current health plans if they want to --- as the president repeatedly promised. The American people, they say, should have the freedom to sign up for less expensive, less comprehensive plans if they want them, just as they can choose to buy cheaper but less luxurious cars or other consumer goods." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/8/14]
Bill Opponents Argued That This Latest GOP Plan To Block The ACA Would Jeopardize Its Consumer Protections, Including Its Ban On Charging A Small Business More If An Employee Has A Pre-Existing Condition. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats who oppose the bill counter that it would undermine consumer protections in the law, including those that prevent insurers from charging higher premiums for small-business employees simply because one person in the group has a pre-existing condition. They also say the administration's delay in requirements for group market plans will ensure that small businesses will still have plenty time to adjust. They point to the bill as yet another example of Republicans doing everything they can to derail the health care law, however fruitless the effort. They say it is nothing more than an election-year gimmick and that the GOP is simply trying to distract from its lack of health care law replacement legislation by continuing to hold votes on bills that stand no chance of enactment." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/8/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Allow Individuals With Non-Affordable-Care-Act-Compliant Health Insurance To Keep Their Existing Policy Through The End Of 2014, And Permitting Other Individuals To Purchase That Same Coverage. In November 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would "allow[] health insurance companies to continue to offer for sale in 2014, outside of the new insurance exchanges, those health policies in the individual market that were in effect as of Jan. 1, 2013 --- thereby allowing individuals with such policies to keep them. Under the measure, those policies would be treated as a grandfathered health plan that satisfies the minimum essential health insurance coverage requirements set by the 2010 health care overhaul." The House passed the bill by a vote of 261 to 157. The bill died in the Senate [House Vote 587, 11/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 11/11/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3350]
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Requires That, Starting In 2014, All Americans Have Health Insurance That Meets Law's Minimum Coverage Requirements, Or Pay A Tax Penalty. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the 2010 health care overhaul (PL 111-148; PL 111-152), all individuals are required, beginning in 2014, to purchase or be covered by health insurance that meets certain minimum standards, or pay a tax penalty that grows in future years." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/11/13]
The ACA Exempted Insurance Policies That Were In Effect On Date Of Law's Enactment From Meeting ACA's Minimum Requirements, So Long As They Had Not Changed Significantly. According to Politifact, "Under the new law [the Affordable Care Act], policies must cover a comprehensive set of benefits, including emergency care, maternity care, mental health or prescription drugs. If they don't, they can be 'grandfathered' in, but only if the plans have not been changed at all. To be grandfathered, the plans must have operated continuously since before the law's enactment in 2010 and have made no significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new law's requirements. But the regulations defining what constitutes a significant change are tight -- and if it's breached, the plan is on the road to oblivion." [Politifact, 11/6/13]
President Obama Repeatedly Said That If Someone Liked Their Current Health Insurance Plan, They Could Keep It Under The ACA. According to Politifact, "We decided to look back from all the public statements we could find about people being allowed to keep their plans. We found at least 37 times where Obama made a variation of the pledge that if you like your plan, you can keep it. Obama used the phrase 26 times between his inauguration and when the law passed. [...] Remarks at the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009: 'I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage -- they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.' [...] We found 10 instances after the law was signed when Obama made the pledge again. [...] Obama then repeated the remarks during several campaign events in 2012, as well as at the first presidential debate in Denver on Oct. 3, 2012: 'If you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around.' Finally, as recently as a few weeks ago, Obama was playing down the impact. 'Now, let's start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance --- either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market,' he said in a speech in Largo, Md., on Sept. 26. 'So if you're one of these folks, it's reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you -- especially when you're bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don't have to do anything.' Overall, we didn't find one instance in which Obama offered a caveat that it only applies to plans that hadn't changed after the law's passage." [Politifact, 11/6/13]
In Late 2013, Health Insurers Notified Many Individual Health Policy Holders That Their Policy Would Be Cancelled As Of 2014 Because It Did Not Meet The ACA's Requirements. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Meanwhile, health insurance companies over the past few weeks have begun notifying individuals who previously purchased policies in the individual market that their policies are being discontinued and will terminate at the end of December, and that they need to re-enroll in new policies in order to avoid a break in coverage. The individual market serves an estimated 15 million persons who do not receive health insurance through their employers. Under the health care overhaul, beginning in 2014 insurance policies must meet certain minimum coverage standards in order to be offered through state exchanges or be sold off the exchanges in the individual market and still meet the law's requirement for fulfilling the 'individual mandate' that a person have qualified insurance to avoid a tax penalty. Among those standards are a package of essential health benefits that a policy must provide, including emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, and mental health coverage. In sending out policy cancellation notices in the individual market, many insurers have noted that the policy being canceled does not meet the law's minimum standard requirements." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/11/13]
Researchers Later Estimated That 2.6 Million Had Had Their Individual Policies Canceled Due To ACA Requirements, And That About Half Of Them Would Not Be Eligible For Medicaid Or ACA Subsidies To Pay For Compliant, Potentially More Expensive Insurance. In a post on the Health Affairs blog, Urban Institute researchers Lisa Clemans-Cope and Nathaniel Anderson wrote, "The findings from HRMS [the December 2013 Health Reform Monitoring Survey] show that nearly one in five (18.6 percent) of those with nongroup health insurance at the time of the survey report the plan they had in 2013 will no longer be offered to them because it did not meet new coverage requirements. Estimates from the NHIS indicate that approximately 14 million people had non-group coverage at a point in time. [...] Using this estimate, our findings imply that roughly 2.6 million people would have reported that their plan would no longer be offered due to noncompliance with the ACA. Another 6 percent reported that their plan was cancelled for other reasons, and 75.4 percent reported that they did not receive a notice of cancellation (figure 1). Many whose non-group policy was cancelled appear to be eligible for Marketplace subsidies or Medicaid. [...] While our sample size of those with non-group health insurance who report that their plan was cancelled due to ACA compliance is small (N=123), we estimate that over half of this population is likely to be eligible for coverage assistance, mostly through Marketplace subsidies. Consistent with these findings, other work by Urban Institute researchers estimated that slightly more than half of adults with pre-reform nongroup coverage would be eligible for Marketplace subsidies or Medicaid." [Clemans-Cope and Anderson post, Health Affairs Blog, 3/3/14]
The Obama Administration's Administrative Fix Permitted Insurers To Continue Offering Existing Non-Compliant Policies, But Did Not Allow Insurers To Offer Those Policies To New Customers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On Thursday, Obama announced a narrower administrative fix to the canceled plans. The president's fix would permit insurers to continue to offer through the end of 2014 millions of individual policies for people currently enrolled that are set to be canceled as early as Jan. 1 because they do not meet the health care law's standards of offering comprehensive benefits. Insurers would not be required to continue the plans, and insurance commissioners would not be required to force them to do so. Insurers would have to give notice of benefits that consumers forgo by not signing up with plans that meet the essential-benefits standard of the overhaul. Unlike the Upton proposal, it would not allow enrollment of those not currently covered." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/15/13]
Bill Supporters Argued That It Would Make ACA Match President Obama's Promises, And Ensure That Americans Still Have Coverage At The Start Of 2014 Despite The ACA Disaster. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, mostly Republicans, say it will protect those Americans whose health plans are being canceled and allow people to keep their current health plans if they want to, as the president repeatedly promised. The president's pledge to the American people was crystal-clear in 2009 when he said at a meeting of the American Medical Association: 'No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: ... If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.' Yet that promise is not being kept, bill supporters say, as millions of Americans are getting notices that their health insurance is being canceled because the policies don't meet the new rules under the law. [...] Supporters also argue that allowing people to keep their current health plans will also ensure that they will remain covered when the new year begins, which is not otherwise guaranteed because of the administration's disastrous rollout of the law --- problems they say that vividly demonstrate why Obamacare is unworkable. They say that while the president last week apologized to the millions of Americans who lost their policies, if he is sincerely sorry he will support this legislation to restore their health insurance." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/11/13]
Congressional Quarterly: Bill's Provisions Would "Effectively Squelch" The ACA's Coverage Requirements. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Congressional anxiety over the implementation of the health care overhaul spilled out onto the House floor Nov. 15, when Republicans, with the help of more than three dozen Democrats, passed a GOP bill that would allow Americans to keep their medical plans through 2014 and would effectively squelch the coverage requirements in the law." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/13]
Supporters Argued That Americans, Facing Higher Premiums For ACA-Compliant Coverage, Should Have The Option To Buy Cheaper, Non-Compliant Health Insurance That Covers Their Needs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Even worse, they say those policyholders are experiencing sticker shock as they find that the cost of replacement insurance is multiple times what they are now paying, often making it unaffordable because it includes coverage for government-mandated items they don't need, such as maternity care for a man's policy. Even when searching on the federal website, they have found that the policies are unaffordable and often don't cover their existing doctors. The American people, they say, should have the freedom to sign up for less expensive, less comprehensive plans if they want them, just as they can choose to buy cheaper but less luxurious cars or other consumer goods." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/11/13]
Supporters Argued Bill Would Ensure That All Americans Could Have The Opportunity To Buy The Affordable Coverage Provided By The Cancelled Policies. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Cantor said the [Obama administration's] administrative fix didn't go far enough. The bill 'aims to help Americans keep their health insurance and give their neighbors a chance to buy the same plans rather than forcing them onto a faulty website to buy new coverage they may not like or cannot afford,' Cantor said." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/15/13]
Bill Opponents Argued That Non-ACA-Compliant Policies Often Contained Hidden Costs And Few Guarantees Of Coverage When Someone Got Sick; Whereas ACA-Compliant Policies Provide Broad, Dependable Health Coverage. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The individual insurance market has always operated a bit like the Wild West, they say, with few or no protections for individuals who unknowingly bought policies that didn't cover their needs or that insurance companies could cancel once the individual or family member got sick. That's why the health care overhaul required policies beginning in 2014 to include certain minimum coverage standards and patient protections. The policies being canceled do not meet those standards, they say, and rather than modifying them to comply, many companies are simply terminating them and trying to get customers to buy more costly products." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/11/13]
Bill Opponents Argued That, In Many Cases, Those Who Had Cancelled Policies Could Find A Better, ACA-Compliant Policy On The ACA Exchanges, And, With Federal Subsidies, End Up Paying Less For Better Coverage. According to Congressional Quarterly, "They argue that many individuals losing their policies will find much better deals on the state marketplaces instead of having to rely on quotes from their existing insurer off the exchange since exchanges will usually offer a variety of insurance policies from various insurers. Moreover, bill opponents note that by using the exchanges, individuals and families are eligible for federal subsidies that can dramatically reduce their cost --- enabling them in many cases to purchase far more comprehensive coverage at an affordable price. They acknowledge that many families are not eligible for subsidies and that in some cases their insurance costs could rise dramatically, but they note that the president last week said he recognized that problem and is seeking ways to ensure that health insurance for those who lost their policies remains affordable." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/11/13]
Obama Said He Would Veto The Bill, Arguing It Would Resurrect ACA-Banished Practices Such As Annual Caps On Coverage Or Charging Women More Than Men. According to a Statement of Administration Policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget, "H.R. 3350 rolls back the progress made by allowing insurers to continue to sell new plans that deploy practices such as not offering coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, charging women more than men, and continuing yearly caps on the amount of care that enrollees receive. The Administration supports policies that allow people to keep the health plans that they have. But, policies that reverse the progress made to extend quality, affordable coverage to millions of uninsured, hardworking, middle class families are not the solution. Rather than refighting old political battles to sabotage the health care law, the Congress should work with the Administration to improve the law and move forward. If the President were presented with H.R. 3350, he would veto it" (underlining omitted). [Office of Management and Budget, 11/14/13]
