Republicans are quietly rolling back Obamacare
Mildly (temperament) rewritten CNN piece on the Affordable Care Act and how Republicans are changing it instead of repealing it. Republicans are claiming increased fraud. No so much with the recipients using the ACA but with the various brokers selling the plans. I am not sure how taking healthcare away from people has a positive economic impact or fixing the fraud issues. Somewhere, they are going to get healthcare and many hospitals will have to provide the care without being reimbursed.
Roughly 15 million people will lose healthcare insurance. Many more will be priced oiut of healthcare insurance as subsidizes decrease from 600% FPL to 400% FPL. Will people just die because they do not have insurance? Not likely; but, they will not be able to pay medical bills.
Finally, hospitals can and will go bankrupt as a result of increased uncompensated costs. Many smaller hospitals outside of cities will go bankrupt and close. Healthcare will be more difficult to obtain in smaller communities.
Rolling Back the Affordable Care Act
President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are no longer promising to repeal Obamacare, but that doesn’t mean they have given up efforts to take down the landmark health reform law.
Unlike in 2017, when the late GOP Sen. John McCain’s dramatic thumbs-down dashed his caucus’s hope of overturning the Affordable Care Act, Republicans barely mentioned Obamacare as they swiftly pushed Trump’s massive domestic agenda package through Congress this year. Instead, they focused their talking points on eliminating fraud in Medicaid and protecting the program for the most vulnerable.
And this time, they were successful in dealing a major blow to the Affordable Care Act. The “big, beautiful bill,” along with a new rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is expected to leave millions more people without health coverage, raise costs for those who remain in Obamacare policies, and reverse more than a decade of improvement in the nation’s uninsured rate.
In addition, Trump’s package is projected to shrink another major provision of the Affordable Care Act — expanding Medicaid coverage to low-income adults — by requiring many of them to work, volunteer or engage in other activities at least 80 hours a month.
“The net effect of the changes they are making is a partial repeal of the ACA,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a nonpartisan research group.
What’s more, Republicans may further undermine Obamacare before the end of the year if they do not extend the enhanced federal premium subsidies (dropping from 600% FPL to 400% FPL former President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats approved in 2021. The beefed-up subsidies, which helped propel record sign-ups for Obamacare coverage but lapse at the end of 2025, will be a subject of debate when Congress returns in September.
Democratic lawmakers are already calling attention to the subsidies’ expiration, which would send people’s premium payments skyrocketing and prompt millions to drop their policies, experts say. Some Republicans have voiced support in exploring the matter, especially since red-state residents would likely be among those losing coverage.
Renewed debate
Even though the “big, beautiful bill” contains the largest-ever cuts to federal support for health coverage, it remains to be seen whether the Republicans’ toned-down rhetoric on Obamacare will help them avoid the retribution they suffered in the 2018 midterms, when the repeal effort was a major factor in the Democrats winning control of the House.
“Many of the changes are so technical, it may be hard for the public to grasp what’s happening,” Levitt said. “Many of the changes will take years to take effect.”
Between them, the new law and rule will make it harder to enroll in and renew Affordable Care Act coverage by increasing verification requirements, hiking out-of-pocket costs for enrollees, and banning certain legal immigrants from qualifying for federal subsidies.
The rule is expected to cause up to 1.8 million people to lose Obamacare coverage next year, and the losses will likely be concentrated in seven GOP-led states, including Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, as well as North Carolina, which has a Democratic governor, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act provisions in the law are forecast to lead to 2.1 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Director of Health Coverage access at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Jennifer Sullivan . . .
“It’s a radical weakening of what the marketplaces will be able to deliver in the next few years,”
But supporters of the Republicans’ efforts say the law and rule aim to eliminate many of the expansions and flexibilities in enrollment and verification that Biden introduced into Obamacare, which also opened it up to more fraud, mainly by insurance brokers. (The Biden administration last year took steps to counter an increase in brokers fraudulently accessing and making changes in consumers’ accounts without authorization.)
Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, a right-leaning think tank, told CNN, “The One Big, Beautiful Bill restores the ACA, rather than repeal it. It actually seems like [it’s] upholding the integrity of the program.
If you can take sort of simple steps like having people every year update their information and having that verified to reduce billions — if not tens of billions — [of dollars] of waste and fraud expenditures, it doesn’t undermine the program.” Blase, served as a health policy adviser at the White House’s National Economic Council during the first Trump administration. His work is closely followed by Republican lawmakers.
Impact of the changes
The law and the rule make sweeping changes to the Affordable Care Act.
Enrollees will be required to verify their income in advance of receiving federal premium assistance to guarantee they are eligible, instead of only reconciling their earnings and subsidies on their tax returns to ensure they received the proper amount of assistance.
Also, they will not be allowed to receive federal subsidies if they fail to file their taxes and reconcile for one year. Plus, if they received too high a subsidy (because they underestimated their income when enrolling), they will have to pay back the entire amount of the excess assistance. Previously, there were limits on the repayment requirement.
