Rep Tom Price Debating Repeal Of Affordable Care Act On FoxNews Sunday

Congressman Tom Price (R-GA6) will be debating California Congressman Xavier Becerra on FoxNews Sunday tomorrow.  The topic, according to a tweet by Price’s press secretary, will be “Full Repeal” of the Affordable Care Act.  Rep. Becerra is the Vice Chairman of the House Democrats, while Price, a medical doctor, is Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.  If you were debating about whether or not to tune in tomorrow (Fox5 Atlanta runs the program at 9am), now you have a Georgia reason to view.


  1. James says:

    I always laugh at these “debates.” Do you think that Price is going to come out with some brand new, really articulate and insightful analysis about the effects of the ACA? Nope — we’ll hear “largest tax increase in history” and the same old stuff we’ve heard for two years. And is Becerra going to change anyone’s mind on the issue? Especially anyone in Georgia? Nope again.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      We’ve already got that answer from the GOP base that is the Price’s bedrock:

      “CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Texas Rep. Ron Paul whether a man in a coma without health insurance should be left to die. (Blitzer used the phrase “let him die” in his question.) Some in the audience, made up of Tea Party supporters, could be heard shouting “yeah.”

      • John Konop says:

        Btw I have seen the let them die crowd cheer like you from so called social conservatives. How can they pledge on one hand for a personhood act that guarantees life from conception to death yet support letting people die who cannot afford healthcare?

    • Three Jack says:

      Don’t have children if you can’t afford to have children. If you do so anyway, don’t come knocking on my door looking for money to pay for the children you cannot afford yourself.

      Also, let me re-phrase the question for you John; What is your plan for responsible people barely making ends meet who now face a tax increase to pay for those who define self responsibility by making sure they have cigarettes, beer and cable tv instead of health insurance?

      • John Konop says:

        Healthcare cost has been growing 5 to 10 times faster than GDP which has resulting in the average person seeing it out-pace inflation and any wage increase. As a country we are spending almost twice as much yet we yield results worse than many developing countries

        Inflation and wage increase

        Twice as much

        The truth is we need a combination of efficiency changes, tough love cuts and carrot and stick approach to how we pay for healthcare. I have made this point for years. BTW you are making my point about mandates. If a person can afford insurance they should have to pay. The only other solution is let people die. As a society, most rational people do not support not treating a child with strip throat, diabetes, a unwedded teenage mother…………..

        • Three Jack says:

          “If a person can afford insurance they should have to pay. The only other solution is let people die.”

          Do you really look at health insurance as a live or die scenario? It is not. In fact, the vast majority of cases not covered are for minor afflictions (cold, sniffles, head/stomach/other aches). If society is going to reasonably address healthcare, we need to stop with the bogus live or die debate.

          “As a society, most rational people do not support not treating a child with strip throat, diabetes, a unwedded teenage mother…”

          I would argue that a rational society would strongly discourage unwed births instead of just accepting it as normal then pay for the outcome. Society as we know it will no longer exist if the majority is forced by the IRS/government to pay for those who irresponsibly have babies. Health is not a right. It is the responsibility of each of us to maintain ourselves or face the consequences. Therefore the mandate concept is completely baseless unless you believe good health is a constitutional right.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            If society is going to reasonably address healthcare, we need to stop with the bogus live or die debate.

            Yes. It’s an exhausted strategy used to guilt people into supporting something. That’s done got old and if it’s supposed to “zing” someone’s emotional radar, much like being accostomed to watching war on live T.V., people become indifferent to it when the card is played over and over again. (See also: ‘race card.’)

            • John Konop says:


              …If society is going to reasonably address healthcare, we need to stop with the bogus live or die debate…

              For a child, mother……………sick who needs healthcare without the money it is a real issue.

              • Three Jack says:


                For a responsible family struggling to make ends meet (including paying for their own healthcare), tax increases are a real issue.

              • seenbetrdayz says:

                Is this a humanitarian argument? You seem to be trying awfully hard to win over sympathy for this woman, but on the same token, your idea of “helping” her is forcing her to buy insurance from Big Insurance™, or else pay a fine to the IRS.

                  • seenbetrdayz says:

                    For starters, ‘if you can’t make something better, at least don’t make it worse.’ How many of these hot ideas out of washington backfire, whenever we’re told, “this is going to help” and yet, it makes it worse? I don’t think that single mother is going to be much better off when she’s got insurance rates going up and IRS agents telling her she’d better not get caught without insurance.

                    You ask what my solution is, so that’s my first step: Don’t make it worse.