2018: Schweikert Voted For A $100 Billion Tax Bill That Delayed ACA Taxes, Included Tax Relief For Disaster Victims And Offered Fixes For The 2017 Tax Reform Bill. In December 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] tax relief to individuals and businesses who have been harmed by certain natural disasters during 2018 and [...] [made] it easier for small businesses to offer retirement savings plans for their employees while also giving individuals greater flexibility to contribute to and use funds from their retirement accounts. It also allow[ed] churches and other non-profits to become politically active while maintaining their tax-exempt status; delay[ed] or repeal[ed] four taxes created by the 2010 health care overhaul to finance that law; [made] certain modifications and technical corrections to the 2017 tax overhaul; and modernize[d] the IRS to improve customer service and help prevent identity theft and tax return fraud." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with a further House amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 220 to 183. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 470, 12/20/18; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 88]
2018: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2018 Continuing Resolution Funding The Government Through February 8 And Delayed The Health Insurance Fee For One Year. In January 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] funding for federal government operations and services at current levels through Feb. 8, 2018. The measure would [have] fund[ed] the state Children's Health and Insurance Programs at $21.5 billion annually starting in fiscal 2018 and would gradually increase the funding annually through fiscal 2023." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill also suspends or delays for one or two years three health-related taxes that were enacted as part of the 2010 health care overhaul to help finance the law --- the medical device tax, the tax on high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans (the so-called 'Cadillac' tax), and annual fees on health insurance companies." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 266 to 150. The Senate had already agreed to the version of the bill. President Trump later signed it into law. [House Vote 44, 1/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/22/18; CBS, 1/23/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 195]
2018: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2018 Continuing Resolution Funding The Government Through February 16 And Delayed The Health Insurance Fee For One Year, But Did Not Offer Any Fixes For DACA Recipients. In January 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] funding for federal government operations and services at current levels through Feb. 16, 2018, at an annualized rate of $1.23 trillion for federal departments and agencies covered by the 12 unfinished fiscal 2018 spending bills, of which an annualized rate of $621.5 billion would be designated for defense and an annualized rate of $511 billion for nondefense discretionary spending. The measure would [have] fund[ed] the state Children's Health and Insurance Programs at $21.5 billion annually starting in fiscal 2018 and would gradually increase the funding annually through fiscal 2023." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill suspends or delays three health-related taxes that were enacted as part of the 2010 health care overhaul to help finance the law --- the medical device tax, the tax on high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans (the so-called 'Cadillac' tax), and annual fees on health insurance companies." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230 to 197. The Senate later blocked the bill, shutting down the government for three days. A revised version of the legislation, funding the government through February 8th was later signed into law. [House Vote 33, 1/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/22/18; CBS, 1/23/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 195]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Suspending The Fee Annual On Health Insurance As Part Of The FY 2016 Omnibus. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against the Affordable Care Act's fee on health insurance. According to Congressional Quarterly, the measure would have "suspend[ed] for 2017 the health care law's annual fee on health insurers. JCT estimates this provision would reduce revenue by $12.2 billion over 10 years." The legislation was, according to Congressional Quarterly, a FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 316 to 113. The legislation was later combined with a tax extender bill. The Senate passed the larger measure and the president signed it. [House Vote 705, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Block The Affordable Care Act's Health Insurance Subsidies Until The Health Department Established A Program To Verify Recipients' Income Eligibility. In September 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "block[ed] premium and cost-sharing subsidies under the 2010 health care overhaul law until a program to verify recipient qualifications is in place. As amended, the bill would [have] require[d] the Health and Human Services inspector general to certify the program." The House passed the bill by a vote of 235 to 191. Afterwards, the Senate used this bill as the vehicle for legislation ending the October 2013 government shutdown, but modified the requirements. According to Congressional Quarterly, the final legislation required that, before subsidies started, HHS must certify that it was verifying eligibility and explain how it was doing so; afterwards, HHS' inspector general would report on their effectiveness. [House Vote 458, 9/12/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/12/13; Congressional Quarterly, 10/16/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2775]
ACA's Health Insurance Subsidies Are Based On Applicants' Income. According to Congressional Quarterly, the ACA "sets up state exchanges through which individuals who don't receive affordable health care coverage from their employer and other uninsured individuals can purchase policies. Individuals who purchase coverage through state exchanges are eligible for financial assistance if their income is below 400% of the federal poverty line: a premium assistance tax credit to reduce their monthly premiums and, in certain cases, cost-sharing assistance that reduces a health plan's out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and copayments." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/12/13]
The ACA And HHS' Implementing Rules Required ACA Exchanges To Verify Applicants' Claimed Income Using Government Information, Credit Reporting Agency Data, Or Additional Documentation From The Applicant. According to Congressional Quarterly, "When applying for coverage through the exchanges, individuals must submit income and other information (including family size and possible changes in circumstances) that the exchanges will then use to determine whether coverage costs will be subsidized. Under federal rules issued for the law, exchanges are to compare an applicant's projected household income with information available from the IRS and the Social Security Administration (SSA), and if the applicant's projected income can't be verified using that data it would be compared to wage information from employers provided by Equifax, a consumer credit reporting agency. If income can't be verified through Equifax, the exchange must request from the individual an explanation or additional documentation to substantiate the individual's income, such as a pay stub." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/9/13]
July, 2013: HHS Delayed Some Income Verification Procedural Requirements For State-Run Exchanges, But Not For The Federally-Run Ones. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In July, HHS announced a delay in some requirements for states operating their own insurance exchanges under the law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) to verify reported health insurance status and income. According to Congressional Quarterly, "For 2014, in certain circumstances in which income reported on an application is much lower compared to IRS data, state-run exchanges could opt to accept the reported income even without additional sources of data to confirm the discrepancy. State-run exchanges would have to ask for more information from a sampling of these applicants if they choose to do so. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in August that federally run exchanges will always ask for more information in these types of cases." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/12/13]
Republicans Said That, In Order To Boost Exchange Enrollment, HHS Risked Up To $1 Trillion In Fraud By Relying On The Honor System. According to Congressional Quarterly, "House Republicans argue that the administration's rule effectively sets up an 'honor system' that could lead to rampant fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds by individuals who could avail themselves of undeserved government subsidies. They contend the failure to implement the income verification system as required by the health care law is simply another sign that the law is unworkable and should be delayed in its entirety, or fully repealed. The one-year delay in income verification is not just a minor adjustment, they say, but a desperate attempt by the administration to boost enrollment in the exchanges and salvage the health care law, even as it exposes taxpayers to as much as $1 trillion in potential fraud and abuse. Why else, they ask, would the rule change have been buried in more than 600 pages of new regulations issued on the Friday following the Independence Day holiday." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/9/13]
Democrats, White House Said Bill Would Unnecessarily Delay The Opening Of The State-Run Health Exchanges. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats argued that the measure was an attempt to undermine the health care law. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., called the bill unnecessary because HHS will have a verification system in place and said that the move to have the inspector general certify the verification system was a delay tactic since it was not that office's traditional role. 'Repeal, delay, defund --- this is what they're all about,' Pallone said about Republicans and the health care law. [...] The White House on Tuesday issued a veto threat, saying that the bill is unnecessary because the HHS secretary has a verification system in place and that it would create 'vague standards' for the inspector general, whose office has never conducted such a review, and would thus delay the start of the health exchanges." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/12/13]
Democrats, White House Argued ACA's Verification System Would Prevent Widespread Fraud, And That Annual Tax Returns Would Provide A Backup Check. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats and the administration [...] also contend the law and its existing verification system will prevent any widespread fraud, since for the vast majority of individuals the system will be able to verify their household income. Individuals whose income can't be verified by the IRS, SSA or Equifax will be hesitant to misstate their income, they say, since they will still have to attest under penalty of perjury that they are not filing false or fraudulent information. And as a final backup, the government will later be reconciling income information and subsidies when individuals file their annual tax returns --- at which time the government will recoup any overpayments." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/9/13]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Washington, D.C. From Using Funds To Enforce Its Own Individual Mandate. In July 2018, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the District of Columbia from using funds appropriated by the bill to enforce certain health insurance requirements." The underlying bill was an FY 2019 Interior, Environment and Financial Services appropriations bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 226 to 189. The House later passed the underlying bill. A conference committee was later created, but no bill was agreed upon by both chambers. [House Vote 359, 7/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 946; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6174]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Repeal Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate Physician Payment Formula, Paid For By Delaying, For Five Years, The Penalties For Violating The ACA's Individual Mandate. In March 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "[would] formally repeal[] the sustainable growth rate (SGR) used to determine Medicare payment rates for physicians, and it provides for a transition to a new dual system intended to reward quality of care that would begin in 2018. Under the new system, physicians could choose to participate under one of two reimbursement methods: a Merit-Based Incentive Payment system under which doctors could get higher reimbursements based on better overall performance, or a group-oriented Alternative Payment Model system under which doctors would move away from traditional fee-for-service payments." According to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, the House bill also "include[d] provisions to fully offset the bill's 10-year cost by delaying the individual mandate penalties included in the 2010 health care overhaul [...] for five years. [...] [It] [would] eliminate[] the tax penalty until 2019 for taxpayers who fail to purchase health insurance under the individual mandate, reducing the penalty to 'zero.' It [would] also delay[] for five years certain phase-ins and indexing related to the individual mandate penalty under the 2010 health care overhaul for 2015 and later years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the modified version of the measure would reduce deficits by $20.7 billion over a 10-year period, with the individual mandate delay accounting for a $169.5 billion reduction in direct spending." The House passed the bill by a vote of 238 to 181; however, the bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 135, 3/14/14; Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 3/14/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4015]
CBO: In 2018, Bill's Individual Mandate Delay Would Increase The Number Of Uninsured Individuals By 13 Million And Increase Health Premiums By 10 To 20 Percent; Overall Bill Would Reduce Deficit By $21 Billion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the modified version of the measure would reduce deficits by $20.7 billion over a 10-year period, with the individual mandate delay accounting for a $169.5 billion reduction in direct spending. CBO also estimated that the individual mandate delay would increase the number of uninsured individuals by about 13 million people in 2018 and that premiums would increase by 10% to 20% in 2018." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/14/14]
1997: Balanced Budget Act Created SGR, Which Determines Reimbursement Rates For Medicare. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The 1997 Balanced Budget Act (PL 105-33) implemented the current system used to determine reimbursements under Medicare Part B. This system sets an overall target for federal spending under Medicare Part B, which allows for reimbursements to physicians to be adjusted, upward or downward, to meet the target." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14]
Since SGR's Creation, Congress Has Prevented Almost All Reductions Under The SGR With So-Called "Doc Fix" Bills; Lone Exception Was 2002, When Rates Were Reduced By 4.8 Percent. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Since the system was created, reimbursement rates have been cut just once, by 4.8% in 2002. Congress has prevented any further cuts by repeatedly enacting 'doc fix' legislation to block the required cuts, and to often provide an increase --- which has acted to build up the size of the cumulative cut needed to hit the sustainable growth rate (SGR) target for Medicare spending. Doc fix measures have become routine in recent years, often attached to other essential legislation. The most recent temporary adjustment was enacted as part of the December 2013 budget agreement (PL 113-67) and expires at the end of March. Prior to that, an extension was enacted as part of the January 2013 fiscal cliff agreement (PL 112-240)." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14]
