House Republicans begin phase two of health-reform reform
The U.S. House’s vote Wednesday to repeal ObamaCare was derided by Democrats as a base-pleasing act of symbolism lacking in substance. But the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reports that it only took a day for GOP congressional leaders to move on to what certainly qualifies as substantive:
By a vote of 253 to 175 [with 14 Democrats voting "yes"], the GOP [Thursday] directed key House committees to report on ways to lower health care premiums, allow patients to keep their current health plans, increase access to coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and decrease the price of medical liability lawsuits. In other words, the committees are beginning work on replacing the House-repealed Obamacare with Republican health policies.
Repeal got a lot of press coverage. Replacement got far less. If they needed any reminding, GOP lawmakers are learning that controlling the levers of power in the House doesn’t mean controlling the media narrative on health care. “Democrats wanted to characterize repeal as draconian, ignoring the fact that we do have very, very positive alternatives,” says Rep. David Dreier, chairman of the House Rules Committee. “It’s been difficult for us to get that [message] out there. We said repeal and replace, and we’re in the process of replacing.”
House Republicans are pursuing a three-part strategy. Part One was repeal; they promised to do it, and they did it. Part Two is replace, which in coming months will involve House votes on a series of GOP health care measures. And Part Three — since full repeal can’t win in the Senate — is another series of votes on measures to repeal individual parts of Obamacare. The net result will be that Republicans gradually push more and more House Democrats — and perhaps some in the Senate — away from an all-or-nothing defense of Obamacare.
It will be interesting in the months to come to see what those committees report. But it’s clear that House Republicans aren’t simply passing a doomed repeal bill and then dropping the issue.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
39 comments Add your comment
get out much?
January 21st, 2011
11:33 am
It will be interesting to see if they can “push more and more House Democrats” without losing any House Republicans.
Belinda
January 21st, 2011
11:34 am
I look forward to seeing what the replacement measures are and how aggressively they are pushed.
Road Scholar
January 21st, 2011
11:46 am
I’ve been waiting for what seems like eternity on what their “replacement” details are. Why rescind if you are going to replace? Especially since the bill that passed included many of their past suggestions!
Why don’t we start by stripping Congress of all healthcare until they get consensus on what the final bill will look like? This may hasten the agreements and negotiations!
Oh, and by the way Boehmer, where are the jobs? You had extra time to work on this since you callously didn’t go to Arizona to see Gabby and to attend the community meeting and to attend a state dinner for Hu. Where were you? In the bar?
Kyle Wingfield
January 21st, 2011
11:53 am
Road: Boehner was in Washington leading a vigil for Giffords by House members. There was nothing “callous” about it. See this explanation from Talking Points Memo, which is not exactly a fan site for Republicans: http://bit.ly/enJwSW
CJ
January 21st, 2011
11:54 am
With regard to decreasing the “price” of medical liability lawsuits (aka: tort reform), isn’t that an effort for the federal government to interfere with states’ rights to set their own limits on medical malpractice awards? It strikes me as disingenuous to say that the decision to impose mandates to purchase health insurance should be left up to the states, but the states should not have the right to decide limits on damages awarded in their courts.
Unless I’m misunderstanding their intentions, the Republican desire for Washington to impose tort reform on the states only reinforces the case that conservatives aren’t really conservative. The “states’ rights” argument is one that, it appears, applies only when it’s convenient.
Incidentally, tort reform doesn’t work (at least not significantly): http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs
carlosgvv
January 21st, 2011
12:16 pm
Does anyone actually believe the Republicans will do all those health-care things? Republican health policies are dictated to them by the insurance companies and doing the right thing by the people is definitely NOT what they will do.
LukasAtl
January 21st, 2011
12:19 pm
So called medical liability “tort” reform is nothing but a red-herring, created solely as a political issue to motivate the “base”
Linda
January 21st, 2011
12:58 pm
Road @ 11:46, You asked why rescind if you are going to replace. The health care bill is like a car with only 3 wheels. It just won’t go. If (& probably when) the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, the bill will be like a car with only 3 wheels & no motor. A car like that can’t be tweeted. We need to start over with a new bill/car that will run.
You also asked about temporarily stripping Congress of healthcare. Why don’t we require Congress to be covered by the final healthcare bill?
retiredds
January 21st, 2011
1:05 pm
Ah, the purchase of votes begins. see below
The new Republican leaders in the House have received millions of dollars in fresh contributions from banks, health insurers and other major business interests, which are pressing for broad reversals of Democratic policies that affect corporations, according to disclosure records and interviews.
Jefferson
January 21st, 2011
1:13 pm
As always, the GOP get NO results they just fool the weak minded.
Logical Dude
January 21st, 2011
1:17 pm
I think parts 1 and 2 can go together with 3.
Why toss in a meaningless vote to repeal? Why not just use 2 and 3 to replace those items in Obamacare that need replacing?
Will they also find a way to pay for all of it and use the “PAYGO” process they’ve criticized the democrats about?
