Nick Begich Served As A Fellow For Club For Growth, Which Supported Repealing The Affordable Care Act And Turning Medicare Into A Voucher Program

Begich “Recently Completed A Fellowship With The Club For Growth, America’s Leading Free-Enterprise, Limited-Government Advocacy Group.” “As a lifelong Republican, Nick Begich has held a variety of professional and political roles with the intent of growing opportunity through entrepreneurship. […] Additionally, Nick recently completed a Fellowship with the Club for Growth, America’s leading free-enterprise, limited-government advocacy group.” [Nick Begich for Congress, Archived 3/1/22]

Image: see original report, p. 109

[Nick Begich for Congress, Archived 3/1/22]

Begich’s LinkedIn Page Listed His Location As “Washington, District Of Columbia” When He Served As A Fellow At Club For Growth Starting In June 2020. [LinkedIn, Nicholas Begich III, Accessed 9/7/24]

Image: see original report, p. 110

[LinkedIn, Nicholas Begich III, Accessed 9/7/24]

Club For Growth Supported Repealing The Affordable Care Act And Turning Medicare Into A Voucher Program To Purchase Private Insurance

Club For Growth Supported Repealing The Affordable Care Act And Enacting “Medicare Reform That Utilizes A Premium-Support Function To Replace The Current System.” “Policy Recommendations: Repeal Obamacare. Enact Medicare reform that utilizes a premium-support function to replace the current system. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Create Social Security personal retirement accounts that workers would own and could use to build nest eggs for retirement.” [Club for Growth, Accessed 9/7/24]

Image: see original report, p. 110

[Club for Growth, Accessed 9/7/24]

Converting Medicare Into A “Premium Support” System That Would Provide Beneficiaries With A Flat Payment To Purchase Private Insurance “Would Likely Lead To A Two-Tier Health Care System” Where Only The Very Wealthy Could Afford The Best Care

Converting Medicare Into A “Premium Support” System Would “Replace Its Guarantee Of Health Coverage With A Flat Payment That Beneficiaries Could Use To Help Them Purchase Private Insurance.” “Some policymakers and analysts have proposed to convert Medicare to a ‘premium support’ system — that is, replace its guarantee of health coverage with a flat payment that beneficiaries could use to help them purchase private insurance or, in some versions, traditional Medicare. But proponents have crafted a widely diverse set of proposals that they call premium support, and some leading proposals of recent years — such as the plan from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan that the House approved in April — differ greatly, in design and rationale, from the premium support concept that Henry Aaron and Robert Reischauer introduced in 1995.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/26/11]

Converting Medicare Into A “Premium Support” System “Would Likely Lead To A Two-Tier Health Care System” Where Only The Very Wealthy Could Afford The Best Care. “Premium support — no matter what form it takes — raises several very important and challenging issues that may seem manageable in theory but would be extremely hard to resolve satisfactorily in practice. And failure to resolve these challenges satisfactorily would likely lead to a two-tier health care system: the affluent would receive the most up-to-date medical care (since they could buy comprehensive coverage by supplementing the premium support payment with their own funds), while those of modest means who could only afford the coverage that their premium support payment buys would increasingly find medical advances out of their reach.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/26/11]

Begich Claimed He Wanted To Find “Market-Based Solutions” For Health Care. “Healthcare reform means more choices and lower costs for Alaskans. I’m committed to finding practical, market-based solutions. #Alaska” [Twitter, @NickforAlaska, 12/28/23]

Image: see original report, p. 111

[Twitter, @NickforAlaska, 12/28/23]

• The 2017 ACA Repeal Bill Would Have Removed Subsidies That Allowed Families To Purchase Private Health Care In The ACA Marketplace. “First, the bill attacks people’s ability to purchase private insurance. It eliminates the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) subsidies that allow individuals and families to afford health plans in the ACA’s marketplaces, replacing them with tax credits that favor the wealthy.” [ACLU, 3/16/24]

Block Grants Championed By The Club For Growth Would Disproportionately Harm States With Lower Income Per Capita And Decrease Coverage Rates For Children Who Faced Systemic Inequalities

Fixed Federal Funding Would Decrease Entitlement Programs’ Reactivity To Increased Demand, Necessitating Waitlists Or Benefit Cuts. “Block-granting these programs would strip away the federal commitment to help vulnerable individuals and families who are eligible for these programs when they need them. Fixed annual funding would render the programs unable to automatically respond to increased need, as they do today. As need increases, states would have to cut eligibility or benefits or establish waiting lists to stay within capped funding.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Accessed 9/13/24]

Flexible Entitlement Program Funding Is An Important Economic Stabilizer During Recessions. “By assisting people when times are tough, entitlements also help stabilize the economy. As the economy recovers, fewer people qualify for benefits. A block grant wouldn’t respond the same way to a faltering economy and greater need. Fixed funding levels would require states to absorb higher costs — or to cut eligibility or benefits. And the economy would lose an automatic stabilizer, which would worsen the downturn. That’s because unlike with entitlements, block grants would not provide guaranteed resources to spend in local communities and, in turn, help keep people employed.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Accessed 9/13/24]

Block Grants Would Establish The Same Federal Match Rate For All States Regardless Of Per Capita Income, Disproportionately Harming States With High Poverty Rates. “Medicaid is currently funded through a federal-state partnership. The federal government pays a fixed percentage match for each dollar a state spends on Medicaid. The match percentage considers a state’s per capita income so that states with lower incomes get more support.[…]Under the [Block Grant] proposal, the federal match for state Medicaid programs would be reduced to a 50/50 match for all states regardless of per capita income, disproportionately harming states with high rates of poverty.” [First Focus on Children, 8/18/23]

Medicare And CHIP Are Primary Healthcare Coverage Providers For Children In Foster Care, Children With Disabilities, And Children Of Color, Who Would Be Disproportionately Harmed By Block Grants. “Medicaid and CHIP cover 47% of the more than 13 million U.S. children with special health care needs.7 These children often require costly treatment. Consequently, capping Medicaid funding would disproportionately affect these children by limiting access to services, including some that would not be available through private insurance[…] Medicaid plays a critical role for children in foster care by providing them with comprehensive healthcare coverage to address what are often their very particular needs. Medicaid and CHIP are primary sources of coverage for children of color. More than half of children who identify as Native American, Black, Latino, or multiracial have Medicaid as their source of health insurance. Children of color in the United States face an array of health disparities.[…]Maintaining the current structure of Medicaid is crucial to ensure equitable access to quality health care for children, especially children of color, in order to address and overcome health disparities rooted in systemic inequities.[First Focus on Children, 8/18/23]

Converting Medicare Into A Premium Support System Could Increase Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Medicare Beneficiaries By Over $6,000

Converting Medicare Into A Premium Support System Could Increase Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Medicare Beneficiaries By Over $6,000. “Myth: Premium support will reduce Medicare’s costs. Fact: Premium support plans don’t reduce costs, they shift them onto the patient. The rising cost of premiums will quickly outstrip the value of the fixed federal contribution, and seniors will have to pay more in either premiums or out-of-pocket payments for care. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Ryan’s original Medicare proposal would raise out-of-pocket costs for the typical 65-year-old Medicare beneficiary in 2022 by $6,240. They haven’t estimated the cost of the latest plan yet.” [Physicians for a National Health Program, 8/14/12]