Under The SGR, Medicare Reimbursement Rates For Doctors Were Scheduled To Drop By 24 Percent On April 1, 2014. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Absent congressional action, a 24% reduction in the Medicare reimbursement rate for physician services is set to occur on April 1." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14]
April 1, 2014: President Obama Signed Temporary "Doc Fix" Bill Eliminating SGR-Mandated Cuts For One Year. According to Congressional Quarterly, "President Barack Obama on Tuesday [April 1, 2014] signed into law a one-year payment patch for Medicare physicians, the day after 24 percent cuts were scheduled to take place. The Senate cleared the 'doc fix' (HR 4302) on Monday evening, the same day that the current payment patch (PL 113-67) expired, which would have triggered the cuts absent congressional action." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/1/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Delay The Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate For A Year. In July 2013, Schweikert voted for a one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have "delay[ed] for one year, until the start of 2015, the requirement in the 2010 health care overhaul that most individuals maintain health insurance coverage or pay a penalty." The House approved the bill by a vote of 251 to 174. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 363, 7/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/17/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2668]
ACA's Individual Mandate Requires Individuals To Have Health Insurance Starting In 2014 Or Pay A Penalty. According to KQED, "The individual mandate is a provision of the federal health law (i.e. "Obamacare") that requires you, your children and anyone else that you claim as a dependent on your taxes to have health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty. That coverage can be supplied through your job, public programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, or an individual policy that you purchase. The health law is setting up online health insurance marketplaces, also known as exchanges, to help you shop for plans. [. . .] If you do not have the minimum level of coverage and do not qualify for an exemption, you must pay a penalty to the IRS at the end of the tax year. The penalty for the first year is up to $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, or 1 percent of family income, whichever is greater. The fine, however, increases over time and in 2016 will be as much as $695 per adult and $347 per child (up to $2,085 for a family) or 2.5 percent of family income, whichever is greater." [KQED, 9/3/13]
In Early July 2013, The Administration Said It Decided To Delay Enforcement Of Another ACA Provision, The Employer Mandate, In Response To Businesses' Request For More Time. According to a White House blog post, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett said, "As we implement this law, we have and will continue to make changes as needed. In our ongoing discussions with businesses we have heard that you need the time to get this right. We are listening. So in response to your concerns, we are making two changes [. . .] Second, we are giving businesses more time to comply. As we make these changes, we believe we need to give employers more time to comply with the new rules. Since employer responsibility payments can only be assessed based on this new reporting, payments won't be collected for 2014. This allows employers the time to test the new reporting systems and make any necessary adaptations to their health benefits while staying the course toward making health coverage more affordable and accessible for their workers. [White House Blog Post, 7/2/13]
Republicans Said Obama Administration, Having Helped Businesses By Delaying The Employer Mandate, Should Also Help Individuals And Delay The Individual Mandate. According to the Associated Press, "In a series of unconventional political arguments, Republicans faulted Obama, who taught courses in constitutional law, of selectively enforcing the law. They accused a Democratic president of siding with business while ignoring the needs of average Americans. 'Let's provide the same relief to American families that Obama's promised to big business,' said Rep. Todd Young, R-Ind." [Associated Press, 7/17/13]
Republicans Said Administration's Delay Of Employer Mandate Showed That It Knew The ACA Would Not Work -- Further Evidence That The Law Should Be Scrapped. According to Huffington Post, "Putting off a major element of the 2010 health care reform law less than six months before the expansion of health insurance coverage to millions is supposed to take effect nevertheless stands as a setback for the administration and gives fodder to Obamacare critics to proclaim the law isn't ready for prime time. 'This announcement means even the Obama administration knows the 'train wreck' will only get worse,' House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. 'This is a clear acknowledgment that the law is unworkable, and it underscores the need to repeal the law and replace it with effective, patient-centered reforms.'" [Huffington Post, 7/3/13]
Associated Press Called Votes On This Legislation And Another Delaying The Employer Mandate "Dual Political-Show Votes." According to the Associated Press, "After a day of heated rhetoric, the House voted largely along party lines, 264-161, to delay by one year the so-called employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. It voted 251-174 to extend a similar grace period to virtually all Americans who will be required to obtain coverage beginning Jan. 1, the linchpin of the law. The dual political-show votes marked the 38th time the GOP majority has tried to eliminate, defund or scale back the unpopular law since Republicans took control of the House in January 2011. The House legislation stands no chance in the Democratic-run Senate." [Associated Press, 7/17/13]
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Called Debate And Vote On The Legislation "A Waste Of Time" Refighting Health Care Issue. According to the Associated Press, "Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said it was 'nothing more than a waste of time' as the health care issue has been settled in Congress, the courts and in last year's presidential election when Obama won a second term." [Associated Press, 7/17/13]
2018: Schweikert Voted For A $100 Billion Tax Bill That Delayed ACA Taxes, Included Tax Relief For Disaster Victims And Offered Fixes For The 2017 Tax Reform Bill. In December 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] tax relief to individuals and businesses who have been harmed by certain natural disasters during 2018 and [...] [made] it easier for small businesses to offer retirement savings plans for their employees while also giving individuals greater flexibility to contribute to and use funds from their retirement accounts. It also allow[ed] churches and other non-profits to become politically active while maintaining their tax-exempt status; delay[ed] or repeal[ed] four taxes created by the 2010 health care overhaul to finance that law; [made] certain modifications and technical corrections to the 2017 tax overhaul; and modernize[d] the IRS to improve customer service and help prevent identity theft and tax return fraud." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with a further House amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 220 to 183. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 470, 12/20/18; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 88]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Medical Device Tax Starting In 2020. In July 2018, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "fully repeal[ed] the 2.3 percent excise tax on the sale of a medical device by the manufacturer, producer, or importer after Dec. 31, 2019." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 283 to 132. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 372, 7/24/18; Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 184]
2018: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2018 Continuing Resolution Funding The Government Through February 8 And Delayed The Medical Device Tax For Two Years. In January 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] funding for federal government operations and services at current levels through Feb. 8, 2018. The measure would [have] fund[ed] the state Children's Health and Insurance Programs at $21.5 billion annually starting in fiscal 2018 and would gradually increase the funding annually through fiscal 2023." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill also suspends or delays for one or two years three health-related taxes that were enacted as part of the 2010 health care overhaul to help finance the law --- the medical device tax, the tax on high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans (the so-called 'Cadillac' tax), and annual fees on health insurance companies." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 266 to 150. The Senate had already agreed to the version of the bill. President Trump later signed it into law. [House Vote 44, 1/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/22/18; CBS, 1/23/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 195]
2018: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2018 Continuing Resolution Funding The Government Through February 16 And Delayed The Medical Device Tax For Two Years, But Did Not Offer Any Fixes For DACA Recipients. In January 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] funding for federal government operations and services at current levels through Feb. 16, 2018, at an annualized rate of $1.23 trillion for federal departments and agencies covered by the 12 unfinished fiscal 2018 spending bills, of which an annualized rate of $621.5 billion would be designated for defense and an annualized rate of $511 billion for nondefense discretionary spending. The measure would [have] fund[ed] the state Children's Health and Insurance Programs at $21.5 billion annually starting in fiscal 2018 and would gradually increase the funding annually through fiscal 2023." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill suspends or delays three health-related taxes that were enacted as part of the 2010 health care overhaul to help finance the law --- the medical device tax, the tax on high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans (the so-called 'Cadillac' tax), and annual fees on health insurance companies." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230 to 197. The Senate later blocked the bill, shutting down the government for three days. A revised version of the legislation, funding the government through February 8th was later signed into law. [House Vote 33, 1/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/22/18; CBS, 1/23/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 195]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The American Health Care Act That Would Have In Part Repealed The Medical Device Tax. In May 2017, Schweikert voted for the American Health Care Act which would have significantly repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act by cutting Medicaid, cutting taxes on the rich, removing safeguard for pre-existing conditions and defunding Planned Parenthood. According to the Kasier Family Foundation, the legislation had the "ACA taxes repealed, effective January 1, 2017, except where otherwise noted: [...] [The] Excise tax on sale of medical devices." The overall legislation would have in part "ma[d]e extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would [have], in 2020, convert[ed] Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide[d] fixed federal payments to states and end[ed] additional federal funding for the 2010 law's joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. It would prohibit federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. [...] It would [have] allow[ed] states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217 to 213. The bill, in modified forms, died in the Senate. [House Vote 256, 5/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/17; Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Suspending The Medical Device Tax For Two Years As Part Of A Larger Tax Extender Passage. In December 2015, Schweikert voted to suspend the medical device tax for two years. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "suspend[ed] for two years, for 2016 and 2017, the 2010 health care law's 2.3% medical device tax, which went into effect in 2013 and applies to a wide array of devices that are often used in hospitals and doctors' offices. This provision is estimated to cost $3.9 billion over 10 years." The underlying measure would "retroactively [renew] for the current 2015 tax year most of the expired provisions and further extends them for varying periods, including by making more than a dozen permanent and extending most others for two years (2015 and 2016)." The vote was on concurring in the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment. The House passed the amendment by a vote of 318 to 109. The legislation was later combined with an Omnibus appropriations bill. The Senate passed the larger measure and the president signed it. [House Vote 703, 12/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/16/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
Tax Was Imposed On Industries That Gained For Health Reform; Other Positively Impacted Industries Also Made Financial Concessions. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Now in effect for more than two years, the tax was among the duties placed on industries that stood to benefit from the health overhaul. Its proponents argue it is a fair fee for medical-device manufacturers that have seen their markets expand as more Americans have signed up for health coverage. Other industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, made financial concessions to help augment health benefits, said Jon Kingsdale, the former executive director of the Massachusetts health exchange and now a director at Wakely Consulting Group in Boston. 'Medical-device companies were pretty much the only major group that refused,' he said." [Wall Street Journal, 7/6/15]
Supporter Noted That 39,000 Jobs Were Lost Since The Medical Device Tax Was Imposed. According to a floor speech by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), "We often hear that America needs to start making things again to help jump-start the economy, and one of the best ways to protect American manufacturing and spur innovation is to repeal this harmful medical device tax because here is what the tax is doing: it is costing us jobs [...]If you take it to a bigger, larger picture, up to 39,000 jobs have been lost because of the tax since it has been imposed. These are high-paying jobs, Mr. Speaker, that pay nearly $20,000 more than the national average. And the 2.3 percent excise tax, it may not sound like much, but here's the problem: it is taxing revenue; it is not taxing profit. A small device manufacturer, they may not be making any money, but they still have to pay that tax." [Congressional Record, 6/17/15]
Center For Budget And Policy: Medical Device Tax Will Not Cause Manufacturing To Shift Overseas Nor Will It Have Significant Impact On Innovation In The Medical Device Industry. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt. The claim that the tax will lead to production moving overseas thus is a talking point that lacks any foundation. The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/23/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Repealed The Medical Device Tax. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that repealed the medical device tax. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "repeal[ed] the 2.3% medical device tax included in the 2010 health care overhaul." The vote was on passage and the House approved the legislation 280 to 140. The Senate took not substantial action on the bill, but continuing resolution that was signed into law in December contained a two year repeal of the tax. [House Vote 375, 6/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/16/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029; Congressional Actions, H.R. 160]
