PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 15, 2012
Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act of 2012 - Allows access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) beginning in 2014 for persons who would have been entitled to, or could have enrolled in part A (Hospital Insurance) Medicare benefits, or who could have enrolled in part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) Medicare.
States that a covered individual who elects to enroll in such program shall enroll as an individual and not as self and family.
Bases monthly premiums on adjusted gross income.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to establish procedures to ensure that health benefits plans coordinate with state Medicaid programs regarding cost-sharing and other medical assistance for covered individuals enrolled in health benefit plans who are also eligible for medical assistance and enrolled in a state Medicaid program.
Requires OPM, at the end of each contract year, to identify high risk individuals and pay to a carrier contracting to provide a health benefits plan to a high risk individual 90% of the benefits paid by the carrier for such individual.
Defines "high risk individual" as an enrolled individual who, of all individuals enrolled in a health benefits plan for the contract year, is in the highest 5% in terms of benefits paid by a carrier for the contract year.
Exempts health benefits plans from specified insurance requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Amends the Social Security Act to incrementally increase the Medicare qualifying age from 65 years to 70 years, by 2034, plus the number of months in a specified age increase factor.
Sunsets Medicare, on January 1, 2014, with a transition to FEHBP coverage. Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make available to states recommendations with respect to specified requirements for health care entities and individuals under Medicare that will no longer apply but that should be considered on the state level.
People & committees
Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2196 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2196 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2196 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2196 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.