However court rules, Price ready with alternative to Obamacare
When the Supreme Court last week heard arguments in the 26-state legal challenge to Obamacare, Georgia was well-represented. There was Sam Olens, who as our attorney general is one of the plaintiffs. And there was Tom Price, a leader in the effort to repeal and/or replace the law, however the justices rule.
“It was really uplifting, actually,” Price, a fourth-term congressman from Roswell and the fifth-ranking Republican in the House, said in a phone interview. “I think [the justices] were giving it the serious consideration that it warrants.”
Price, who previously practiced medicine, not law, stopped just short of predicting the outcome: “My suspicion is this will be ruled unconstitutional, but I’m not a court watcher so that may be more hope than fact.” Either way, he’s ready.
As he did months before Obamacare was passed, Price has introduced the Empowering Patients First Act. It’s a more market-oriented approach to fixing what ails American health care.
Price’s updated bill begins by repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, in case the Supreme Court leaves all or part of it intact. Then it moves on to correct the inequity in the way tax law treats health insurance. Individuals who buy their own insurance would get the same tax deduction as employer-sponsored plans.
Low-income Americans could receive the tax benefit as a credit both refundable — meaning they’d get it even if they didn’t pay income tax — and advanceable — meaning it could be paid directly to the insurer, rather than the insured person fronting the money. It would also allow people to opt out of government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare and receive a tax credit toward a private plan.
Missing is a legal requirement to buy health insurance, just incentives that mean “you’d be foolish to not get covered,” Price said.
Next, the bill tackles two other problems: portability and pre-existing conditions. Regarding the former, Price said his bill “makes it so that everybody owns their health coverage regardless of who’s paying for it — your employer, the government, or you. If you change or lose your job, you just take it with you. Losing your health insurance when you change your job, when the employer is using your money out of your paycheck, just doesn’t make sense.”
For pre-existing conditions, the bill again mimics the advantages now given only to big employers. It allows states, small businesses and other entities (e.g., churches or trade associations) to form risk pools large enough that people with chronic health problems won’t be turned away.
“The vast majority of high-risk pools at the state level don’t work, because you take all the sickest people and throw them in a pool and — surprise, surprise — their costs are greater,” he said. “We believe any individual ought to be able to access a pool of millions of people.”
In doing so, the bill “would create a market for a new product that doesn’t exist now because it’s against the law to do what we propose to do.”
Another key element of the bill is a tort reform authored by Phil Gingrey, another Georgia doctor-turned-congressman.
Price said defensive medicine — procedures doctors order to avoid being sued — accounts for a quarter of U.S. health costs, or some $600 billion a year. To reduce that figure, the bill proposes administrative health courts in which experts and specialized judges handle malpractice claims. It also creates a “safe harbor” for doctors who follow industry-standard guidelines for treating a particular ailment.
To allay concerns tort reform is up to the states, not Washington, the bill limits the safe harbor provision to patients with a “nexus with the federal government.” That means they are covered by a federal program (Medicare, the military’s Tricare, etc.) or a big employer whose plan is governed by the federal ERISA law.
“That gets you about 85 percent of the population or even more,” Price said. “So we believe that in and of itself would change the dynamic, and make it such that states could adopt fill-in measures.”
Democrats often claim GOP opponents of Obamacare offer no alternative. Price’s bill dispels that notion. He has little confidence Democrats will now entertain his 32-month-old bill. But …
“That’s not to say, if the Supreme Court throws it out, there couldn’t be a change of heart,” Price allowed, “and I would welcome that with open arms.”
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
210 comments Add your comment
clyde
April 5th, 2012
9:34 am
When The Supremes decide then I’ll decide.
Trump: President Obama’s comments on Supreme Court’s pending decision on … – Fox News | Financial News
April 5th, 2012
9:37 am
[...] Warning High Court on Health LawBusinessWeekObama, judge rebuked for health care commentsUSA TODAYHowever court rules, Price ready with alternative to ObamacareAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Washington Post -Reutersall 1,798 news [...]
Jefferson
April 5th, 2012
9:44 am
Until the excess profits are removed, the cost will not decrease.
JF McNamara
April 5th, 2012
9:46 am
I remember the healthcare debate. Rather than bring up proposals and negotiate, Republicans were in lock step against it. The tone of the debate was horrific, and they just wanted to defeat Obama at all costs. I wonder if that plays into why Price’s bill was completely ignored by Democrats.
St Simons- island off the coast of New Somalia
April 5th, 2012
9:48 am
“control costs? This proposal will be more expensive than Obamacare!”
ding ding we have a winner.