The Medical Device Tax Imposed An Excise Tax Of 2.3 Percent On Manufacturers Or Importers Of Medical Devices, Expected To Raise $30 Billion Over Ten Years. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The 2.3% levy, imposed on manufacturers or importers of devices, is expected to net nearly $30 billion over the course of a decade---a relatively small portion of the funding needed to achieve expanded health coverage." [Wall Street Journal, 7/6/15]
Tax Was Imposed On Industries That Gained For Health Reform; Other Positively Impacted Industries Also Made Financial Concessions. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Now in effect for more than two years, the tax was among the duties placed on industries that stood to benefit from the health overhaul. Its proponents argue it is a fair fee for medical-device manufacturers that have seen their markets expand as more Americans have signed up for health coverage. Other industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, made financial concessions to help augment health benefits, said Jon Kingsdale, the former executive director of the Massachusetts health exchange and now a director at Wakely Consulting Group in Boston. 'Medical-device companies were pretty much the only major group that refused,' he said." [Wall Street Journal, 7/6/15]
Supporter Noted That 39,000 Jobs Were Lost Since The Medical Device Tax Was Imposed. According to a floor speech by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), "We often hear that America needs to start making things again to help jump-start the economy, and one of the best ways to protect American manufacturing and spur innovation is to repeal this harmful medical device tax because here is what the tax is doing: it is costing us jobs [...]If you take it to a bigger, larger picture, up to 39,000 jobs have been lost because of the tax since it has been imposed. These are high-paying jobs, Mr. Speaker, that pay nearly $20,000 more than the national average. And the 2.3 percent excise tax, it may not sound like much, but here's the problem: it is taxing revenue; it is not taxing profit. A small device manufacturer, they may not be making any money, but they still have to pay that tax." [Congressional Record, 6/17/15]
Opponent Noted That Repealing The Medical Device Tax Would Add $24.4 Billion To The Deficit. According to a floor speech by Rep. James McDermott (D-WA), "When we were designing the Affordable Care Act, everyone was expected to share in the cost as we work for the American people. The medical device industry initially opposed 5 percent. They said: How about 2.3 percent? We will go for that. They agreed to it. Here they are today asking for us to give them nothing, no taxes; they don't have to pay anything no matter how they benefit from it. Now, repealing this tax, which the nonpartisan analysts have shown has no negative effect on jobs, will add $24.4 billion to the deficit. It would eliminate an important source of revenue simply to appease an industry that has benefited directly and greatly from the expansion of the coverage of ACA." [Congressional Record, 6/17/15]
Center For Budget And Policy: Medical Device Tax Will Not Cause Manufacturing To Shift Overseas Nor Will It Have Significant Impact On Innovation In The Medical Device Industry. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt. The claim that the tax will lead to production moving overseas thus is a talking point that lacks any foundation. The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/23/15]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Repealing The Medical Device Tax Enacted In the Affordable Care Act. In September 2014, Schweikert voted for repealing the medical device tax enacted found in the Affordable Care Act. According to House Republicans, "Title VII: Repeal of the Medical Device Tax [...] repeals the medical device tax. [...] [The bill] [a]mends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers [and] [r]etroactively takes effect for sales after December 31, 2012." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
The Medical Device Tax Imposed An Excise Tax Of 2.3 Percent On Manufacturers Or Importers Of Medical Devices, Expected To Raise $30 Billion Over Ten Years. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The 2.3% levy, imposed on manufacturers or importers of devices, is expected to net nearly $30 billion over the course of a decade---a relatively small portion of the funding needed to achieve expanded health coverage." [Wall Street Journal, 7/6/15]
Tax Was Imposed On Industries That Gained For Health Reform; Other Positively Impacted Industries Also Made Financial Concessions. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Now in effect for more than two years, the tax was among the duties placed on industries that stood to benefit from the health overhaul. Its proponents argue it is a fair fee for medical-device manufacturers that have seen their markets expand as more Americans have signed up for health coverage. Other industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, made financial concessions to help augment health benefits, said Jon Kingsdale, the former executive director of the Massachusetts health exchange and now a director at Wakely Consulting Group in Boston. 'Medical-device companies were pretty much the only major group that refused,' he said." [Wall Street Journal, 7/6/15]
Center For Budget And Policy: Medical Device Tax Will Not Cause Manufacturing To Shift Overseas Nor Will It Have Significant Impact On Innovation In The Medical Device Industry. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt. The claim that the tax will lead to production moving overseas thus is a talking point that lacks any foundation. The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/23/15]
According To A September 2014 Estimate By The Joint Committee On Taxation, Repeal Would Cost $26 Billion From Fiscal Years 2015 -- 2024. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation via the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "Repealing the excise tax would cost $26 billion over the 2015-2024 period." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/23/15]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Would Have Cut Funding To Health Insurance Navigators To Help Eligible Consumers Enroll In Medicaid. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike from the bill the requirement that the Health and Human Services secretary obligate $100 million in fiscal 2020 for a health insurance marketplace navigator program, including specified obligation for advertising." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 186-237. [House Vote 284, 6/13/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 301; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Health Care Legislation That Was Designed To Bring More Generic Drugs To The Marketplace, Restore Funding To Promote ACA Plans, Fund States To Create Their Own State-Based ACA Exchanges, And Stop A Trump Administration Rule Increasing Eligibility For Short-Term Insurance Plans That Do Not Comply With ACA Rules, Such As Protections For Pre-Existing Conditions. In May 2019, Schweikert voted against the MORE Health Education Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "[t]his bill includes a number of provisions intended to lower the price of prescription drugs by helping to bring generic and biosimilar drugs to market more quickly, and it seeks to bolster enrollment in Affordable Care Act marketplaces by restoring funding to promote ACA health plans and help individuals find affordable plans while also providing funding for states to establish their own state-operated health insurance marketplaces (rather than relying on the existing federal marketplace). In addition, it revokes a Trump administration rule that expands the availability of short-term health plans that don't have to comply with ACA consumer protections, such as protections for individuals with preexisting conditions." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 183. [House Vote 214, 5/16/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 987]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Preventing HHS And Treasury From Doing Anything That Would Make Health Care Premiums More Expensive For Health Insurance As Comprehensive As The ACA's With Essential Health Benefits. In May 2019, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the Health and Human Services and Treasury departments from taking any action that would result in increased health insurance premiums for individuals enrolled in health insurance at least as comprehensive as the "essential health benefits package" defined under the 2010 health care law." The underlying legislation would have, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Trump administration to rescind a 2018 guidance that made it easier for states to change their individual insurance markets and bypass the 2010 health care law. [...] In October, the administration released a guidance to give states more flexibility by exempting them from some of the waiver requirements. The administration later suggested ways states could change their insurance markets, including revising the rules for consumers to qualify for premium subsidies, allowing those subsidies to go toward plans that don't comply with all of the 2010 law's regulations or setting up high-risk pools or reinsurance programs to help cover the most expensive patients." The vote was on the amendment. The House passed the amendment by a vote of 308 to 112. The House later passed the underlying bill. [House Vote 194, 5/9/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/9/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/9/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 208; Congressional Actions, H.R. 986]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Health Care Legislation That Was Designed To Bring More Generic Drugs To The Marketplace, Restore Funding To Promote ACA Plans, Fund States To Create Their Own State-Based ACA Exchanges, And Stop A Trump Administration Rule Increasing Eligibility For Short-Term Insurance Plans That Do Not Comply With ACA Rules, Such As Protections For Pre-Existing Conditions. In May 2019, Schweikert voted against the MORE Health Education Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "[t]his bill includes a number of provisions intended to lower the price of prescription drugs by helping to bring generic and biosimilar drugs to market more quickly, and it seeks to bolster enrollment in Affordable Care Act marketplaces by restoring funding to promote ACA health plans and help individuals find affordable plans while also providing funding for states to establish their own state-operated health insurance marketplaces (rather than relying on the existing federal marketplace). In addition, it revokes a Trump administration rule that expands the availability of short-term health plans that don't have to comply with ACA consumer protections, such as protections for individuals with preexisting conditions." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 183. [House Vote 214, 5/16/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 987]
The Trump Administration Has Significantly Cut Funding For ACA Navigators -- Individuals Who Would Help People Find ACA Coverage; The Legislation Appropriated $100 Million Per Year For Navigators. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Starting in 2017, as part of an effort to dismantle and replace the ACA, the Trump administration reduced funding for the navigators and shortened the amount of time the health insurance exchanges were open for annual enrollment and re-enrollment. The administration also reduced advertising of the open enrollment period. That funding was further reduced in 2018, with $10 million being provided for navigators (versus $63 million in 2016) and $10 million for public education and outreach (versus $100 million in 2016). The bill provides $100 million per year for the ACA navigator program, starting FY 2020 (with the funds to be obligated from amounts collected through the user fees from participating health insurance providers), and it appropriates $100 million a year for consumer outreach and education activities." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/19]
Funding For States To Set Up Their Own ACA Exchanges Expired In 2014; The Legislation Would Give Grants Through 2022. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill appropriates $200 million to allow states to establish their own state-based health insurance exchanges (prior federal funding under the ACA for states to establish their own exchanges ended after 2014). The funding would be provided to states in the form of grants for a period of two years; grants could not be renewed, and no grant could be awarded after Dec. 31, 2022. Grants can only be made to states that do not yet have a state-based exchange, and states must ensure that exchanges are self-sustaining starting Jan. 1, 2024. State-based exchanges could charge assessments or user fees to participating health insurance issuers (currently, health insurers offering plans through an exchange are charged a user fee of 3% on state exchanges and 3.5% on the federal exchange)." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/19]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Restoring Funding For ACA Marketplace Promotion, Funding For States To Create State-Based Exchanges, And Stopping A Trump Rule That Allows People To Get Junk Short-Term Insurance That Does Not Include ACA Requirements Such As Pre-Existing Conditions Protections. In May 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[d] from the bill Title II, which contains several provisions that would facilitate enrollment in and support Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces." Also according to Congressional Quarterly, "[t]he bill includes a number of provisions that seek to bolster enrollment in Affordable Care Act marketplaces by restoring funding to promote ACA health plans and help individuals find affordable health care plans, while also providing funding for states to establish their own state-operated health insurance marketplaces (rather than relying on the existing federal marketplace). It also revokes a Trump administration rule that expands the availability of short-term health plans that don't have to comply with ACA consumer protections, such as protections for individuals with preexisting conditions. Increasing the number of individuals who purchase ACA-compliant plans through the ACA's state exchanges would broaden the insurance risk pool and help reduce the cost of ACA health insurance." The underlying legislation included provisions designed to lower prescription drugs and shored up the ACA. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 189 to 230. [House Vote 210, 5/16/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/16/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 221; Congressional Actions, H.R. 987]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment To The Six-Bill FY 2021 Appropriations Package That Prevented The Justice Department From Bringing Suit Against The ACA. In July 2020, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the FY 2021 six-bill appropriations package that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds provided by the bill for the Justice Department to argue in any litigation that the provisions of the 2010 health care law and certain related provisions are unconstitutional or invalid on any grounds." The vote was on adoption. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 234-181. [House Vote 175, 7/30/20; Congressional Quarterly, 7/30/20; Congressional Quarterly, H.Amdt.865; Congressional Actions, H.R.7617]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting The Justice Department To Challenge The Constitutionality Of The ACA. In June 2019, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds provided by the bill for the Justice Department to argue that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional or invalid in any litigation to which the U.S. is a party." The vote was on adoption. