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
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
11:00 am
“House to waste their time passing meaningless bills since the Senate won’t even address them.”
That was the case with the Ryan budget, but they sure did not have a problem doing it then……What is the difference?
UGA 1999
April 5th, 2012
11:00 am
Inside Out….”hate and division” you mean like Obama’s class warfare?
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
11:02 am
Anybody care to bet whether ByteMe would be COMPLAINING about that very practice if they did?
I’ve yet to do it. Unlike others, I think that people can handle more than one task at a time, so they can vote for ridiculous resolutions to celebrate Candy Day at the same time as doing the heavy lifting of real work.
I think it’s very telling that they voted for the doomed Ryan budget instead of creating one that had a hope of passing both chambers. I think it’s telling when they don’t do something as well.
Nice attempt at creating a strawman argument, though. Got any other nonsense you want to throw at the wall to see if it sticks instead of addressing the core of the topic?
Obama’s Supreme Court comments become political football as Justice preps … – Fox News | International Financials
April 5th, 2012
11:03 am
[...] TODAYConstitution Check: Is the "Roberts Court" Driven by Politics?Huffington PostAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -Washington Postall 2,016 news [...]
Dirty Dawg
April 5th, 2012
11:04 am
Given that the ‘mandate’ thing in ‘ObamaCare’ only impacts, potentially, about 5% of the population…and given that every other part of (aka) Affordable Health Care, like not denying coverage due to pre-existing condition, coverage of dependents up to age 26, filling the ‘donut hole, etc., are all well-liked, I guess the thing that ‘you guys’ really don’t like is the ‘Obama’ part.
Mountain Man
April 5th, 2012
11:04 am
I am on the side of personal responsibility here, something the Republicans supposedly support. I believe that people who use health care should pay for their health care. For most people that means having health insurance (unless they have a couple of million in spare change that they can deposit into an escrow account in case they are hit by a major medical incident). EVERYONE is at risk for this, so unless you want to change the system so that people who can’t pay are thrown out into the street to die, the EVERYONE needs to purchase health insurance.
Atlanta 1
April 5th, 2012
11:06 am
All you have to do is read the post after the article to see how polarized our society is. The left trashes the ideas, the right likes them.
I do not believe anyone should be forced into a National Healthcare Program, which is exactly what you get, if you really pay attention to what is going on.
I did see some flaws in the proposal, the biggest one being that while taking your insurance with you sounds good; keep in mind that most employers contribute to the cost of your insurance and it is usually a pretty good amount. Who pays for that? You?
Obama’s Supreme Court comments become political football as Justice preps … – Fox News | Breaking News Board - Daily News Magazine
April 5th, 2012
11:06 am
[...] Check: Is the "Roberts Court" Driven by Politics?Huffington PostAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -Washington Postall 2,015 news [...]
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
11:07 am
“Their message of hate and division would fall flat and gt turned away…”
Please provide any specific examples of what you believe is a “message of hate and division” that Mitt Romney has spoken and cite your source please, Inside Out.
Kyle Wingfield
April 5th, 2012
11:10 am
Atlanta1: Your employer doesn’t contribute anything to the cost of your insurance. Your employer diverts part of your compensation toward your insurance premium because there are tax advantages for doing so. But that money is still your earnings.
md
April 5th, 2012
11:11 am
Romney/Ryan?
I’d vote for that………shoot, I’d vote for Ryan in a heartbeat. The guy actually gets in the weeds and digs out the numbers…….the dems hate him because he has facts, and the biggest fact he deals with is the effect of 16 trillion and counting on our future. A future the dems seem very unconcerned about. Their idea of reform seems to be to get as many toys as they can to put in the life boat when the ship goes down.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
11:11 am
“That was the case with the Ryan budget, but they sure did not have a problem doing it then……What is the difference?”
Reading comprehension isn’t your friend, is it, Inside Out?