And the clause about “religious objection” is grrrreat.
I’m an employer, and
Since I don’t believe in cancer, we won’t cover that.
Since I don’t believe in medicine, you should just prayyy it away
Oh man this plan’s gonna be cheap.
If my employees get sick, we’ll just put em in the “let em eat cake” pool
and “Dr” Price sure does want that malpractice limit heheh
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
9:48 am
“Until the excess profits are removed, the cost will not decrease.”
Yeah, ’cause we want minimum wage people working for the government providing our health care across the board, don’t we, Jefferson?
Jefferson
April 5th, 2012
9:54 am
Just yours, T – I’ll pay my tax and go private on the side.
Jefferson
April 5th, 2012
9:59 am
Funny thing, the German and British health care workers don’t work for min wage.
When the insurance profits are smaller, there’s plenty of money to pay those doing the health care.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
10:00 am
“I remember the healthcare debate. Rather than bring up proposals and negotiate, Republicans were in lock step against it.”
Then you really don’t remember the healthcare debate at all, JF McNamara. Because they had a minimum of 7 separate proposals that the Democrats never allowed past committee, and many of them didn’t even get a hearing at the committee level. No amendments were allowed from the floor by Pelosi rules.
Facts are such troublesome things to you, aren’t they?
td
April 5th, 2012
10:01 am
LIBERALS please listen up: Obamacare is going to be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Government run HC is not an option. Medicaid and Medicare is bankrupting the country.
These are facts so instead of whining then get on board the ideas train and try to figure out solutions.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
10:02 am
“Funny thing, the German and British health care workers don’t work for min wage. ”
Nor are they paid according to their ability, Jefferson.
Kyle Wingfield
April 5th, 2012
10:07 am
ByteMe @ 7:06: He was talking about 85 percent of the population falling under the safe-harbor provision.
Sam
April 5th, 2012
10:07 am
The last time, the Democrats abandoned their own plan (single payer option) and went for a Republican’s plan (Romneycare). Then, all the Republicans who previously supported it suddenly did an about face and opposed it. Wonder what will happen this time.
Just saying..
April 5th, 2012
10:07 am
Kyle, would you address Republican responses to Price’s plan, so far?
Kyle Wingfield
April 5th, 2012
10:08 am
xdog @ 7:35: Try reading the rest of the sentence. Context is your friend.
Kyle Wingfield
April 5th, 2012
10:10 am
jconservative @ 7:54: It’s no different from what people who work for large companies covered by ERISA get now, except that the tax credit would go through them rather than their employer.
Now, if we want to debate whether the feds should be using the tax code to subsidize health insurance at all, let’s have at it.
Kyle Wingfield
April 5th, 2012
10:11 am
Ayn Rant @ 8:10: It won’t work unless the pool is as large as the entire U.S. population? That’s just silly. The risk pools of companies that employ a few thousand or more people work just fine.
Stephenson Billings
April 5th, 2012
10:12 am
“Funny thing, the German and British health care workers don’t work for min wage”
No, but they’re basically told how much they can make based on their specialty, etc…. which has led to somewhat of a doctor shortage (at least in the UK and to some extent Canada). That’s why a good majority of the doctors are from other countries. Nothing like having 5 year long waiting lists for GP’s and dentists….
Kyle Wingfield
April 5th, 2012
10:13 am
carlosgvv @ 8:26: And you think Obamacare is any different? Why do you think the insurers and pharmaceutical companies were lobbying FOR it?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
10:13 am
“The last time, the Democrats abandoned their own plan (single payer option) and went for a Republican’s plan (Romneycare).”
And yet they didn’t, because Obamacare isn’t Romneycare, despite what you don’t know about it.
Trump: President Obama’s comments on Supreme Court’s pending decision on … – Fox News | Personal Finance
April 5th, 2012
10:14 am
[...] Warning High Court on Health LawBusinessWeekObama, judge rebuked for health care commentsUSA TODAYHowever court rules, Price ready with alternative to ObamacareAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Washington Post -Reutersall 1,798 news [...]
Kyle Wingfield
April 5th, 2012
10:15 am
WOW @ 8:58: Tiberius gets part of it at 9:07. But, as a cushion, the bill also provides for a 1 percent cut in all non-defense discretionary spending (about $6 billion in FY 2012, which is why it’s just a cushion rather than the main “pay-for”).
Btw, CBO has not yet scored the bill.
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
10:15 am
Kyle, you are correct, I read it too fast (and obviously too early
).