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 238-194. [House Vote 374, 6/20/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.424; Congressional Actions, H.R.3055]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2018 Congressional Progressive Caucus's Budget Resolution, Which Among Other Things, Increased Taxes On The Rich And Corporations And Called For Creating A Public Option In The ACA's Marketplace. In October 2017, Schweikert voted against an FY 2018 CPC budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution would "provide for $3.8 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018, not including off-budget accounts. It would raise overall spending by $3.5 trillion over 10 years and would increase revenues by $8.2 trillion over the same period through policies that would increase taxes for corporations and high-income individuals. It would repeal the Budget Control Act sequester and caps on discretionary spending, would modify the tax code by adding five higher marginal tax rates, would create a public insurance option to be sold within the current health insurance exchanges and would call for implementation of comprehensive immigration overhaul." The amendment was a substitute amendment for the GOP's FY 2018 budget resolution in part designed to start the process for tax reform. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 108 to 314. [House Vote 553, 10/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/4/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 453; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Directing The Office Of The General Counsel Of The House To Represent The House In The Texas ACA Case Which Overturned The Entire ACA. In January 2019, Schweikert voted against rules for the 116th Congress. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Adoption of the resolution that would establish the rules of the House for the 116th Congress. Title III of the resolution would authorize the speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, to intervene in the Texas court case that found the 2010 healthcare law unconstitutional and other cases related to the law. It would also direct the Office of General Counsel to represent the House in any such litigation." The House passed the resolution by a vote of 235 to 192. [House Vote 19, 1/9/19; Congressional Quarterly, 1/9/19; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 6]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against A February 2018 Two-Year Budget Deal Which, Among Other Things, Increased Spending By $300 Billion, Suspended The Debt Ceiling, Reauthorized Community Health Centers For Two Years And Repealed The Independent Payment Advisory Board. In February 2018, Schweikert voted against a two-year budget deal that re-opened the government after a brief shutdown. According to the New York Times, "With Mr. Trump's signature, the government will reopen before many Americans were aware it had closed, with a deal that includes about $300 billion in additional funds over two years for military and nonmilitary programs, almost $90 billion in disaster relief in response to last year's hurricanes and wildfires, and a higher statutory debt ceiling." In addition, according to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation "would provide funding for federal government operations and services at current levels through March 23, 2018 [...] [and] retroactively extends numerous tax breaks that expired at the end of 2016. It also extends the CHIP program for another four years (through FY 2027) and funds community health centers for another two years." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the bill. The House agreed to the motion, essentially on passage, by a vote of 240 to 186. The bill was then sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 69, 2/9/18; New York Times, 2/8/18; Congressional Quarterly, 2/9/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1892]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The Final Version Of Trump's Tax Reform Plan, Which Substantially Cut Taxes For Rich Americans And Corporations, And Repealed The Individual Mandate. In December 2017, Schweikert voted for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, also known as Trump's tax reform bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This Conference Summary deals with the conference report on HR 1, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which the House will consider Tuesday. The agreement significantly cuts corporate and individual taxes and seeks to simply the tax code, although most individual tax provisions would expire after 2025. It reduces the corporate tax from 35% to 21% and reduces taxation of so-called 'pass-through' businesses where profits are taxed at the individual rate. For corporate taxes it also establishes a 'territorial' tax system that exempts most overseas income from U.S. taxation. Most individual tax rate rates would be reduced, including by dropping the top rate from 39.6% to 37%, and it eliminates personal exemptions but nearly doubles the standard deduction so fewer taxpayers will itemize deductions." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 227 to 203. The Senate later passed a slightly modified version of the bill, which the House later agreed to. President Trump later signed an amended version of the bill into law. [House Vote 692, 12/19/17; Congressional Quarterly, 12/18/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
Bill Would Repeal The Individual Mandate. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "Repealing the Individual Mandate. The bill's most significant effects on outlays would occur as a result of the elimination, beginning in 2019, of the penalties associated with the individual mandate. CBO and JCT estimate the following effects of that provision:" [Congressional Budget Office, 11/26/17]
13 Million Fewer Americans Would Have Health Insurance As A Result Of Repealing The Individual Mandate. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "Repealing the Individual Mandate. The bill's most significant effects on outlays would occur as a result of the elimination, beginning in 2019, of the penalties associated with the individual mandate. CBO and JCT estimate the following effects of that provision: [...] The number of people with health insurance would decrease by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027." [Congressional Budget Office, 11/26/17]
Premiums Would Increase By About 10 Percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "Average premiums in the nongroup market would increase by about 10 percent in most years of the decade (with no changes in the ages of people purchasing insurance accounted for) relative to CBO's baseline projections. In other words, premiums in both 2019 and 2027 would be about 10 percent higher than is projected in the baseline." [Congressional Budget Office, 11/26/17]
In 2027, 83 Percent Of The Total Tax Benefit Would Go To The Top One Percent. According to Tax Policy Center, "n 2027, the overall average tax cut would be $160, or 0.2 percent of after-tax income (table 3), largely because almost all individual income tax provisions would sunset after 2025. On average, taxes would be little changed for taxpayers in the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution. Taxpayers in the bottom two quintiles of the income distribution would face an average tax increase of 0.1 percent of after-tax income; taxpayers in the middle income quintile would see no material change on average; and taxpayers in the 95th to 99th income percentiles would receive an average tax cut of 0.2 percent of after-tax income. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution would receive an average tax cut of 0.9 percent of after-tax income, accounting for 83 percent of the total benefit for that year." [Tax Policy Center, 12/18/17]
In 2027, 86 Million Americans Would See A Tax Increase. According to ABC News, "The bill, which carries an estimated $1.5 trillion price tag over 10 years, is not expected to win any Democratic support. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi points to a new analysis from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center that predicts 86 million people would see a tax increase compared to current law by 2027, while 83 percent of the anticipated benefits would be reaped by the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers." [ABC News, 12/19/17]
2017: Schweikert Effectively Voted For Repealing The Individual Mandate. In December 2017, Schweikert voted against a motion to recommit that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "instruct[ed] [...] the managers on the part of the House that they disagree with provisions related to state and local tax deductions, and related to the bill's language that would effectively repeal the individual health care mandate established by the 2010 health care overhaul." The underlying bill was the Trump tax reform bill. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 191 to 236. [House Vote 691, 12/19/17; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2017: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Repeal The Individual Mandate. In December 2017, Schweikert voted against a motion that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "instruct[ed] conferees to disagree with the Senate amendment that would repeal the individual health insurance mandate, and to recede from the section House bill that would eliminate the deduction for state and local income taxes through 2025." The vote was on a motion to instruct the conference committee on the tax reform bill. The House rejected to the motion by a vote of 186 to 233. [House Vote 654, 12/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 12/4/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Fully Repealing Obamacare. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The American Health Care Act That Which Would Result In 23 Million Fewer Americans With Health Insurance By 2026. In May 2017, Schweikert voted for the American Health Care Act which would have significantly repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act by cutting Medicaid, cutting taxes on the rich, removing safeguard for pre-existing conditions and defunding Planned Parenthood. The overall legislation would have in part, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "ma[d]e extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would [have], in 2020, convert[ed] Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide[d] fixed federal payments to states and end[ed] additional federal funding for the 2010 law's joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. It would prohibit federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. [...] It would [have] allow[ed] states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217 to 213. The bill, in modified forms, died in the Senate. [House Vote 256, 5/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/17; Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
Legislation Would Result In 14 Million Additional Uninsured Americans In 2018, Rising To 23 Million In 2026. According to the New York Times, "A bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act that narrowly passed the House this month would leave 14 million more people uninsured next year than under President Barack Obama's health law --- and 23 million more in 2026, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. Some of the nation's sickest would pay much more for health care. Under the House bill, the number of uninsured would be slightly lower, but deficits would be somewhat higher, than the budget office estimated before Republican leaders made a series of changes to win enough votes for passage. Beneath the headline-grabbing numbers, those legislative tweaks would bring huge changes to the American health care system." [New York Times, 5/24/17]
Legislation Would Cut Medicaid By $834 Billon Over The Next Ten Years, Including A Roll Back Of The Medicaid Expansion. According to the New York Times, "The House repeal bill was approved on May 4 by a vote of 217 to 213, with no support from Democrats. It would eliminate tax penalties for people who go without health insurance and roll back state-by-state expansions of Medicaid, which have provided coverage to millions of low-income people. And in place of government-subsidized insurance policies offered exclusively on the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces, the bill would offer tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 a year, depending on age. [...] The bill would reduce projected spending on Medicaid, the program for low-income people, by $834 billion over 10 years, and 14 million fewer people would be covered by Medicaid in 2026 --- a reduction of about 17 percent from the enrollment expected under current law, the budget office said." [New York Times, 5/24/17]
Legislation Repealed The Individual Mandate And The Medicaid Expansion Over Time And Replaced Subsidies With Tax Credits Worth $2,000 To $4,000 For Health Insurance Based On Age. According to the New York Times, "The House repeal bill was approved on May 4 by a vote of 217 to 213, with no support from Democrats. It would eliminate tax penalties for people who go without health insurance and roll back state-by-state expansions of Medicaid, which have provided coverage to millions of low-income people. And in place of government-subsidized insurance policies offered exclusively on the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces, the bill would offer tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 a year, depending on age. A family could receive up to $14,000 a year in credits. The credits would be reduced for individuals making more than $75,000 a year and families making more than $150,000." [New York Times, 5/24/17]
Legislation Replaced The Individual Mandate With A Potential 12 Month 30 Percent Premium Surcharge For Those Who Are Without Coverage For Longer Than 63 Days. According to Vox, "Unlike Obamacare, the AHCA does not mandate that all Americans be covered by health insurance or pay a fee. It repeals the individual mandate, which was one of Obamacare's least popular provisions. Instead, it has a different way of penalizing people who decide to remain uninsured: requiring those who don't maintain 'continuous coverage' to pay a hefty fine when they want to reenter the insurance market. This continuous coverage policy has shown up a lot in Republican replacement plans. It was part of Speaker Ryan's A Better Way proposal and Rep. Tom Price's Empowering Patients First Act. Here's how it works: If a worker goes straight from insurance at work to her own policy, her insurer has to charge her a standard rate --- it can't take the cost of her condition into account. But if said worker had a lapse in coverage longer than 63 days --- perhaps she couldn't afford a new plan between jobs --- and went to the individual market later, insurers could charge her a 30 percent premium surcharge. She would need to pay that higher premium for a full year before returning to the standard rate." [Vox, 5/4/17]
Legislation Would Allow Insurance Companies Charge Premiums Of Five To One, Instead Of Three To One, For Older To Younger Customers. According to the CBO, "Relaxing the current-law requirement that prevents insurers from charging older people premiums that are more than three times larger than the premiums charged younger people in the nongroup and small-group markets. Unless a state sets a different limit, H.R. 1628 would allow insurers to charge older people five times more than younger ones beginning in 2018." [CBO, 5/24/17]
Legislation Would Allow States To Seek A Waiver On Insurance Requirements. According to the Washington Post, "Congressional analysts concluded that one change to the House bill aimed at lowering premiums, by allowing states to opt out of some current insurance requirements, would encourage some employers to maintain coverage for their workers and get younger, healthier people to buy plans on their own. But those gains would be largely offset by consumers with preexisting conditions, who would face higher premiums than they do now." [Washington Post, 5/24/17]
About 1/6 OF Americans Would Live In States Receiving Insurance Waivers On Consumer Protections; These Markets Would Eventually Destabilize. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The House bill would be particularly harmful to older, sicker residents of states that waive key consumer protections in the current law, including the ban on insurers charging sick consumers more. The budget office estimates that about one-sixth of the U.S. population live in states that would seek such waivers, which would be allowed under the House bill. 'Over time, it would become more difficult for less healthy people (including people with preexisting medical conditions) in those states to purchase insurance,' the report notes." [Los Angeles Times, 5/24/17]