                    I’ve already explained numerous times that all the mandate does it treat the symptoms of the disease, it does not treat the underlying problem (high costs in healthcare). We need to be looking at ways to make healthcare more accessible (such as, doing away with “certificates of need” if someone wants to build another hospital, focusing on direct-dealing with doctors for minor illness, rather than through insurance companies or government programs such as medicare/medicaid, which are always sure to tack on their cut to the bill, increasing costs; in other words, deregulate the healthcare industry). Increase supply = decreases demand and reduces cost. The U.S. has been suffering from an artificial shortage in healthcare created by the government, and the healthcare bubble will pop (just as the housing bubble popped). No one wants to listen to that approach because it is really involved and frankly, it isn’t as easy as just mandating that everyone have insurance.

                    I want to scrap this whole rushed healthcare law and find a way to make healthcare more affordable for this single mother w/sick child, rather than forcing her to pay into an inflated system and fuel a bubble, or face a penalty, which doesn’t make the problem better, it only makes it worse.

                    Obamacare was written by, for, and of the insurance companies, and yet, people are going around telling these poor, struggling single mothers that we’re doing all this because we really care about them and we’re humanitarians; it might be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

                    There’s always an ironic twist when the government comes up to you and says, “Let me tell you how to make your life better . . . or else.” At least the ones who flat-out don’t care about poor people are honest.

                  • Three Jack says:


                    I would suggest they call you and John Roberts to get the money needed.

                    If a family responsibly purchases coverage even though they have to cut back on less important things like vacations, cable tv, new cars, etc., why should they be forced to pay for irresponsible behavior? Answer that John.

                    • John Konop says:


                      You are making the argument for mandatory pay healthcare. As far as poor people, we do need to cut back what we offer. It does not help with politicians on both sides screaming about death panels and killing grandma. Also if the GOP wants to stiffen abortion laws they should have to come up with money to fund unwedded teenage mothers, poor people….. healthcare cost for them and their kids. If not we just have another unfunded mandate. Like it or not most people are for helping poor children, unwedded mothers, special needs people and elderly who do not have money for healthcare.

                    • Three Jack says:


                      You didn’t answer the question, nothing new there.

                      “Like it or not most people are for helping poor children, unwedded mothers, special needs people and elderly who do not have money for healthcare.”

                      Really John? I would agree if you are referring to assistance based on choice instead of forced by the government through the IRS. Charity is good, forced taking is not.

                      Lastly, there is no way you can possibly misconstrue my position to say I am in favor of mandates. Again that would require that one believes healthcare to be a constitutional right…I do not.

          • Dave Bearse says:

            Contraception, sex education, and choice are some means that address unwed births, but none of that is at all encouraged by the Tea Party..

  2. Bob Loblaw says:

    If you think that Congress can get away with repealing a law that:
    gives poor, uninsured families health insurance;
    Allows recent college grads to stay on their parent’s plans (I remember those uninsured days);
    Provides insurance that no company in the U.S. would offer to people with pre-existing conditions (I fall in that camp, too and have been turned down 100% of the time);
    Then you haven’t seen a TV attack ad painting these Members of Congress as evildoers for taking away health care for these people and how effective they can be.

    Oh yeah, and that new President can’t be trusted to repeal a law he championed in the past. I can’t believe a thing he says anyway.

    This is the future of health care. Georgia should take the money, shore up Medicaid by adding 600k healthier lives then they have enrolled now and create exchanges where private industry makes its own decisions whether to enter the market.

  3. saltycracker says:

    Obamacare will drive costs to unsustainable levels and the Republicans should focus on a replacement plan. The individual mandate in the private market has more promise than mandating the responsible/capable to pay for the irresponsible and fraudulent.

    To go with individual choice we must be willing to grant providers the right of refusal and refer folks to charities or dramatically raise taxes and print a lot of money.

    I like Price but he does not reveal something we can really get behind. From Tom Price’s website:

    “There are positive, patient-centered solutions that would provide the financial incentive for every single American to be able to afford the health coverage they want for themselves and their families, not that the government wants for them. Rather than build reform around the premise of mandates and government control, why not provide a system of tax deductions and credits that reflect the needs of Americans no matter their economic situation?”

    “At the same time, we can solve the insurance challenges of portability and pre-existing conditions by allowing everyone to own their health coverage regardless of who buys it and have access to robust pooling opportunities so you retain the ability to purchase insurance, regardless of health status.”

    • John Konop says:

      The problem is if we pool high risk groups separately the price will be to high for them to afford on a macro. And at the end of the day the choice will be between letting them die if they get sick or tax payers footing most of the bill. Once again the GOP is avoiding what do with people without health insurance. I do think self-insured pools would help ie public exchanges, but that is not the silver bullet. We have many issues from Medicare, Medicaid, public workers healthcare, drug presricbition bill……….

    • James says:

      “There are positive, patient-centered solutions that would provide the financial incentive for every single American to be able to afford the health coverage they want . . . .”

      What are the solutions, Tom? Give me one. Just one.

      Platitudes like this drive me crazy. Say what you will about the ACA, but at least its 2000+ pages contain specific reforms and specific processes for changing the U.S. healthcare system. What do you hear from the right as far as a replacement plan goes, Saltycracker? Crickets. And they’ve had more than three years to come up with something.

