Republicans will stand by plan to keep popular provisions in health care law

In addition to a Republican effort to repeal the Democrats’ health care law, the party will also move to impose provisions that restrict insurance companies from discriminating against patients with pre-existing conditions and allow young people to stay on their parents’ insurance up to the age of 26, said Majority Leader-designate Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.

“What I think you will see us do is push for repeal of the health care bill and at the same time contemporaneously submit our replacement bill,” Cantor told students during a townhall event at American University in Washington, D.C. Monday night.

“We too don’t want to accept any insurance company’s denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she might have a pre-existing condition,” he said. “Likewise we want to make sure that someone of your age has the ability to access affordable care if it’s under your parent’s plan or elsewhere.”

Republicans have used the “repeal and replace” rallying cry since President Obama signed the bill into law in March. They introduced their own version of health care reform, which was widely seen as a symbolic gesture at the time. The new Republican control of the House, however, will give the party more leverage to vote on legislation to defund portions of the law and offer replacement bills next year.

Joining Cantor at the event was Majority Whip-designate Kevin McCarthy of California and presumed Budget Committee Chair-to-be Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who spoke out against the provision in the health care law that forces everyone to buy insurance.

While full repeal appears unlikely, polls indicate that a plan to replace certain parts of the health care law could resonate with voters. A McClatchy-Marist survey released Monday found that 68 percent of Americans were in favor of keeping the provision to allow young people to stay on their parents’ insurance plan and nearly 60 percent favored government restrictions on insurance companies that deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Sixty-five percent, however, said they wanted to eliminate the mandate to buy coverage and only 16 percent wanted to keep the law in its current form.

Email Chris Moody and follow him on Twitter

  • Pingback: Republicans Still Want Socialized Medicine, Not Medical Freedom » ReasonAndJest.com

  • Pingback: Obamacare, Republicare, or Medical Freedom? « LewRockwell.com Blog

  • craigiri

    Ah, so even though the other “to be popular” parts of the bill are not in place yet, they intend to keep the “popular” parts……hmmm….

    Very Interesting.

    What are they going to do? Take a poll as to what is popular? What percentage would they need to agree that some part is popular? What if a popular part without the unpopular part busts the budget?

    They are a bunch of slimy snakes – populists trying hard not to make the tough decisions! As to the health care bill, a larger percentage of Americans think we need either:
    1. The bill as it is.
    2. It should have done MORE……

    The smallest percentage things it should be done away with.

    So, in terms of popular, they would want to work with the Dems to reform our Health Care even more! Of course they can’t now that they spent two years and all their political capital on telling us it was The Devil Incarnate.

  • Tess_Comments

    Repealing the health care law while imposing provisions that restrict insurance companies from discriminating against patients with pre-existing conditions and allow young people to stay on their parents’ insurance up to the age of 26 is a GREAT COMPROMISE.

    Repeal items in the Health Care Law that have not been activated. Keep items already activated by November 2010.

  • riseabove

    Cantor and his cohorts apparently don’t understand that Obamacare isn’t based in altruism where fair health access would be accessible across-the-board, but rather it’s a cunning way to redistribute wealth.

    The “free-health-care-to-all-ideology” is faulty on several different levels, and to fully or partially implement it would be like taking brick after brick out of a foundation…eventually weakening it so much that the entire structure collapses. This is exactly what these self-proclaimed “young guns” are proposing. We should not be trying to save Obamacare by compromising on particular issues since Obama said himself that even if he doesn’t get everything he wants, this is just the beginning of nationalized healthcare. These young politicians are inadvertanly playing right into his hands.

    The bill needs to be completely repealed and/or defunded followed by in-depth televised debates spanning every topic having to do with healthcare which will provide a platform to even determine whether or not the American people want to go down that road. I believe if that happened then alot more truth would be exposed inevitably leading to more effective solutions than to punish Peter for being motivated and responsible to pay Paul for doing nothing.

  • rigdum funidos

    pre-existing coverage is a difficult issue, for all the reasons above. one rational approach, though perhaps difficult to administer, is to give each adult one shot at getting it: you take it now [and perhaps pay a slightly higher premium] or forever hold your peace. If you didn’t choose to have it, when you have a serious health issue, you will have to join a State or Federal high-risk pool: and it will be your own fault.

  • ojfl

    There is very little new in this. Most of these proposals were already part of HR3400 that the Republicans had proposed but never saw the light of day.