Premiums Would Drop In Some States, But Would Be Driven By Insurance With Fewer Benefits, Likely Driving Up Consumer Costs For Sicker Americans Such As Increased Costs For Pregnancy, Mental Health And Substance Abuse. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The budget office projected that average premiums for those who buy their own coverage would be lower in some states after 2020 than under Obamacare, an estimate quickly hailed by Republicans. [...] But the decrease would be driven largely driven by the fact that more people would have plans that cover fewer benefits and shift more costs to consumers, budget analysts wrote. Healthier consumers 'would be able to purchase nongroup insurance with relatively low premiums,' the budget office said. But skimpier plans with high deductibles would be particularly problematic for Americans facing high medical needs. 'Some people enrolled in nongroup insurance would experience substantial increases in what they would spend on healthcare,' the report notes. Out-of-pocket costs for pregnancy, mental health and substance abuse would likely 'increase by thousands of dollars' for people in some states, the budget office said." [Los Angeles Times, 5/24/17]
CBO: States That Opt Out Of Community Rating Protections Would Lead To Sick Americans Being Priced Out Of The Insurance Market. According to the CBO, "Community-rated premiums would rise over time, and people who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all---despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628 to help reduce premiums. As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs. That instability would cause some people who would have been insured in the nongroup market under current law to be uninsured." [CBO via Vox, 5/24/17]
A 64 Year Old American Earning $26,500 Annually Would See Their Annual Premium Increase From $1,700 To $13,600 In Waiver States. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Older and poorer Americans would also see higher premiums or lose coverage altogether. For example, under the House bill, a 64-year-old single American with an income of $26,500 a year would see his or her annual insurance bill jump from $1,700 to $13,600 in states that waive protections now mandated by Obamacare, according to the budget office. By contrast, a similar consumer who is 21 would see his or her premiums decrease from $1,700 to $1,250, budget analysts projected." [Los Angeles Times, 5/24/17]
Legislation Cut Taxes By $662 Billion, Mostly For The Wealthy. According to Vox, "The House bill would also cut taxes by $662 billion over the next decade, according to a separate analysis released Wednesday by the Joint Committee on Taxation, mostly by repealing Obamacare taxes on the wealthy and health care industries." [Vox, 5/24/17]
2017: Schweikert Voted For A Budget Resolution Designed To Begin The Process Of Repealing The Affordable Care Act, Which Also Assumes A $9 Trillion Increase In The Federal Debt Over The Next Ten Years. In January 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution designed to begin reconciliation instructions to repeal the Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "the proposed 10-year spending framework culminates in a $1 trillion annual deficit and adds about $9 trillion to the national debt." The vote was on passage. The House passed the budget resolution by a vote of 227 to 198. The Senate had already passed the resolution. [House Vote 58, 1/13/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/4/17; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 3]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Exempt Individuals From Being Subject To The Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate Penalty If They Lost Insurance Due To A Failed Co-Op. In September 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have exempted individuals from the Affordable Care Act's individual responsibility mandate if they lost insurance due to a failed Co-Op. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "temporarily exempt[ed] (through the end of a given year) individuals whose health care coverage is terminated by the closure of a Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan from penalties set by the 2010 health care law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152). The bill's exemption would [have] appl[ied] retroactively to any cancellation that occurred after Dec. 31, 2013, and would also apply to any future cancellations." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 258 to 165, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 563, 9/27/16; Congressional Quarterly, 9/27/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 954]
The Affordable Care Act Created Consumer Operated And Oriented Plans (Co-Ops) Where Non-Profits That Had Not Been Health Insurers Prior To July 2009 Could Offer Some Health Plans. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In addition to the creation of state exchanges where individuals could purchase health insurance to meet the individual mandate, the 2010 law created a Co-Op program (Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans) under which nonprofits that had not been health insurers prior to July 2009 could offer health plans to individuals and small groups for certain geographic areas. As a Co-Op, those nonprofits were required to use any profits they generate to lower premiums, improve benefits or offer other services that improve the delivery of health care. Creation of the Co-Ops were initially supported by federal loan, and, as with state exchanges, individuals seeking insurance coverage through a Co-Op have been eligible for federal tax subsidies to help reduce the cost of health insurance premiums." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/26/16]
In January 2015, 23 Co-Ops Existed Yet As Of September 2016, Only Six Remain And Many Lost Money Through The Law's Risk Adjustment Program; Co-Ops That Terminate Health Insurance Mid-Year Leave Individuals Subject To The Individual Mandate's Penalties If They Do Not Get Insurance. According to Congressional Quarterly, "As of January 2015, there were 23 Co-Ops providing health benefits to individuals in 25 states. Since that time, however, most of the Co-Ops have collapsed and only six remained as of mid-September, according to the committee. Many Co-Ops lost money through the health care law's risk adjustment program, which is designed to compensate plans that enrolled higher-risk individuals through a system of loans that later result in either pay-outs or pay-backs by individual plans. Co-Ops that collapse in the middle of the year, thereby terminating the insurance coverage for individuals, leave those individuals vulnerable to possible exposure to penalties under the individual mandate unless they subsequently get new coverage from elsewhere, such as through a state exchange. It is estimated that about 760,000 individuals had purchased insurance through one of the 17 failed Co-Ops. [Congressional Quarterly, 9/26/16]
The Affordable Care Act However Offers Remedies Besides Exemption From The Mandate Which Some Democrats Claim Makes This New Exemption Unnecessary. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats have not expressed major opposition to the bill, even though they note that the 2010 health care law already includes mechanisms to help individuals who lose their insurance midyear. Those mechanisms include the possibility of making use of the law's hardship exemption, of not being penalized if the lack of insurance lasts three months or less, and of being eligible to sign up for new insurance through the law's special enrollment periods." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/26/16]
Statement Of Administration Policy: The Individual Mandate Makes Sure That People Cannot Be Denied Health Insurance For Pre-Existing Conditions And That People Do Not Get Insurance Only When They Get Sick; Exempting People Who Have Means Of Getting Insurance Through Existing Avenues Would Create A Bad Precedent. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "H.R. 954 would exempt anyone whose CO-OP ends coverage during the year from the individual-responsibility provision. This is unnecessary given consumer protections already available. Moreover, it would create a bad precedent for using exemptions from the individual-responsibility provision to address unrelated concerns about the Affordable Care Act. The individual-responsibility provision is a necessary part of a system that prohibits discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions and requires guaranteed issuance. The provision helps prevent people from waiting until they get sick to buy health insurance or dropping health insurance when they believe they do not need it. Weakening the individual responsibility provision would increase health insurance premiums and decrease the number of Americans with coverage." [Statement of Administration Policy, 9/27/16]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2016: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2017 Financial Services Appropriations Bill Which Prohibited The IRS From Enforcing The Individual Mandate. In July 2016, Schweikert voted to appropriate $21.7 billion for financial services and general government for FY 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "provide[d] $21.7 billion in discretionary funding for financial services and general government appropriations in fiscal 2017." Also according to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "prohibit[ed] the transfer of funds from the Health and Human Services Department to the IRS for implementing the 2010 health care overhaul (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) and expressly prohibits the IRS from implementing the law's individual mandate." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 239 to 185, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 398, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/21/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Double The Maximum Contribution Limit For Health Savings Account While Also Increasing The Amount Of Money That Slightly Wealthier Taxpayers Must Payback For Overpayment For Health Subsidies From The Affordable Care Act. In July 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modif[ied] rules related to health savings accounts (HSAs) by doubling the maximum contribution limit, allowing couples to divide their combined catch-up contributions among either of their HSAs, creating a special rule for certain medical expenses incurred before the establishment of an HSA, and repealing a rule under the 2010 health care law that made over-the-counter medications ineligible for coverage under HSAs." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 243 to 164. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 351, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1270]
Under The Affordable Care Act, Certain Taxpayers Receive Premium Assistance Credit; If The Taxpayer's Income Increases, They Must Repay A Portion Of The Subsidy. According to Congressional Quarterly, " Under the 2010 law, taxpayers with household incomes below 400% of the federal poverty line who do not otherwise have access to health insurance are eligible for federal subsidies (also known as premium assistance credits) to purchase insurance on state health care exchanges, which are provided through tax credits on an income-based sliding scale. If the individual's income increases over the course of a year while receiving a subsidy, however, he or she may be required to repay a portion of that subsidy, subject to income-based caps on the amount that must be repaid." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/1/16]
Legislation Would Increase The Amount Of Overpayment That The Government Can Require To Be Repaid. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Currently, repayment is capped at $600 for incomes below 200% of the federal poverty line; $1,500 for incomes between 200% and 300% of the federal poverty line; and $2,550 for incomes between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty line. These amounts are adjusted on a year-to-year basis, if necessary. The bill modifies this scale to increase the amount that could be recovered from slightly wealthier individuals by eliminating the caps for income levels at or above 300% of the federal poverty line --- thereby allowing the recapture of the entire subsidy overpayment for those households. For lower income levels, the cap would remain at $1,500 for incomes between 200% and 250% of the federal poverty line, but it would be increased to $3,000 for incomes between 250% and 300% of the federal poverty line." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/1/16]
Democrats Who Oppose The Bill Say That The Overall Bill Would Allow High Income Taxpayers Receive Tax Breaks While Forcing Poorer Americans To Pay Back Subsidies At An Increased Rate. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, mostly Democrats, say it is part of a GOP agenda designed to shift people from affordable, comprehensive coverage to HSAs and high-deductible health plans. They say it would provide unprecedented opportunities for high-income individuals and families to further shelter income from taxes, while Congress is tightening budgets for programs that help vulnerable people." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/1/16]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Senators To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Override President Obama's Veto Of A Bill That Repealed Portions Of The Affordable Care Act, Including Eliminating The Act's Medicaid Expansion In 2018. In February 2016, Schweikert voted to override President Obama's veto of a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "scrap[ed] in 2018 the law's Medicaid expansion, as well as subsidies to help individuals buy coverage through the insurance exchanges." Additionally, according to Congressional Quarterly the bill would have "repeal[ed] portions of the 2010 health care law and block[ed] federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. As amended, the bill would zero-out the law's penalties for noncompliance with the law's requirements for most individuals to obtain health coverage and employers to offer health insurance." The vote was on a veto override, which required a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House, which was 285 in the House. The House rejected the veto override by a vote of 241 to 186. [House Vote 53, 2/2/16; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Real Clear Politics, 12/4/15; Congressional Quarterly, 2/2/16; NBC News, 1/8/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]
2016: Schweikert Voted For A Bill That Repealed Portions Of The Affordable Care Act, Including Eliminating The Act's Medicaid Expansion In 2018. In January 2016, Schweikert voted for a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "scrap[ed] in 2018 the law's Medicaid expansion, as well as subsidies to help individuals buy coverage through the insurance exchanges." Additionally, according to Congressional Quarterly the bill would have "repeal[ed] portions of the 2010 health care law and block[ed] federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. As amended, the bill would zero-out the law's penalties for noncompliance with the law's requirements for most individuals to obtain health coverage and employers to offer health insurance." The vote was on a motion to concur with the Senate amendment which indicated final passage. The House approved the bill by a vote of 240 to 181. The Senate had already passed the measure. President Obama vetoed the legislation, which the House failed to override. [House Vote 6, 1/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Real Clear Politics, 12/4/15; NBC News, 1/8/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal Portions Of The Affordable Care Act And To Defund Planned Parenthood For One Year Through A Reconciliation Bill. In October 2015, Schweikert voted to repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act through a reconciliation bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the reconciliation bill would have "repeal[ed] portions of the 2010 health care law, including: the requirements for most individuals to have health insurance and employers with more than 50 employees to offer it or face penalties, the 2.3 percent tax on the sale of medical devices, the tax on certain high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans, and the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The measure also would block, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and would increase funding for community health centers by $235 million in both fiscal 2016 and 2017." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 240 to 189. The Senate later passed a different version of the legislation, which the president vetoed, which failed to be overridden in the House. [House Vote 568, 10/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/23/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). In June 2015, Schweikert voted to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "repeal[ed] the provisions of the 2010 health care overhaul that created the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which is designed to recommend cost-cutting measures if Medicare spending exceeds a target growth rate. The cost of repealing IPAB would be offset by rescinding an estimated $8.8 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund created under the 2010 health care overhaul." The vote was on passage and the House approved the legislation 244 to 154. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 376, 6/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1190]