I do look forward for the Republican solutions, although it sounds like most of them are already in the previous bill that was signed by Obama. I’m just wondering why it took them 10 extra years to get this done!
Logical Dude
January 21st, 2011
1:21 pm
quote: But it’s clear that House Republicans aren’t simply passing a doomed repeal bill and then dropping the issue
I’ll believe it when I see it! They didn’t do anything for all of those Bush years, so I’ll wait to see what they have planned that’s good for the country, and not politicized for “good for business” vs. “good for insurance” vs. “good for lining my pockets”
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 21st, 2011
1:23 pm
Sounds promising, those are the areas responsible thinkers would consider in revising healthcare. Strange that most were completely missed by the ObamaCare givers.
Jefferson
January 21st, 2011
1:25 pm
What are the results of the time spent ?
CJ
January 21st, 2011
1:50 pm
Ragnar: “Sounds promising, those are the areas responsible thinkers would consider in revising healthcare. Strange that most were completely missed by the ObamaCare givers.”
With regard to tort reform, it’s addressed in the health care law: “The Secretary is authorized to award demonstration grants to States for the development, implementation, and evaluation of alternatives to current tort litigation for resolving disputes over injuries allegedly caused by health care providers or health care organizations.”
http://www.healthcare.gov/center/authorities/title_vi_amendments.pdf
JF McNamara
January 21st, 2011
1:50 pm
I’m actually shocked. The Republicans are finally doing what they should have done a long, long time ago. Instead of the all or nothing death panel approach they took the first time around, they are actually working to make what isn’t a completely terrible piece of legislation better.
Welcom to the world of being responsible legislators. Its glad to finally have you.
The Only Democrat in Roswell
January 21st, 2011
2:11 pm
Let’s see now, we can push some of the other Republican ideas, like
purchasing health insurance across state lines—as though thousands of insurance companies are selling ridiculously cheap policies in, say, Wyoming, but not in Georgia. And as though totally different health insurance companies are operating in other states, but not in Georgia. And as though we don’t need regulation of insurance, since Georgia’s insurance commissioner would have no authority in any other state.
Well, I suppose that’s a start.
retiredds
January 21st, 2011
2:27 pm
Kyle, may I suggest that you read in today’s Readers Write in the AJC a letter from Julie Haley regarding the “job-killing” health care legislation. As is the case with most of the Republican mantra’s these days the facts will prove the “job-killing” noise a false battle cry. But their rhetoric makes for good theater.
jconservative
January 21st, 2011
2:28 pm
Republican staff has been working on “replacing” Obamacare with “replacement” legislation for a couple of months. Here is what they are finding. It is a nightmare.
A simple bill to allow mid 20 kids to stay on their parents insurance was envisioned as a 3 page bill. It is now over 90 pages and they still have not completed the bill.
Bottom line do not look for “replacement” bills anytime in the immediate future. Maybe after the 2012 election.
There will be a push to “unfund” part of Obamacare but the problem there is that most of Obamacare really does not go into effect until 2014. So that is turning into a shot in the dark.
Most of what we will have out of the House on Obamacare for the next 2 years will be conversation.
Which is OK, most of enjoy conversation do we not?
Libby
January 21st, 2011
2:41 pm
Sounds good to me – I am still hearing about nightmares in that 2300 page monstrosity. The latest being sales tax on home sales – that will really help the real estate market!
retired early
January 21st, 2011
2:41 pm
The Repubs had 7 plus years to address this health care issue. It is obvious that they never intended to pass any reform. All the money spent by the Chamber of Commerce and health industry companies proved that the GOP was and is in their pocket. Now, these hypocrites pretend to care enough to pass their version, replacing the current law. The lies about the health care bill attempting to scare the public almost managed to defeat the bill…and now…these Repubs are going to come to rescue of the American people…please. The thing infuriates me the most is the voters. It would be comical if it wasn’t really happening. Apparently, if you spend enough money, you can make a fool out of nearly anyone. The great GOP don’t give a damn about you or our country…just their political party. Party first…country second.
Some People are stupid
January 21st, 2011
2:53 pm
Libby-
You mean the same tax that has been on home purchases over 250k for about 20 years?
Seriously…this is just stupid
Jefferson
January 21st, 2011
3:31 pm
“It’s not much of a war, but it’s the only war we have”
Independent
January 21st, 2011
3:41 pm
I’m calling BS until someone provides specifics. What Sales tax on home purchases in the Health Care Bill – send me the page numbers. And what sales tax on home purchases over $250k for the last 20 years. I have bought houses over that amount and not been charged sales tax.
Linda
January 21st, 2011
3:46 pm
Stupid @ 2:53, Libby is referring to page 33 of the health care bill which imposes a new 3.8% tax on the net investment income of high income persons on “net gains…attributable to the disposition of property.” It appears that Libby knows exactly what she is talking about & if she is one of those high income persons, she has every reason to be concerned.
Some People are stupid
January 21st, 2011
3:48 pm
INdependent-
You wouldn’t pay the tax.
