The problem with health care is that it is not free. No matter how the system is set up, someone has to pay for it.

When the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, ushering in the era of Obamacare, the formula determining how health care was paid for was shifted: Individuals, healthy or not, would pay into insurance pools, and the wealthy would pay more in taxes to lower premium costs and expand coverage through Medicaid. What the two Republican bills in the House and Senate — the American Health Care Act and the Better Care Reconciliation Act, respectively — do is to some extent reverse that shift. The wealthy pay less in taxes; those responsible for their own health coverage pay more out of their pockets.

How much of that shift would occur, though, would vary from place to place. Thanks to analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, though, we can make some educated guesses about what the shift would look like.

For the wealthy, the two main areas in which they’d see reduced taxes are on the Additional Medicare Tax (which applies to individuals who make $200,000 or more in income) and a tax on investment income. It’s hard to game out exactly what those savings would look like, because wages and investment incomes vary widely. But we can get a general sense of how the wealthy would benefit, regardless.

Try it. (The household estimates below, from the Census Bureau for 2015, are different from the number of individuals earning particular incomes, admittedly. The figures are provided to give a sense of how common various income ranges are in your area.)

In most places, those earning under $60,000 a year who aren’t covered by an employer would have to pay more of their income toward health care while those earning over $200,000 would end up paying less.

This is the explicit trade-off being made in the Republican legislation. It’s a different choice being made about who pays for health care — one that reverses the priorities drawn under Obamacare.