IPAB Was Created By The Affordable Care Act And Is A 15-Member Panel Directed To Recommend Medicare Savings If Medicare Grows Too Fast, Congress Has To Prevent Its Savings From Going Into Effects. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "The 2010 health reform law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as the ACA) establishes a new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) with authority to issue recommendations to reduce the growth in Medicare spending, and provides for the Board's recommendations to be considered by Congress and implemented by the Administration on a fast-track basis. [...] IPAB is an independent board housed in the executive branch and composed of 15 full-time members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. IPAB is directed to recommend savings for Medicare if the per capita growth in Medicare spending exceeds defined target growth rates. Prior to 2020, the growth target is based on a measure of inflation, and in subsequent years, it is based on the per capita growth in the economy (gross domestic product (GDP) plus one percentage point). The recommendations made by IPAB move to the Congress for fast-track consideration. If Congress does not act in the required timeframe, the Secretary is required to implement the Board's recommendations, also on a fast-track basis. The Board is prohibited from recommending changes that would reduce payments to certain providers before 2020, and is also prohibited from recommending changes in premiums, benefits, eligibility and taxes, or other changes that would result in rationing." [Kaiser Family Foundation, 4/11]
Critics Have Called The IPAB A Death Panel. According to Michael Cannon via Forbes, "Congress ostensibly created IPAB to do what Congress itself seems unable to do: cut Medicare spending. (Critics therefore call IPAB a 'death panel,' but one could just as defensibly call it a 'life panel.')" [Forbes, 4/15/14]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Repealing The Affordable Care Act, As Part Of The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act as part of the FY 2016 Conference Report budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Adoption of the conference report on the concurrent resolution that would reduce spending by $5.3 trillion over the next 10 years, including $2 trillion in reductions from repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul." The vote was on the Conference Report; the Conference Report passed by a vote of 226 to 197. The Senate also passed the budget resolution. [House Vote 183, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/5/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]
Budget Includes Reconciliation Language To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget contains reconciliation instructions directing the committees with jurisdiction over taxes and health care to draw up legislation to repeal the health care law and deliver their recommendations to the Budget committees by July 24." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/5/15]
Reconciliation Would Prevent Senate Democrats From Filibustering. According to Politico, "Senate Republicans want to use a powerful budget maneuver known as reconciliation to go after President Barack Obama's health care law --- particularly if the Supreme Court strikes down key provisions of Obamacare this June. Using the fast-tracking procedure offers some advantage for Republicans, largely because a reconciliation package can't be filibustered. [Politico, 3/18/15]
Center For Budget And Policy Priorities: Budget Would Eliminate Health Coverage For Millions Of Americans. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House-passed budget agreement that the Senate will consider next week would repeal health reform and cut Medicaid over the coming decade by roughly half a trillion dollars on top, making tens of millions more Americans uninsured." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/1/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Repealing Most Of The Affordable Care Act. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 budget resolution which called repealing most of the Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution, "assumes [...] that the 2010 health care overhaul is repealed --- including its expansion of Medicaid to cover more Americans under the program." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, the budget resolution calls for the "repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. [...] In repealing the health care law, however, the budget assumes that the reductions made to Medicare by that law would not be repealed; instead, those savings and others would be retained, with the budget calling for them to be used to shore up Medicare rather than 'paying for new entitlements.'" The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Repealing Most Of The Affordable Care Act. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called repealing most of the Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution, "assumes [...] that the 2010 health care overhaul is repealed --- including its expansion of Medicaid to cover more Americans under the program." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, the budget resolution calls for the "repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. [...] In repealing the health care law, however, the budget assumes that the reductions made to Medicare by that law would not be repealed; instead, those savings and others would be retained, with the budget calling for them to be used to shore up Medicare rather than 'paying for new entitlements.'" The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Repealing Most Of The Affordable Care Act. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called repealing most of the Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution, "assumes [...] that the 2010 health care overhaul is repealed --- including its expansion of Medicaid to cover more Americans under the program." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, the budget resolution calls for the "repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. [...] In repealing the health care law, however, the budget assumes that the reductions made to Medicare by that law would not be repealed; instead, those savings and others would be retained, with the budget calling for them to be used to shore up Medicare rather than 'paying for new entitlements.'" The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act Through Reconciliation As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for repealing the Affordable Care Act through reconciliation. According to the Republican Study Committee, the budget would have "fully repeal[ed] Obamacare spending and tax increases through reconciliation." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A Bill Repealing The Affordable Care Act And Requiring Congressional Committees To Come Up With A Replacement In No Specified Time. In February 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill repealing the Affordable Care Act and directing four Congressional Committees to come up with a replacement, without specifying when this must be done. According to Congressional Quarterly, "this bill repeals the 2010 health care overhaul [...] and requires House committees to report legislation to replace the health care law. Under the measure, the repeal would be effective 180 days after enactment (rather than retroactively repealed to a date in 2010, as in the introduced version), and it provides that the provisions of law that were amended or repealed by the health care overhaul would be restored or revived as if the overhaul had not been enacted. [...] The bill requires four House committees to report legislation within each of their jurisdictions to replace the 2010 health care overhaul: Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, and Ways and Means. It does not, however, specify a time frame or deadline for those committees to act." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill 239 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 58, 2/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/1/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 596]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act, As Part OF Rep. Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal. In April 2014, Schweikert voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to The Hill, "Rep. Paul Ryan's final House budget includes a full repeal of ObamaCare. [...] Ryan did not lay out the parameters of a replacement, or say what would happen to those who have already obtained coverage under the new healthcare law. But Ryan, seen as a future GOP White House hopeful, said the law was a 'costly mistake' that needed to be replaced." The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; The Hill, 4/1/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution for fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The RSC budget fully repeals Obamacare and provides no funding for it over the next ten years. This reduces spending by $2.066 trillion over ten years and follows through on the commitment of House conservatives to reverse the Administration's unconstitutional federal government takeover of the nation's health care system." The House considered the RSC budget as a substitute amendment to House Republicans' FY 2015 budget resolution; the amendment was rejected by a vote of 133 to 291. [House Vote 175, 4/10/14; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 615; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
RSC Budget Proposed Replacing ACA With Its Own "American Health Care Reform Act." According to the Republican Study Committee, their budget would "[i]mplement real patient-centered health care reform that would lower costs and improve access with the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act. [...] Republicans aren't simply opposed to Obamacare, and we are not blind to the problems that existed pre-Obamacare. Rising costs, limited access to the health care marketplace, and a serious need for medical malpractice reform were issues that existed both before and after Obamacare. The American Health Care Reform Act (AHCRA), the only comprehensive Obamacare alternative to be endorsed by a majority of House Republicans, was born from this realization." [Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14]
Washington Post's Wonkblog: AHCRA "Likely To Cover Fewer People Than Obamacare." According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, "The Republican Study Committee put out a new proposal Wednesday, billed as legislation that could replace the Affordable Care Act. Dubbed the American Health Care Reform Act, H.R. 3121 starts by repealing President Obama's health law and standing up a whole other set of reforms in its place. The component parts are likely to cover fewer people than Obamacare." [Kliff post, Washington Post's Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Add A One Year Delay Of The Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate To The Senate's "Clean" Continuing Resolution That Would Have Prevented A Government Shutdown. In September 2013, Schweikert voted for the proposed rule that, according to the House Rules Committee's report, "provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014. The resolution makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House recede from its amendments and concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in [the Rules Committee's report on the rule]. The resolution provides 40 minutes of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the motion." The House adopted the rule by a vote of 225 to 204. [House Vote 502, 9/30/13; House Report 113-239, 9/30/13; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 367]
Senate Had Sent The House A "Clean" Continuing Resolution That Funded The Government Through November 15, 2013, And Did Not Include Provisions Defunding The ACA. According to Congressional Quarterly, "At the insistence of conservative Republicans and outside conservative groups, the CR as originally passed by the House would have permanently defunded the 2010 health care law. Senate Democrats over the course of the past week, working through the Senate's often lengthy parliamentary procedures, passed the bill after amending it to drop the Obamacare defunding provisions, as well as House language giving Treasury certain limited borrowing authority (Treasury now estimates that it will be unable to fully finance government operations unless the statutory debt limit is raised by Oct. 17). The Senate also made several other changes to the measure, including by shortening the CR's duration from Dec. 15 to Nov. 15." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/28/13]
Rules Committee-Specified Amendment Delayed ACA's Individual Mandate For One Year And Barred Federal Contributions To Lawmakers' And Staffers' Health Insurance. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The leaders' latest plan would delay for a year a mandate in the Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) that individuals buy insurance and include a proposal from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to roll back federal contributions provided to lawmakers and staff to offset some of the cost of health insurance, a benefit many other employers provide their workers." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13]
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Opposed Rule, Said Process Of Attaching Conditions To Continuing Resolution Was "Dead End" And A Clean Continuing Resolution Should Be Voted On. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., said he would vote against the rule because it is a 'dead end' that the Senate will not accept. He said leaders should put a clean continuing resolution on the House floor for a vote. 'We have to end this process,' King said. 'I don't want to facilitate a process that's doomed.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13]
Supporters Said Individual Mandate Delay Was Fair In Light Of Administration's Year-Long Delay Of Employer Mandate And Alleged Exception For Members Of Congress. According to Congressional Quarterly, "'It's pretty clear that what our Members want is fairness for the American people,' Boehner said in a statement issued after a House Republican Conference meeting. 'The president provided a one-year delay of the employer mandate. He's provided exceptions for unions and others. There's even exceptions for Members of Congress. We believe that everyone should be treated fairly.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13]
Backers Of Barring Federal Contribution To Cost Of Members' And Staff's Health Care Premiums Argued That It Would Put Congress In The Same Position As Ordinary Americans With Regards To The ACA. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House plan also would include language long pursued by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would roll back contributions provided to members and staff. He and other Republicans say it would ensure that Congress is subject to the same law as ordinary citizens. 'The entire cabinet and the president and all his political appointees will have to live under Obamacare, the same as members of Congress,' said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. 'We still continue to believe the individual mandate being delayed is in the best interests of the American people.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13]