      • John Konop says:

        In fairness to Tom Price he has advocated for the exchange concept for years, a part of the solution. And in fairness the Ryan and Obama plans do not deal with a real long term fix for Medicare, Medicaid, drug prescibition bill……….

        A big part of the problem is the American people do not want to hear the truth. I have heard Erick Cantor on the right and Nancy Pelosi on the left say they want to do want the Ameican people want. What needs to be said is we have to do what the American people can afford.

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        There’s nothing to switch to or from because I’m independent who has had about enough of both parties’ crap.

        • SallyForth says:

          +1, LDIG. The parties themselves are just a bunch of non-public servants with giant egos who use everything they can to manipulate the election process to their own personal benefit. Gangs of no-names who like to get in big rooms and listen to each other blather about their self-importance. Our nation did not start off with political parties for the ballot – we need to go back to that method.

  4. seenbetrdayz says:

    I wouldn’t mind hearing someone who is a doctor and a politician talk more from the perspective of a doctor than a politician, for once.

    But frankly, it’s the ones who are not expert doctors, but rather, expert politicians who scare me.

    • saltycracker says:

      Got Dr. politician’s newsletter today, healthcare was his subject, so read with hope of clarification…..just a few bullet points for the unwashed……nope…….

        • saltycracker says:

          You are correct, if I taken the time to do extensive checking I might have found some prolific data to glean through. I went back to the newsletter, then looked under legislation which listed sponsored legislation but did not link them. There were numerous health bills proposed. Is his plan spread out through them ?

          Maybe I missed something. I didn’t get to the link you attached, so thanks.

          I said I like Price and am looking for some good ideas from him. It is inherent on the candidates to get their points across to the public simply and clearly. That’s good debate.

          Sorry but expectations of hours of research to dig out critical points are not for me.

          • TheEiger says:

            “Sorry but expectations of hours of research to dig out critical points are not for me.”

            So being an informed voter is not for you? Got it. It took me 15 mins to read the link I posted. It may be to your benefit to actualy read things when people do “hours of research” for you. You may find you like what you see.

            • saltycracker says:

              You are right, I, the insignificant voter who could not even find the link you posted above

              Nice reply to my thanks for the link. I, the insignificant voter, who could not even find the link before you posted it, is obviously not worthy to actualy (sic) understand the path we need to get on with Price.
              sign me: Desperately seeking an alternative to Obamacare

            • John Konop says:

              The Eiger,

              I have seen the plan and agree with some of the ideas ie exchanges, some of the payment concepts for Medicaid….. The biggest issue I see is with the plan are the following:

              1) A high risk pool concept will incent insurance companies to push their risk into this pool. And high risk pool pricing will create a pool of people who will not be able to afford the cost. And at the end of the day we will have an even larger pool of people with no insurance and the bill left on tax payers doorstep. This concept works well if you are pricing loan risk, which either pushes the deal away or has a customer come up with more equity. But with healthcare if the deal is not done the person could die.
              2) Nothing in the bill deals with the “Medicare Part D” and this drug prescription bill will BK the country if nothing is done
              3) Nothing in the bill deals with people who so-called take the risk and end up using county hospitals as emergency healthcare policy paid by tax payers.
              4) Nothing in the bill deals with end of life cost which represents about 60 to 70% of what is person pays over a life time for the last 6 months of life.
              5) It does not do enough to control Medicare cost

              In my opinion unless we deal with all of the above issues, the plan will not fix the core problem.

      • SallyForth says:

        Salty, I loved your “Dr. politician” characterization. Price was a wormy little dude when he was in the State Legislature, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and he’s still the same – only with grey hair now and doing his show at the national level. Oh, well…..

        • saltycracker says:

          The situation reminds me of years ago when running a group & we brought them in to HQ for our IT group to explain info provided to them and how to work with it. The IT group talked in their IT code to impress the execs & put down the field group.

          When I interrupted to explain that IT was an important support group and it falls on them to properly communicate and train the field to make the best use of the info with our customer base. If they could not do that, we would loose customers and reorganize the IT group. It went well after that.

          Dr. politician needs to understand who the customer is.

  5. Three Jack says:

    Here is a provocative headline on today — “Southern governors secede from Medicaid” — Imagine my excitment as I took that to mean southern governors would actually opt out of the failed redistribution program.

    Actually it is a story about state politicians standing against federal policies — — In this case, 5 governors who happen to reside in the south have come out to say they will not accept RobertsCare (correctly renamed after Chief Justice Roberts re-wrote the law) Medicaid expansion. Kudos to Rick Perry of Texas, Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Phil Bryant of Mississippi and Nikki Haley of South Carolina for doing the right thing.

    It would be nice if Georgia’s governor could step away from appointing his buddies to boards and actually do some work like his counterparts in other southern states.

Comments are closed.