IN THE first of two hearings on his nomination to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) on Wednesday asked members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to put him at the center of the Obamacare repeal-and-replace effort. To a nation increasingly nervous about the many dangers of ripping up the health law, Mr. Price offered some big promises — but scant reassurance.

For years one of Obamacare’s lead critics, Mr. Price at least admitted that the Affordable Care Act has succeeded in getting more people health-care coverage. But he protested that some of those people “have coverage, but they don’t have care,” criticizing high deductibles and high premiums for some consumers, as well as the effectiveness of the Medicaid program for the poor and near-poor. At one point, Mr. Price even indicated that a GOP replacement plan would cover more people than Obamacare has. “I am committed to making sure every single American has the coverage that they want,” he pledged over and over.

So what is the plan to cover more people, lower premiums, lower deductibles, lower health-care costs, increase consumer choice and improve health-care outcomes? Mr. Price offered little beyond gauzy promises. In fact, none of the major Republican Obamacare replacement plans on the table, including the proposals Mr. Price introduced, would have done all of these things. GOP reformers have generally stressed loosening coverage requirements to lower premiums and slimming subsidies in order to cut federal spending. But health-care experts warn that the trade-offs are likely to be higher, not lower, deductibles, fewer needy people finding coverage that meets their needs and fewer people getting insurance at all.

Similarly, Mr. Price promised to “make sure nobody falls through the cracks” after repeal and replace. He pointed out that previous Republican reform proposals would have invested in high-risk pools catering to the sick people who insurance companies won’t willingly touch. But experts warn that these GOP plans provided far too little funding for high-risk pools, which have not worked as great backstops for needy people in the past.

Mr. Price also did not eliminate concerns about the $300,000 worth of health-care stock trading he did over the past four years while he was a congressional leader crafting health-care policy. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) homed in on a private deal that allowed Mr. Price to buy one health-care company’s stock at a discount. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked why Mr. Price kept advocating certain policies after he found out he owned stock in companies that would benefit from them. Mr. Price’s general defense — that his broker was responsible for trading his portfolio and that he followed House ethics rules — did not settle these questions.

In his next hearing, before the Senate Finance Committee next week, Mr. Price will have to offer better than unsubstantiated assurances about repeal and replace. Meantime, senators should continue to scrutinize his ethical history.