Opponents Of Ending Federal Contribution Argued It Meant Members And Their Staffs Would Be Treated Differently Than Ordinary Federal Employees. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said he's not sure he'd vote for the plan because it puts legislative branch employees in a lower class than other federal employees. 'Making us different than any other federal employee is unfair to everybody. We should be treated like everybody else who works in the federal government,' he said." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Block Affordable Care Act Implementation Or Enforcement By The Treasury Department. In August 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the Treasury secretary, or any delegate of the secretary, including the IRS, from implementing or enforcing any provisions of the 2010 health care law. Provisions of the law slated to go into effect in 2014 require individuals to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty." The vote was on the House's version of the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013, which the House passed by a vote of 232 to 185. The bill was then sent to the Senate, which took no substantive action on it. [House Vote 447, 8/2/13; Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2009]
The Bill Would Have Blocked The IRS From Enforcing The ACA's Individual Mandate. According to the Virginia-Pilot, "Voting 232-185, the House on Friday passed a Republican bill (HR 2009) to strip the Internal Revenue Service of its authority to enforce the 2010 health law's individual mandate. Under the mandate, most individuals are required to maintain a minimal level of health insurance for themselves and their dependents - through either employer-provided coverage, a policy bought in a state-based exchange, Medicaid, Medicare or other means. Those not complying are subject to an IRS-enforced financial penalty capped at the cost of the insurance they failed to acquire. The Supreme Court has declared such taxing power constitutional. This bill also bars the Treasury and IRS from collecting other taxes or issuing tax credits under the health law." [Virginia-Pilot, 8/5/13]
This Was The 40th Time Since January 2011 That The House Had Voted To Repeal, Impede Or Cancel Funds For Implementation Of The ACA. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The chamber passed GOP legislation (HR 2009) to halt the IRS's enforcement of tax penalties under the law 232-185. The vote was the 40th to repeal, impede or cancel funds for implementation of the overhaul (PL 111-148; PL 111-152) in the past two and a half years." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Block Any New Affordable Care Act Regulations From Taking Effect Without Express Congressional Approval. According to August 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would include in the [underlying bill's definition of major regulations, rules made under the 2010 health care overhaul law." The vote was on an amendment to the House's version of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2013, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "bar[red] major federal agency rules from being implemented without congressional approval." The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 227 to 185. The House later passed the amended bill; however, as of mid-December, 2013, the Senate had taken no substantive action on it. [House Vote 438, 8/2/13; Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/13; Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/13; Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 450; Congressional Actions, H.R. 367]
Underlying Bill Was Part Of House Republicans' "Stop Government Abuse Week." According to Congressional Quarterly, "House Republican leaders planned their floor agenda leading into the summer recess as a platform to display their disdain for Washington, dubbing it 'Stop Government Abuse Week.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 8/5/13]
The Underlying Bill Would, In Effect, Give The House's GOP Majority Veto Power Over All Major Agency Rules. According to the Times-Picayune, "The centerpiece of the legislative efforts was a bill approved Friday that would require Congress to approve executive agency regulations with an economic impact of more than $100 million. Currently, Congress can disapprove any rule. Requiring both houses to approve a regulation would give the House GOP majority the ability, on its own, to kill major agency rules." [Times-Picayune, 8/4/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In May 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, "Repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective as of its enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by such Act. Repeals the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010, effective as of the Act's enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by the Act's health care provisions." The bill passed by a vote of 229 to 195. The bill was placed on the Senate Calendar but no further action was taken. [House Vote 154, 5/16/13; CRS Summary of H.R. 45, 5/16/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 45]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Repealing The Affordable Care Act As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Schweikert voted for repealing the Affordable Care Act, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the House Budget Committee, the budget would "Repeal the President's health-care law." The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
Ryan's Budget Eliminated ACA's Independent Payment Advisory Board, Costing The Government $3.1 Billion Over Ten Years. According to the text of Ryan's Budget, "additional cuts from the IPAB board will force even more health care providers to close their doors, and the Board should be repealed." According to CRS, "Under current law, beginning in 2014, the IPAB is required to develop proposals to reduce the Medicare per capita expenditure growth rate if Medicare spending is projected to exceed a certain target. CBO estimates that the repeal of IPAB would cost $3.1 billion over 10 years." [CRS, 3/29/12]
Ryan's Budget Retained The Tax Increases In The ACA. According to the Heritage Foundation, "But, as noted above, perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it keeps the tax increases associated with Obamacare. These tax hikes are the oxygen that fuels the fire of ever bigger spending. But the entire fire needs to be put out---all of Obamacare should be repealed, including its tax hikes." [Heritage Foundation, 3/12/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support repealing the Affordable Care Act, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Committee, the budget would "Repeal the President's health-care law." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Required DHHS To Report Enrollment Figures For The ACA. In June 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Health and Human Services Department, in its report to Congress on enrollment figures for Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace, to detail enrollments by state, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, preferred language, age, and sex." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 235-183. [House Vote 313, 6/13/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 329; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Continuing To Prohibit Funding The Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services From Moving Money To Pay For Extra Risk Corridor Expenses As Part Of The FY 2016 Omnibus. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly would be, "continuati[ng] [the] FY 2015 policy [which][...] prohibits the use of any funds from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund or Federal Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund, or funds transferred from other accounts, for the risk corridor program. That program was designed to protect health insurance providers from sustaining excessive losses due to unbalanced risk pools on insurance exchanges. It would limit any payout to fees paid into the program." The legislation was, according to Congressional Quarterly, a FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 316 to 113. The legislation was later combined with a tax extender bill. The Senate passed the larger measure and the president signed it. [House Vote 705, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
Politifact: The Risk Corridor Program Was Set Up By The Affordable Care Act To Help Companies Stay Solvent As They Began To Sell Insurance To People With Pre-Existing Conditions. According to Politifact, "To set the table, we need to take a deep breath and go over a provision of the Affordable Care Act known as 'risk corridors.' The ACA upended the traditional health insurance model of selling mostly to healthy people, mandating that insurers must provide policies to everyone, regardless of health or pre-existing conditions. That presented a problem for the companies, which didn't know how much they would need to charge in premiums in order to cover their expenses for all the new policies. To help companies stay solvent as they adjusted their rates to proper levels, the law provided a three-year period in which the government would spread the risk among all insurers in ACA marketplaces. This program, set to last between 2014-16, is known as risk corridors. If some insurers are successful in setting their marketplace rates properly and make more than a certain amount, Washington gets some of that extra money, referred to as user fees. Companies that don't do well have a portion of their losses covered by the government." [Politifact, 12/7/15]
2014: Law Was Changed So That The Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services Could Not Move Money To Pay For Extra Risk Corridor Expenses. According to Politifact, "When Congress passed a spending bill in December 2014, it included a sentence, or a 'rider' in legislative speak, that said the CMS' parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, could not move money around in its budget to pay extra risk corridor expenses. Other legislators have credited Rubio with inspiring this language. Rubio has since reintroduced his bill to repeal risk corridors. Everyone had to wait until insurance companies turned in their results to see how the risk corridors were working. The first year didn't go as well as CMS and the Obama administration had hoped. In October 2015, CMS announced the risk corridors program took in $362 million for 2014, while less successful insurers asked for a total of $2.87 billion. That left a $2.5 billion shortfall CMS can't pay." [Politifact, 12/7/15]
"Rubio Rider" Did Not Prevent Companies From Getting Paid. According to Politifact, ""All the rider did is say, 'If you're going to go scrape the couch cushions for money to pay for this, don't,' Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, told PolitiFact Florida. 'The Rubio rider is preventing the administration from coming up with a workaround to a problem the law already had.' There are still two years left in the risk corridors program, which the Congressional Budget Office said will likely eventually break even. If the program is in the red after 2016, CMS will either have to somehow find the money or ask Congress to decide whether to approve cash to pay the bill. Otherwise insurers could potentially sue to get what the law says they're owed." [Politifact, 12/7/15]
Ability To Sue For Money Would Be "Small Conciliation" For Co-Ops That Need The Funds Now. According to The Incidental Economics, "Still, I doubt the contractual wrinkle makes a difference. HHS apparently doesn't either: it announced two weeks back that it 'is recording those amounts that remain unpaid ... as [an] obligation of the United States Government for which full payment is required.' If HHS, pursuant to clear statutory authority, has made binding financial commitments to health plans, those commitments should be enforceable in court. That's small consolation to the co-ops that needed risk corridor payments now to stay afloat. But the question for health plans isn't whether they'll get paid. It's when. Marco Rubio hasn't killed Obamacare and he hasn't saved taxpayers any money. All he's done is throw a wrench in the works." [The Incidental Economist, 12/1/15]
Politifact: 'Mostly False' That Rubio "Stopped An Obamacare Bailout That Saved Taxpayers $2.5 Billion." According to Politifact, "Rubio said, 'Last year, I stopped an Obamacare bailout and saved taxpayers $2.5 billion.' He's referring to a provision in the Affordable Care Act called risk corridors, which faced a $2.5 billion shortfall for 2014. Rubio, whose efforts to repeal risk corridors have so far failed, helped persuade Congress last year to prevent Health and Human Services from being able to cover the difference with money from its own budget. But experts said calling the program a bailout is not accurate. They also noted CMS has said they want the risk corridors to pay for themselves through fees from insurers. Most importantly, experts also said Rubio did not necessarily save that money in the long run. His best argument is he temporarily limited one way CMS could have tried to pay for insurance companies' losses. The program has two more years to cover its expenses. If any bills are due after that time, CMS or Congress will have to find a way to pay them because they are obligated to do so. Rubio oversimplified a complex process that is still largely unresolved. We rate his statement Mostly False." [Politifact, 12/7/15]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Effectively Blocked A Trump Administration Rule Allowing For The Sale Of Health Insurance Policies That Don't Comply With The ACA. In June 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds made available under the bill for the implementation, administration or enforcement of an August 2018 rule issued by the Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services related to short-term limited-duration insurance plans." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 236-188. [House Vote 283, 6/13/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 300; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]
The Amendment Effectively Blocked A Trump Administration Rule That Allowed For Health Insurance Plans That Do Not Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions. According to the New York Times, "The Trump administration issued a final rule on Wednesday that clears the way for the sale of many more health insurance policies [short-term limited-duration insurance] that do not comply with the Affordable Care Act and do not have to cover prescription drugs, maternity care or people with pre-existing medical conditions." [New York Times, 8/1/18]
New York Times: Short-Term Limited-Duration Insurance "[Lures] Healthy People Away" From The Insurance Markets And Raises Premiums For Sicker People. According to the New York Times, "Democrats derided the new policies as 'junk insurance' that will lure healthy people away from the broader insurance market, raising premiums for sicker people and putting purchasers at risk. 'After an illness or an injury, many Americans who enroll in these G.O.P. junk health coverage plans will end up being hit by crushing medical bills, finding that they have been paying for coverage that doesn't cover much at all,' said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader." [New York Times, 8/1/18]
Many Stakeholders, Including Consumer Advocates, Doctors, Hospitals, And Insurance Companies, All Opposed The Rule. According to the New York Times, "Consumer advocates, doctors, hospitals and some insurance companies expressed deep concern about the new plans, saying they would not adequately protect people who develop serious illnesses and could further destabilize insurance markets by drawing away healthy people. People who buy the new policies and develop cancer could 'face astronomical costs' and 'may be forced to forgo treatment entirely because of costs,' said Chris Hansen, the president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network." [New York Times, 8/1/18]