I suggest you go back and read what I posted earlier about Congress having a Constitutional duty to pass a budget, where health care laws do not have the same mandate.
md
April 5th, 2012
11:15 am
“Given that the ‘mandate’ thing in ‘ObamaCare’ only impacts, potentially, about 5% of the population…and given that every other part of (aka) Affordable Health Care, like not denying coverage due to pre-existing condition, coverage of dependents up to age 26, filling the ‘donut hole, etc., are all well-liked, I guess the thing that ‘you guys’ really don’t like is the ‘Obama’ part.”
Typical……leaves out the part about subsidies for folks making up to 88k and the administrative costs to the States that will create a burden they can not bear………..
Jack
April 5th, 2012
11:16 am
I pay my share of taxes to provide health care for those that pay no income tax or social security/hospital insurance. But when the “needy” get sick because of poor hygiene and reckless life styles, I resent their call for “fairness”.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
11:16 am
“I think it’s very telling that they voted for the doomed Ryan budget instead of creating one that had a hope of passing both chambers. I think it’s telling when they don’t do something as well.”
And yet you do exactly what I predicted you’d do. Complain that they passed something they knew wouldn’t pass the Senate. You’re a cheap read, ByteMe. And tell me; what kind of budget would pass both chambers? Obama’s last budget submitted to the Senate failed 0-97.
“Nice attempt at creating a strawman argument, though. Got any other nonsense you want to throw at the wall to see if it sticks instead of addressing the core of the topic?”
Actually, I have addressed the topic at hand. You probably missed that trying to create your own strawman and deflection.
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
11:17 am
Tibby…..I comprehend quite well….Your comment was
“the House to waste their time passing meaningless bills since the Senate won’t even address them.”
The Ryan budget was passed without a chance that the Senate would address it…Nothing in that comment speaks to a Constitutional duty….. YOU can’t throw it out then try to get me to fall for the old Banana in the tail pipe trick….
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
11:20 am
I suggest you go back and read what I posted earlier about Congress having a Constitutional duty to pass a budget, where health care laws do not have the same mandate.
So are you suggesting that only those bills that have a constitutional mandate should be brought up for a vote? Of course not. What about all the doomed anti-abortion bills they’ve brought up that have died… should they have not done those bills as well? Of course not. It’s told us much about their priorities — and about this bill — that they chose to bring up those bills while NOT bringing up this one. But yet they complain about Democrats.
There’s a general rule for the House leadership (both parties): if it can’t pass your own party, don’t bring it up for a vote unless you’re trying to make a political point. So, either it can’t pass their own party OR they don’t want to make a political point of bringing up a doomed healthcare bill for a vote. Which is it and why?
Sour Mash
April 5th, 2012
11:20 am
Don’t let doctors Price and Gingrey fool you. They went to Congress to represent their own interests and those of fellow physicians just as when they were in the state legislature. So called “defensive medicine” due to concerns over medical malpractice suits does not account for ever increasing health care costs. Doctors owe loyalty to hospitals where they practice and they order unnecessary tests to increase the bottom line for themselves, their colleagues and the hospitals employing them. Research the issues, doctors and hospitals kill and maim more people than any other single cause in this country. Yes, these two want medical malpractice claims to go away but not by reducing the medical errors leading to them but by limiting recovery of awards to a pittance which will leave the taxpayers to pick up the tab on their future care. Trust them, they really have the interest of the public at heart.
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
11:20 am
Complain that they passed something they knew wouldn’t pass the Senate.
I didn’t complain at all. Where do you see that?
Oh… I see… you pulled a Romney this time! Good one!!
UGA 1999
April 5th, 2012
11:22 am
Inside Out…..But Obama’s budget failed without a single vote in support from the Dems or the Repubs! Explain that one!
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
11:22 am
UGA is stuck on “but… but… but… Obama!!!” Sad.
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
11:23 am
UGLY 1999…since when did pointing out the income disparity in this country become class warfare??? Check out the atttached link…Then you can spin it however you like….
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
md
April 5th, 2012
11:24 am
“But when the “needy” get sick because of poor hygiene and reckless life styles, I resent their call for “fairness”.”
According to the dems, choices don’t enter into the equation……the poor, poor, pitiful, poor are a group of people dealt a bad hand, and “we” have an obligation to help them.
