Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Tom Price voted to let hospitals turn away Medicare & Medicaid patients who couldn't afford copay
Price has sponsored legislation that supports making armor-piercing bullets more accessible and opposing regulations on cigars, and he has voted against regulating tobacco as a drug. His voting record shows long-standing opposition to policies aimed at improving access to care for the most vulnerable Americans. In 2007–2008, during the presidency of George W. Bush, he was one of only 47 representatives to vote against the Domenici–Wellstone Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which improved coverage for mental health care in private insurance plans. He also voted against funding for combating AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis; against expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program; and in favor of allowing hospitals to turn away Medicaid and Medicare patients seeking nonemergency care if they could not afford copayments.
Price favors converting Medicare to a premium-support system and changing the structure of Medicaid to a block grant — policy options that shift financial risk from the federal government to vulnerable populations. He also opposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and has voted against legislation prohibiting job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and against enforcement of laws against anti-LGBT hate crimes. He favors amending the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.
In addition, he has been inconsistent in supporting investments in biomedical science. He opposes stem-cell research and voted against expanding the National Institutes of Health budget and against the recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act, showing particular animus toward the Cancer Moonshot.
Price has also been a vociferous opponent of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and a leader of the repeal-and-replace movement. His proposal for replacing the ACA is H.R. 2300, the Empowering Patients First Act,5 which would eliminate the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and replace its subsidies with flat tax credits based on age, not income ($1,200 per year for someone 18 to 35 years of age; $3,000 for someone 50 or older, with an additional one-time credit of $1,000 toward a health savings account). Price’s plan is regressive: it offers much greater subsidies relative to income for purchasers with high incomes and much more meager subsidies for those with low incomes. In today’s market, these credits would pay only about one third of the premium of a low-cost plan, leaving a 30-year-old with a premium bill for $2,532, and a 60-year-old with a bill for $5,916 — along with a potential out-of-pocket liability of as much as $7,000. By contrast, subsidies under the ACA are based on income and the price of health insurance. Today, a low-income person (with an income of 200% of the federal poverty level) pays, on average, a premium of $1,528 per year (regardless of age) for a plan with an out-of-pocket maximum of $2,350, and that payment does not change even if health insurance premiums rise.
To put the plan’s subsidies into perspective, consider that in 1992, when per capita health expenditures were just one third of what they are today, President Bush and HHS Secretary Sullivan proposed a slightly larger individual tax credit ($1,250) for the purchase of insurance than Price proposes today. Even in 1992, analysts reported that the credit would be insufficient to induce most people to buy coverage.
Price favors converting Medicare to a premium-support system and changing the structure of Medicaid to a block grant — policy options that shift financial risk from the federal government to vulnerable populations. He also opposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and has voted against legislation prohibiting job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and against enforcement of laws against anti-LGBT hate crimes. He favors amending the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.
In addition, he has been inconsistent in supporting investments in biomedical science. He opposes stem-cell research and voted against expanding the National Institutes of Health budget and against the recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act, showing particular animus toward the Cancer Moonshot.
Price has also been a vociferous opponent of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and a leader of the repeal-and-replace movement. His proposal for replacing the ACA is H.R. 2300, the Empowering Patients First Act,5 which would eliminate the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and replace its subsidies with flat tax credits based on age, not income ($1,200 per year for someone 18 to 35 years of age; $3,000 for someone 50 or older, with an additional one-time credit of $1,000 toward a health savings account). Price’s plan is regressive: it offers much greater subsidies relative to income for purchasers with high incomes and much more meager subsidies for those with low incomes. In today’s market, these credits would pay only about one third of the premium of a low-cost plan, leaving a 30-year-old with a premium bill for $2,532, and a 60-year-old with a bill for $5,916 — along with a potential out-of-pocket liability of as much as $7,000. By contrast, subsidies under the ACA are based on income and the price of health insurance. Today, a low-income person (with an income of 200% of the federal poverty level) pays, on average, a premium of $1,528 per year (regardless of age) for a plan with an out-of-pocket maximum of $2,350, and that payment does not change even if health insurance premiums rise.
To put the plan’s subsidies into perspective, consider that in 1992, when per capita health expenditures were just one third of what they are today, President Bush and HHS Secretary Sullivan proposed a slightly larger individual tax credit ($1,250) for the purchase of insurance than Price proposes today. Even in 1992, analysts reported that the credit would be insufficient to induce most people to buy coverage.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1615714
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