So why haven’t they passed this bill in the House in the past 18 months?
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
10:16 am
CBO has not yet scored the bill.
Wait… let me get this straight… he’s complaining that Democrats haven’t voted on it in 32 months, but he’s yet to submit it to the CBO for scoring??
UGA 1999
April 5th, 2012
10:16 am
Yet ANOTHER failure by the Obama administration. Good job fools.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
10:19 am
CBO scoring is a waste of time and money.
They only score based on what you give them, and if you don’t give them the whole story (as in Obamacare), they give you a puppy dogs and skittles report (which is what you wanted in the first place).
Kyle Wingfield
April 5th, 2012
10:21 am
JF @ 9:46: When they did bring up proposals, such as Price’s bill, which was introduced in July 2009, they were ignored. They were ignored because the Dems knew they had the 60 Senate votes to kill a filibuster and pass whatever they wanted — a fact on the ground that didn’t change until Ted Kennedy died and Scott Brown was elected to replace him. Then they used legislative sleight of hand to get what they wanted anyway.
So the crocodile tears about Republican obtuseness don’t get very far with me.
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
10:22 am
They only score based on what you give them
Exactly. And if you can’t even give them a good story, then they don’t give you a good score.
Ever wonder why you were so concerned about CBO saying that Obamacare will cost more than expected and now you’re not concerned about it in this case? We don’t wonder at all.
Mr. Holmes
April 5th, 2012
10:24 am
There are admittedly some points worth debating on that bill, particularly if the Roberts court continues its trend of voting its politics. But let me get this straight: Price’s bill allows low-income earners to get a tax credit for the cost of their insurance premiums–even if their income is so low that that don’t pay any tax. In essence, they get a tax credit each year to *supplement* their income tax-free income?
Can you possibly imagine the reaction had Barack Obama proposed something like this?
md
April 5th, 2012
10:25 am
Amazing………a person that would fix the spokes vs re-invent the entire wheel.
Kyle Wingfield
April 5th, 2012
10:26 am
ByteMe: CBO scores bills as they move through the legislative process. This one isn’t close enough to a vote to get a score. Why hasn’t the House passed it yet? Good question. I suspect it’s because, knowing it would go nowhere in the Senate and certainly would be vetoed, they prefer to keep it and other potential replacements on the sidelines. They’ve seen where they get by passing their own budget, for instance: Nowhere.
Pizzaman
April 5th, 2012
10:32 am
Look’s to me like Obamacare with tort reform.
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
10:33 am
CBO scores bills as they move through the legislative process.
Not true. CBO will score a bill when you give it to them to score it. Often a bill will get retooled after CBO scoring but before it ever comes up for a vote.
Why hasn’t the House passed it yet? Good question. I suspect it’s because, knowing it would go nowhere in the Senate
But they were happy to not only submit the Ryan plan to a vote, knowing it would go nowhere (since it had gone nowhere the year before). They also submitted it for a CBO score before it was voted on (and were all too happy to ignore that CBO said it would worsen the deficit).
So why is he complaining that Democrats haven’t wanted to vote on it when he won’t submit it for a score and his own party won’t bring it up for a vote? And why are you leaving it to me to call him on that?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
10:39 am
“Ever wonder why you were so concerned about CBO saying that Obamacare will cost more than expected and now you’re not concerned about it in this case?”
Is English your primary language, ByteMe?
“Cause I just said that CBO scoring is a waste of time due to the very reason you repeated back to me.
So how, exactly, do you come to the conclusion that I am not concerned about the CBO score in this case?
Reading and comprehension, ByteMe. Try it sometime.
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
10:40 am
Look’s to me like Obamacare with tort reform.
Some aspects of it are definitely similar (medical standards — aka death panels — and eliminating certain policy limits). “Tort reform” is a minsomer: it’s tort award limits, something that the Constitution says needs to be left to the states, since these cases take place in state courts, regardless of which insurance plan covers them. If the insurance plan screws up and it’s a federal plan, then the case is a federal case, but that’s not what we’re tlaking about. We’re talking about a doctor screwing up and the patient trying to get compensated for their loss. The medical insurance company has no standing in this type of case.
Health care courts are a great idea.
And to address someone else’s point: doctors are ALWAYS going to practice defensive medicine even if there’s a limit on tort awards, just because they don’t want the publicity of being in court all the time for screwing up. And they don’t want their insurance to drop them for screwing up so many times.
UGA 1999
April 5th, 2012
10:40 am
Waiting for Obama to show up on TV with a hoodie and a bag of Skittles in an attempt to manipulate votes.