The can’t see the difference between a can’t and a won’t, and also don’t understand that enabling is a disease, not a cure.
get out much?
April 5th, 2012
11:27 am
32 months old? How about adding the 168 months (give or take) it took the Republicans to offer their alternative to HillaryCare.
md
April 5th, 2012
11:27 am
“since when did pointing out the income disparity in this country become class warfare???”
Since folks pointed to one group as the cause of the others position. And using charts that represent a snapshot of wealth as if it is finite.
Neither is likely true, but the dems like those talking points and their followers eat it up like candy.
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
11:29 am
Ok…md…tell me which if the charts is incorrect???? Tell which which are slightly off and which ones are a bold face lie…..
UGA 1999
April 5th, 2012
11:30 am
Inside Out. Good job name calling. I wouldnt expect more from your kind. Even Obama admits that the income disparity has gotten worse under his leadership and party conflicts have worsened. What has he done right. Oh let me guess Bin Laden? Good job Seals!
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
11:31 am
And yes, when CEO pay has gone up 200+ % and average worker pay has stayed flat in in some cases declined, there is a direct line between the two!!!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
11:31 am
“So are you suggesting that only those bills that have a constitutional mandate should be brought up for a vote?”
No, and you do not have liberty to speak for me. I do that very well on my own, thank you.
And your own words I quoted proves you complained, ByteMe. Try English 101 the next time you’re at the community college.
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
11:32 am
UGGIE…you probably think that Bush kept us safe after 9-11 too …..
Justice Department faces deadline from Texas judges – CNN | Rss News Desk | Daily News Magazine
April 5th, 2012
11:33 am
[...] care commentsUSA TODAYObama Risks Voter Backlash by Warning High Court on Health LawBusinessWeekAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -Washington Postall 2,652 news [...]
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 5th, 2012
11:33 am
“The Ryan budget was passed without a chance that the Senate would address it…Nothing in that comment speaks to a Constitutional duty….. ”
Once again, Inside Out, I suggest you read my earlier comment which speaks very specifically to the Constitutional duty of passing a budget.
Most people when caught in an error would admit to it, but I understand that liberals have a tough time owning up to their mistakes.
UGA 1999
April 5th, 2012
11:34 am
Inside….He did! Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden and he did not.
md
April 5th, 2012
11:39 am
“Ok…md…tell me which if the charts is incorrect???? Tell which which are slightly off and which ones are a bold face lie…..”
It’s not the chart…..it’s the interpretation of the chart. All the chart shows is who has what in this country at any given point in time……..that’s all.
Not why folks have what they have……not how much goes to China or India……not how much comes from China or India……etc, etc, etc.
There is no one “pie” that is divvied up between the haves and have nots……..the money is there for all who want to go get it…………….
But it’s easier for some to believe they don’t have it because the rich guy down the street took it…….because that is what they are told.
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
11:39 am
Bush sworn in on Jan. 20th 2011……9 months later we were hit by Bin Laden….That happend on his watch EVEN ON THE REPUBLICAN CALENDAR…… Stop playing the blame game!!!! His watch, his problem!!!! Clinton left him a surplus, had he been focused on taking care of the country intead ofspending 800 days on vacation, we might not have had to deal with that!!!!
ByteMe
April 5th, 2012
11:39 am
And your own words I quoted proves you complained, ByteMe. Try English 101 the next time you’re at the community college.
That’s the best you got? You got nothing STILL. You still can’t explain why they won’t bring it up for a vote. Is it fear or do they not have the votes?
If it’s such a great bill, let the CBO score it and bring it to the floor. Until then.. it’s just whining by the republican party leadership. More whining, I should say, since they do it so often.
Justice Department faces deadline from Texas judges – CNN | Best News Feed - Daily News Magazine
April 5th, 2012
11:44 am
[...] care commentsUSA TODAYObama Risks Voter Backlash by Warning High Court on Health LawBusinessWeekAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -Washington Postall 2,652 news [...]
Jefferson
April 5th, 2012
11:47 am
The city of Atlanta should raise the water prices until revenue falls, is this the world you folks want to live in.
