Sen. Loeffler should be applauded for releasing this proposal. The Modernizing Americans’ Health Care Plan contains important proposals to expand HSAs to American families across the country, rejects efforts to impose price controls when addressing surprise medical billing, and provides reforms to lower prescription drug costs and incentivize American manufacturing. 

Not only does this proposal contain a number of pro-growth, patient centered reforms, it also serves as an important contrast to the proposals put forth by the radical left to increase taxes and move the nation’s healthcare system closer toward socialism. 

Highlights of the proposal include:

Expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
HSAs are currently used by 30 million American families to pay for common health care expenses, including doctor’s visits, prescription drugs, and hospital care. HSAs are also a middle-class tax cut – money contributed to any HSA is tax-deductible, money invested in an HSA can grow tax-free, and money spent on qualified health care expenses from an HSA is tax-free.

The framework expands HSAs so that Americans can pay for their healthcare tax free. This will allow millions of Americans across the country including gig-economy workers, every American that receives health care through their employer, Americans on Medicare and Medicaid, and those that receive care through the VA, Indian health plans, and Obamacare.

The proposal also allows HSAs to be used to pay for healthcare premiums and direct primary care and increases the HSA contribution limit from $3,550 to $10,800 for an individual and $7,100 to $29,500 for a family.

Addressing surprise medical billing without resorting to price controls
Sen. Loeffler’s legislation rejects efforts to address surprise medical billing without price controls. Surprise medical billing occurs when an individual receives an unexpectedly high medical bill as a result of being out of network or receiving emergency care.

While reforms to protect patients from high healthcare costs should be considered, some lawmakers, including Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), are pushing a surprise medical billing proposal that uses the heavy hand of government to set rates for any payments made to out-of-network providers. 

This would replace private negotiations between insurers and providers with price controls, a proposal that should be anathema to conservatives as it utilizes government power to forcefully lower costs in a way that distorts economically efficient behavior and natural incentives created by the free market. 

Sen. Loeffler’s proposal wisely reject these price controls. Moving forward, any attempt to address the surprise medical billing issue should be done in a way that avoids price controls.

Reducing drug costs and America’s dependency on China
The framework rejects the plan by far-left Democrats and Nancy Pelosi to enact socialized healthcare through H.R.3, legislation that would impose a 95 percent tax on hundreds of innovative medicines if manufacturers do not accept government set prices.

Instead, Sen. Loeffler’s proposal aims to address the root cause of high drug costs – the fact that foreign countries are freeloading off American innovation by artificially lowering prices. In order to solve this problem, the framework calls for the creation of a Chief Pharmaceutical and Medical Supply Chain Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative to fight against foreign price controls.

Sen. Loeffler’s framework also encourages American manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and supplies by providing tax incentives for American businesses.

For instance, the proposal allows companies that move back to the U.S. to be eligible for fully business expensing on non-residential property. In order to prevent companies from being taxed when they choose to move back to the U.S, the proposal allows businesses to exclude from gross income any gain earned on the disposition of assets in the country the company is moving from. 

These tax cuts will help level the playing field so that America can compete against the rest of the world. The U.S. currently lags foreign competitors, so these reforms are much needed. According to a study by the Manufacturing Leadership Council, the U.S. ranks 26 out of 36 when it comes to tax incentives that encourage domestic research and development.

Utah voters approved Amendment G, which appeared on the general election ballot. This taxpayer win is a great first step towards ending an antiquated approach to managing the state budget.

Since Utah has had an income tax in place, 100% of income tax revenue has been earmarked for ‘education.’ This bizarre arrangement, which is almost exclusive to Utah (Alabama has a similar earmark), has resulted in Utah state government costing more than it should and would otherwise be the case.

Despite the fact that Utah has experienced significant surpluses in income tax revenue – roughly $1 billion in 2019 alone – not a single dollar could be used to cover other parts of the budget. As a result, other taxes have remained higher than “necessary” since income tax revenue could not go towards any other government programs.

This arrangement has also made it incredibly difficult to deliver pro-growth tax reform that reduces, or ideally phases out, the state income tax. “This [earmarking all income tax revenue for education] means the most powerful lobby in Utah – the teacher’s union – is an opponent of all pro-growth reductions in the state income tax burden,” explained Grover Norquist in an OpEd in UtahPolicy.com.

Amendment G, which won about 54% of the vote, starts to chip away at this earmark on income tax revenue. Thanks to Amendment G, income tax revenue can also be used to fund programs for children and the disabled. Not just education.

This reform, which will offer greater flexibility in the budgeting process, will allow hard earned taxpayer dollars to be used more efficiently and reduce the threat of future tax increases. It may even facilitate lower tax rates.

Georgia has been a Right to Work state since 1947. But if Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock have their way, Right to Work will be abolished in Georgia.

Both have endorsed the PRO Act, federal legislation that bans Right to Work.

Jon Ossoff (D) endorsed the PRO Act. From the CWA Union:

"Ossoff supports the PRO Act, landmark legislation that will strengthen the rights of workers to join together in unions and collectively bargain with their employers, and oppose any efforts to weaken or remove protections for workers’ right to organize and collectively bargain."