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
10:42 am
Cause I just said that CBO scoring is a waste of time due to the very reason you repeated back to me.
No, you didn’t say anything like what I said. Perhaps your reading comprehension is the issue here.
See, I just pulled a Romney on ya!!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
10:43 am
“So why is he complaining that Democrats haven’t wanted to vote on it when he won’t submit it for a score and his own party won’t bring it up for a vote?”
Because you have an existing law in place which is in flux until the SCOTUS rules on it, and you have a Senate who will obstruct it anyway. In addition, the Ryan Plan is a BUDGET, something the Congress is Constitutionally-bound to provide, therefore it is incumbent upon the House to actually do their duty. A health care reform bill does not fall under such a mandate, ByteMe.
Thulsa Doom
April 5th, 2012
10:46 am
“Democrats often claim GOP opponents of Obamacare offer no alternative. Price’s bill dispels that notion. He has little confidence Democrats will now entertain his 32-month-old bill. But …”
In other words the Democrats just lie and lie and lie about the Republicans not offering an alternative. Why am I not surprised?
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
10:48 am
Because you have an existing law in place which is in flux until the SCOTUS rules on it
Wasn’t that the whole point of the 2010 battle cry of “repeal and replace”? If he can get enough people to sign up for his bill, he can do fulfill that promise. And the House took a vote already to repeal. This is supposed to be to replace it, right? But they’re too chicken to bring it up. But maybe he knows he can’t get anyone to vote for it, especially after the CBO scores it as being more costly to the Federal budget than ACA. Hard to know when he complains about the other party instead of doing his own homework.
Thulsa Doom
April 5th, 2012
10:49 am
“Waiting for Obama to show up on TV with a hoodie and a bag of Skittles in an attempt to manipulate votes.”
Well if O doesn’t do it he will have Eric Holder over at the dept. of payback do it for him.
yuzeyurbrane
April 5th, 2012
10:52 am
Kyle, I am surprised that you did no research before you simply repeated Dr. Price’s “plan”. His plan, which he produced only after intense put up or shut up pressure, was analyzed by the AARP which was provided Dr. Price. Kyle, I suggest you ask the AARP for a copy of that analysis. While it is a small step in the right direction, it would only provide health insurance to only about 3 million of the approximately 50 million Americans who now have none. So for most uninsured Americans, including the 2 million uninsured Georgians (highest % in country), his proposal is meaningless. Nor does it propose anything that would meaningfully control the the extremely high increases in the costs of medical care. Indeed, the only thing Dr. Price has done actively is to support increases in Medicare doctor reimbursements. In that, I think it is fair to say that he does a good job of looking after his own.
Thulsa Doom
April 5th, 2012
10:52 am
“Because you have an existing law in place which is in flux until the SCOTUS rules on it, and you have a Senate who will obstruct it anyway”
Tiberius,
There ya go again. Trying to talk common sense to the loony left.
Common sense, rationality, logical thought; they elude the liberals always.
UGA 1999
April 5th, 2012
10:53 am
The rumor is that Romney is going to pick Paul Ryan as VP. That is a very very strong ticket.
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
10:55 am
UGA…is a racist COWARD!!!! Step up and say what you spend so much time hinting around……
Stephenson Billings
April 5th, 2012
10:55 am
“it would only provide health insurance to only about 3 million of the approximately 50 million Americans who now have none.”
More talking points I see. Might want to research that 50 million number some. You’ll be amazed what you’ll find.
Mountain Man
April 5th, 2012
10:56 am
“How much did you donate to the cause of health care for all last year?”
L’il BB – I donated around $1000 – it was included in my health insurance premiums to pay for people who go to the hospital and don’t pay – the “free riders”. I was not given the choice whether to pay for it or not – it was included as payment for a Federal law – EMTALA – an unfunded mandate passed during the administration of Ronald Reagan. The federal government forcing me to pay for something I did not choose – just like Obamacare – except that with Obamacare, the people who are forced to pay for their own insurance ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING for the dollars they have to pay.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
10:58 am
So we now have ByteMe on record as saying that he/she WANTS the House to waste their time passing meaningless bills since the Senate won’t even address them.
Got it.
Anybody care to bet whether ByteMe would be COMPLAINING about that very practice if they did?
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
10:58 am
Romney / Ryan would end up just like McCain & Palin… TTheir message of hate and division would fall flat and gt turned away…
UGA 1999
April 5th, 2012
11:00 am
Inside Out….You are the coward that through the “R” word out. Tell me what did I say that was racist? HAHA