GDRLA
April 5th, 2012
11:51 am
Lil’Barry – I should pay for my own healthcare – however I have NEVER been allowed to do so since the private insurance industry would not insure me – even @ higher rates – I am not asking to be subsidized – just to play on the same level field as others do – let me have insurance – I have asked HC providers during my lifetime to write me for conditions OTHER than my pre-existent item & was still unable to get a policy written for me. So paid for most of it out of my pocket (which was then subsidized by others since I then qualified for the medical deduction on my personal taxes). Paid for my own broken bones, appendectomy, etc.
So I do support the HCA since I can now get this insurance even if it is still not a totally level playing field. I never asked anyone to pay for me, just that I could pay for myself according to the same subsidy rules as others.
mountain man
April 5th, 2012
11:57 am
” Your employer doesn’t contribute anything to the cost of your insurance. Your employer diverts part of your compensation toward your insurance premium because there are tax advantages for doing so. But that money is still your earnings.”
So, Kyle, you believe that if employers were told not to supply insurance to their employees, that the employer would immediately give the employee a raise amounting to the cost they were putting into insurance? You are a naive little thing, aren’t you?
That Black guy
April 5th, 2012
12:00 pm
Does anyone have a source for the 30/40/50 million uninsured Americans number that is being tossed about?
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
12:01 pm
md…lets be serious….Robert Nardelli took over Home Depot and the stock stayed flat. During his tenure, his compensation rose double digit percentage every year….. The pay of the average worker stayed flat… The stock value stayed flat and he walked away with a 210 million dollar package….If you are going to tell me that kind of disparity does not need to be addressed, the you really are blind…..
UGA 1999
April 5th, 2012
12:01 pm
Inside….Care to look at the attacks since Obama has been in office. Hoodies and Skittles will riddle Obama’s tenure! NICE!
mountain man
April 5th, 2012
12:02 pm
Why don’t we take a look at the Republican ideas for fixing the Health Care system proposed while Bush was in office…oh, wait.
md
April 5th, 2012
12:05 pm
“md…lets be serious….Robert Nardelli took over Home Depot and the stock stayed flat. During his tenure, his compensation rose double digit percentage every year….. The pay of the average worker stayed flat… The stock value stayed flat and he walked away with a 210 million dollar package….If you are going to tell me that kind of disparity does not need to be addressed, the you really are blind…..”
That’s different than total wealth distribution……..you are referencing exceptions, not the norm. Sure, there are some ceo’s that get paid too much, but that doesn’t equate to all ceo’s………..
Jefferson
April 5th, 2012
12:07 pm
Truth is there is no alturnative, nor will there be if left up to those who care only for themselves and not others.
robert
April 5th, 2012
12:13 pm
Yeah, Mountain Man asks the right question. Frankly most of the people I know will just continue to use the ER for their health care. And so Price’s suggestions really will mean even higher costs than Obamacare. Sorry I am a traditional conservative, which means this: at some junctions we have to mandate personal responsibility. New conservatives seem like 60’s liberals–they want us all to do our own thing–no one is the boss of me! Seems like the attitude of affluent people with a sense of entitlement to me, sorry.
Stephenson Billings
April 5th, 2012
12:14 pm
“Does anyone have a source for the 30/40/50 million uninsured Americans number that is being tossed about?”
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/real-number-uninsured_525775.html
Inside Out
April 5th, 2012
12:14 pm
md….when overall wealth distribution is being shifted in this manner, it has to be a part of the discussion…. to ignore the issue or to try to play it off as some made up boogey man is intellectually dishonest at best…
Dirty Dawg
April 5th, 2012
12:15 pm
md…you really are a piece of it…the ‘old block’ that is. Galbraith was right, the definition of conservative is indeed the search for a better excuse for selfishness – as if you guys actually needed one. Your ‘comeback’ was that ‘ObamaCare’ also included Federal subsidies to individuals and the states…guess what every state, including the RomneyCare one, relies on Fed dollars to cover their health care programs. But since it’s got Obama’s name associated with it, that automatically makes this one evil or something.