The seller pays the tax. It’s income tax not sales tax.
If you sell your home and you haven’t lived in it for 3 years, you are subject to a tax on the gain.
Some People are stupid
January 21st, 2011
3:50 pm
Linda-
I never said it wasn’t in there. I said the same tax has been on the books. Section 701 in the IRS tax code.
The new health law basically added the surtax….which is actually counterproductive in a down housing market by the way.
Independent
January 21st, 2011
3:52 pm
It is not a “sales tax” it is a capital gains tax. It does not have to be paid by the purchaser. It only has to be paid by the seller if he/she realizes a GAIN of more than 250,000 for a single person or $500,000 for a couple. I included the following exerpt:
In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold.
The health care bill WAS too long and complicated but it addresses needed problems in our health care system. One such problem is the cost-shifting of medical care from “free riders”, those who can afford health insurance but don’t buy it because they think they won’t get sick. Thier costs (when the DO get sick) get shifted to those of us who are responsible enough to actually purchase health insurance.
Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called “high earners” – if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home.
Linda
January 21st, 2011
4:01 pm
Stupid @ 3:48, The new tax is over & above the usual capital gains tax.
Stupid @ 3:50, No, it has not been on the books. It’s a new tax just like I described. Yes, it’s counterproductive.
Linda
January 21st, 2011
4:09 pm
Independent @ 3:52, What will motivate those “free riders” to buy health care insurance since it will cost more than the penalties if they don’t buy it?
What will motivate healthy people who have been paying out of pocket for their health car insurance (i.e. the self-employed) to continue to pay for their insurance since they will be able to buy it when they get sick?
Some People are stupid
January 21st, 2011
4:13 pm
Linda
We agree that its over and above the usual capital gains tax. Just to point out though, that rate still is below the marginal rate even with the surtax as it only applies to those making over 250k AGI.
Second point- The tax…not the surtax..on houses has been on the IRS books. IF you sell your house, prior to the health care legislation, you were able to deduct up to 250k of the gain on your house, the rest was taxable. With the healthcare law, the same principle applies, except the tax is higher if your AGI is over 250K.
Some People are stupid
January 21st, 2011
4:18 pm
Linda-
What will motivate healthy people who have been paying out of pocket for their health car insurance (i.e. the self-employed) to continue to pay for their insurance since they will be able to buy it when they get sick?
Hence the mandate
Linda
January 21st, 2011
4:49 pm
Stupid @ 4:13, What is your point?
Stupid @ 4:18, The mandate requires the purchase of insurance OR the payment of a fine. The fine is cheaper. My point is that fewer people will buy insurance until they get sick now that pre-existing conditions are acceptable. There will be fewer people insured. There will be more sick people insured.
Some People are stupid
January 21st, 2011
4:57 pm
Linda-
I misread your health insurance post. You are probably right. Even though I’m sure you can find an insurance policy for less than 3800(highest amount of fine)
My popint at 4:13 was saying taxation of housing sales was already on the books. The health care law added the surtax.
Linda
January 21st, 2011
5:19 pm
Stupid, Do you know why 27 or 28 states, soon to be even more with the announcement by Oklahoma last night, both Dem. & Rep., are suing the fed. govt. over the hc bill? Have you every known of a previous time when more than a majority of the states sued the fed. govt. for any reason? You’ve been told the cost of this bill on the fed. level. Do you know how much this bill will cost the states by adding half of the 32 million uninsured people to the state Medicaid rolls? Do you know the already dire straights of the states? Do you know the projected cost to the state of Georgia?
P.S. Do you know how much it will cost you in your state income taxes?
Independent
January 21st, 2011
5:48 pm
The mandate says you can buy insurance or pay the (cheaper) fine. Well, you can pay the cheaper fine and get nothing or buy the more expensive insurance and get something. My very healthy 25-year-old daughter just came down with meningitis (thank goodness it was viral) but her hospital stay was a bill of $10,000. Luckily, she had bought a high deductible health insurance on the open market (her employer did not provide insurance), so she will only have to pay the $5000 deductible. What if the hospital bill had been $200,000 and she had NO insurance. Then you and I would be paying for it.
Linda
January 21st, 2011
6:09 pm
Independent @ 5:48, I disagree. Healthy people can pay the cheaper fine & get cash discounts for their routine health care costs. It comes out much cheaper than having insurance.
Fast forward. Had the new hc insurance bill been totally in effect, wouldn’t your healthy daughter have come out cheaper paying the fine & obtaining insurance prior to arriving at the hospital?
Linda
January 21st, 2011
6:21 pm
Independent, Two more points. You assume that people without insurance don’t pay their medical bills. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Secondly, this bill does not insure all people. Three years ago when I was in the emergency room bleeding in a trash can, I had to wait for an illegal immigrant, who arrived ahead of me, to be seen for a toothache.
Linda
January 21st, 2011
7:04 pm
Kyle, is it one of your rules that bloggers on your site have to complete sentences or is it just a phenomenon that they can finish at least two?