The beefed-up verification mandate effectively ends automatic reenrollment in Obamacare, a key method of keeping people covered. Nearly 11 million people — or 45% of sign-ups — were automatically reenrolled for 2025, according to KFF.
The rule also temporarily requires low-income enrollees who qualify for plans with $0 premiums to pay $5 a month until they verify their eligibility. And it allows insurers to require enrollees to pay both initial and past-due premiums before coverage starts.
In addition, it shortens the open enrollment period on the federal healthcare.gov exchange to November 1 through December 15 and requires state-run Affordable Care Act exchanges to end open enrollment by December 31.
The rule also temporarily repeals the ability for those with household incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty line to enroll year-round, while the law bars those who sign up via certain types of special enrollment periods from receiving federal subsidies.
What’s more, the rule makes technical changes that will hike the annual cost of coverage by hundreds of dollars by reducing the premium subsidies and allowing insurers to raise out-of-pocket costs when people receive care. And certain legal immigrants, including refugees, asylees and victims of sex and labor trafficking, will no longer qualify for federal assistance.
The additional documentation and higher costs are expected to lead to healthier enrollees dropping out of the exchanges in coming years, leaving sicker consumers with greater health care needs in the program. That will likely cause insurers to raise their premiums even more or drop out in coming years.
The rule is being challenged in two lawsuits filed by a coalition of Democratic-led states and by a group of cities and organizations, which argue that it will lead to more people losing coverage. That, in turn, will raise the states’ and cities’ costs for providing health care services to these newly uninsured residents, the plaintiffs say.
The turmoil is already having an impact. Insurers have proposed a median premium hike of 18% for 2026, more than double last year’s proposed increase, in part because of the looming expiration of the enhanced premium subsidies, according to a KFF analysis. And Aetna has already announced it will not offer Obamacare coverage next year.
Jennifer Sullivan adds . . . “It will be a tumultuous few years as insurers and people who rely on the marketplace for health insurance ride this out.”
“ACA insurance: The backdoor way Republicans are rolling back Obamacare,” CNN Politics

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t this mostly just rolling back Biden’s America Rescue Plan during the pandemic? I recall when I retired in ’21 we had to get my wife coverage for a few months until she was eligible for Medicare. Even though I stated my income was $90k for the year, she was able to get basic coverage for $0. I was pleasantly surprised but I’m not sure that was the original intent of the ACA.
Wiley
Initially it was an increase to 600% FPL. Now? It would be a roll back to 400% FPL However, insurance costs have increased and 400% was just enough. The environment has changed since the ACA was initiated. Rather than attempt to explain, here is a C&P from KFF:
“The CBO projects that 4.2 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 if enhanced ACA tax credits expire. The enhanced premium tax credits were originally passed by Congress in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and extended under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), but they are set to expire at the end of 2025. The enhanced tax credits both increased the amount of financial help for those already eligible under the ACA and expanded eligibility to those making more than four times poverty ($124,800 for a family of four in 2025), capping premium payments for a benchmark plan at 8.5% of their income.”
Expiration of Enhanced ACA Benefits
They could nationalize healthcare with such a program as Medicare for all?
“They could nationalize healthcare with such a program as Medicare for all?”
Nope.
Medicare premiums are way too low. We pay $175/mo/person.
Before Obamacare and over 10 years ago, I was paying $800/mo for a high-deductible HSA plan.
@Dave,
How do you think all the other industrialized nations on the planet do single payer?
Correct . . .
The paid premiums for Medicare are not really reflective of how Medicare is actually financed. Behind that are credits coming from on-going Medicare taxation of the workforce. The actual money in the system notionally associated with “Dave Barnes risk” is far above the $175/mo. One presumes that all of Medicaid, all the Obamacare subsidies, all of Medicare, all of employer market insurance billings and probably all of VA would be available for starters. But keep in mind that it’s hard to think that the current provider networks would accept Medicare rates for services because they have traditionally just nodded at Medicare schedules and made up for what they consider the shortfalls in the rest of their business.
Eric:
Medicare has a Trust Fund also,
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund solvent five additional years until 2036, Medicare trustees project
The Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will have sufficient funds to pay full benefits until 2036, according to the latest annual report by the Medicare Board of Trustees. That’s five years longer than reported last year, mainly due to strong economic and job growth, lower projected health care spending based on more recent data and a policy change to exclude medical education expenses associated with Medicare Advantage enrollees from the fee-for-service per capita costs used in the development of MA spending, trustees said. Known as Medicare Part A, the HI Trust Fund helps pay for inpatient hospital services, hospice care, and skilled nursing facility and home health services following hospital stays.
The Trustees report also projects that the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund, which funds Medicare Part B and Part D, is adequately financed into the indefinite future because, unlike the other trust funds, the federal government automatically adjusts SMI Trust Fund contributions and premiums annually to cover costs for the upcoming year. However, the report notes that Medicare Part B and Part D spending are projected to increase faster than general economic growth in the next five years.
The report notes that the “Trustees assume that the long-range NHE growth differential will continue to narrow, consistent with the trajectory observed over the past half century, and that cost-reduction provisions required under current law will further decrease this gap.”