Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamist Terrorism
Government & Politics
National & Local
The Fifth Column
Culture Wars
Editorials
Analysis
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




Many Republicans expects GOP leadership to advance their replacement package soon after the court releases its ruling, even if the justices uphold the individual mandate.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
House GOP Drafting Bill to Replace
Obamacare in Anticipation of SCOTUS Decision

The Washington Times
A key House Republican said Wednesday that GOP lawmakers are preparing a sweeping overhaul of healthcare in anticipation of a chance to pass something this summer after the Supreme Court rules on President Obama’s health law.

The nine justices are expected to hand down a landmark ruling in June on whether the individual mandate and Medicaid provisions in Mr. Obama’s biggest legislative achievement are constitutional. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), said that whichever way they rule, there will be a chance to make a case to voters once again that Mr. Obama’s plan should be scrapped.

“We’ll have a window of opportunity, with everyone looking, to explain that the Affordable Care Act is not fully implemented yet,” said Mr. Pitts, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. “A lot of people think it is already. They don’t know what’s coming.”

Details of the legislation are still being crafted, but it likely will include tax incentives for individuals to purchase health insurance, medical-liability reform and provisions allowing insurance to be sold and risk to be pooled across state lines, he said.

Speaking with reporters Wednesday, Mr. Pitts said he expects the GOP leadership to advance their replacement package soon after the court releases its ruling - even if the justices uphold the individual mandate, the centerpiece and most controversial part of the law requiring Americans to obtain coverage or pay a fine.

“We’ll use that opportunity in that window to discuss the full ramifications of the Affordable Care Act and what we’d replace it with,” Mr. Pitts said.

The Supreme Court’s final ruling could take a number of different forms.

The justices could uphold the entire law, validating Mr. Obama’s argument that requiring Americans to buy health insurance is a proper use of government power. They could strike down the individual mandate but leave the rest of the law intact. Or, they could strike down the mandate and the rest of the law a scenario that even Mr. Pitts doesn’t think is likely.

“We don’t expect the court to rule the whole law’s unconstitutional,” he said, although he added that Republicans will still try to replace the whole law. “We will have a package, as I enumerated, that would apply as a complete replacement.”

Over the next few months, Republicans also will try to repeal smaller sections of the healthcare law, Mr. Pitts said. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-OH), has scheduled a vote next week to repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, an insurance program for the elderly and those needing long-term care that the Obama administration has halted for reasons of financial instability.

GOP leaders also are looking at legislation to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a panel created by the healthcare law to rein in Medicare costs. The IPAB is loathed by Republicans, who say it will have too much power and could hurt doctors by cutting reimbursements too much.

The Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 without any Republican votes, but the GOP’s efforts to repeal it last year stalled, and the party’s leaders have yet to introduce a replacement.

READ FULL ARTICLE







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2012    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server