Raphael Warnock (D) endorsed the PRO Act. From the CWA Union:

"Warnock supports the PRO Act, landmark legislation that will strengthen the rights of workers to join together in unions and collectively bargain with their employers, and oppose any efforts to weaken or remove protections for workers’ right to organize and collectively bargain."

As seen on video and in writing, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also vow to ban Right to Work laws which protect 166 million Americans in 27 states, more than half the U.S. population. Right to Work laws allow workers the freedom of employment without forced membership in a labor union or forced payment to a union boss.

Joe Biden said: "We should change the federal law [so] that there is no Right to Work allowed anywhere in the country. For real. Not a joke. Not a joke."

Kamala Harris said: "Banning Right to Work laws. That needs to happen."

Click here or below to watch Kamala Harris and Joe Biden vow to abolish Right to Work:

Harris and Biden also documented their anti-Right to Work position in writing here and here. And both have endorsed the PRO Act which bans Right to Work. The PRO Act legislation is live ammunition, having already passed the Democrat-run U.S. House of Representatives. In the Senate, it is co-sponsored by self-described socialist Bernie Sanders and 40 Democrat senators.

Right to Work states outperform non-Right to Work states:

• Right to Work states experience stronger growth in the number of people employed, growth in manufacturing employment, and growth in the private sector. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, the percentage growth in the number of people employed between 2007-2017 in Right to Work states was 8.8%, and 4.2% in forced-unionism states. Growth in manufacturing employment between 2012-2017 in Right to Work states was 5.5%, and 1.7% in forced-unionism states. The percentage growth in the private sector from 2007-2017 in Right to Work states was 13.0%, and 10.1% in forced-unionism states.
   
• Right to Work laws increase individual life satisfaction and economic sentiment. A study by Christos Makridis of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that Right to Work laws are associated with an increase in self-reported current life satisfaction, expected future life satisfaction, and sentiments about current and future economic activity among workers, as Forbes describes. The study explains that "these improvements in well-being are consistent with an increase in competition among unions, which prompts them to provide higher quality services that are valued by their members." As the Heritage Foundation explains, "It was no accident that foreign automobile brands located their U.S. plants primarily in right-to-work states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee."
   
• Forced-unionism states experience severe out-migration. An analysis by Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that forced unionism states, between 2007-2017, experience net migration of -7.4%, whereas Right to Work states experience a 1.6% growth in number of residents. 
   
• Right to Work laws protect workers from union corruption. The Detroit Free Press reported that U.S. Department of Labor documents showed embezzlement from hundreds of union offices across the country over the past decade. In the past two years, "more than 300 union locations have discovered theft, often resulting in more than one person charged in each instance." Workers should not be forced to fund entities that have high instances of theft and corruption, especially when there are no similar demands that citizens must directly fund a private organization.

Consider yourself warned: If Democrats win full control of the federal government, Georgia's Right to Work will be gone overnight.

"No one should have to pay someone for the right to have a job. Forced union dues were recognized as wrong when congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Everyone in a free country has the right to work without being asked to pay off union bosses."

The 27 Right to Work states are: Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Nevada, Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, Kansas.

See Also:

Biden and Harris Threaten Independent Contractors and Freelancers Nationwide

Arizona voters have unfortunately approved Proposition 208, a measure that was heavily funded by out of state interests and will result in the hardworking taxpayers across the Grand Canyon State facing a permanent $1 billion income tax hike. Legal challenges against Prop. 208 are likely to ensue. 

Prop. 208 will impose a new 3.5% “surcharge” on single filers who earn more than $250,000 a year and married couples who earn more than $500,000. This amounts to a whopping 77.7% tax increase, giving Arizona the unwelcome distinction of being home to one of the highest income rates in the country. 

“Backers of Prop. 208 have been claiming this massive increase in Arizona’s top marginal individual income tax rate would only impact ‘the rich.’ But that is not true,” wrote Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, in an OpEd that warned of the serious negative consequences of this measure. “Prop. 208 proponents ‘forget’ to mention that small business owners also pay individual income taxes. In reality, around 50% of those whose tax rates would be targeted are small businesses, many of whom have already been struggling from weeks of forced shutdowns to slow the spread of the coronavirus.”

Adding insult to injury, Prop. 208 is also going to jeopardize future jobs and opportunities for Arizonans. “[I]t has been well documented that income tax rates are a key determinant of business location and investment,” wrote Norquist. Prior to Prop. 208, Arizona’s top marginal individual income tax rate of 4.5% was fairly competitive. Once Prop. 208 takes effect, Arizona’s new rate of 8% will rank 10th highest in the country and 2nd highest in the region. “Why would anyone want to invest in Arizona when there are so many other states that would allow them to keep more of their hard-earned money,” said Norquist.

Prop. 208, the so-called “InvestInEd” measure, will devastate Arizona’s economy, while doing nothing to actually improve education. “It would not expand parental choice. It would not call for higher standards. It is basically a slush fund for bureaucrats,” explained Norquist. “Giving all parents and students – regardless of income or address – the ability to choose the school that works best for them is the best way to improve education and education outcomes.”

A glimmer of hope for Arizona taxpayers is that legal challenges are likely to be filed against Prop. 208. There is still a chance that this massive tax increase – the largest in Arizona history – may not take effect.