Here’s the press release from the office of Rep. Patrick McHenry:
Congressman Patrick McHenry (NC-10) vowed to continue efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare after today’s Supreme Court decision largely upheld the law. The 5-4 decision keeps the controversial healthcare law in place. To date, Republicans have voted to repeal, defund, or dismantle provisions of the president’s government takeover of healthcare law 30 times.
“In the midst of a grim economic recession, this unpopular healthcare takeover made things worse,” Congressman McHenry said. “There’s no doubt this law has created a great deal of uncertainty, keeping many small business owners from hiring new workers and acting as a serious impediment to economic growth.”
In a January 2012 U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey of small businesses, 74 percent said that the health care law makes it harder for their firms to hire new workers and 30 percent said they are not hiring at all thanks to the law. In addition, according to a February 2012 Gallup poll, almost half of small businesses said they were not hiring due to concerns about possible rising health care costs and worries about new government regulations.
“Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, ObamaCare is still bad policy that needs to be replaced with patient-centered reforms that will actually lower the cost of care,” McHenry continued. “We should enact medical liability reform, make insurance companies compete for patients business by allowing them to shop across state lines, and expand health savings accounts that give taxpayers control over their own health care decisions. Until we enact real change, premiums will continue to rise for millions of American families.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent upwards of $100 from the outset to defeat any health insurance reform; they support the on-going transfer of jobs from the U.S. to foreign shores, and have fought tooth-and-nail against any financial reform. Why should any ‘pol’ of theirs be given creedence?
As for the rest of the idea-less drivel…
What exactly is “patent-focused reforms”? Having been a patient before, my focus would be to implement a single-payer system and discontinue adding 33% or more to my premium cost to pay for private health insurance companies’ “overhead, marketing and executive salaries.” So, what do you specifically mean?
Medical malpractice reform is a red herring always offered up by those that really wish to preserve the status quo; studies consistently show the costs of malpractice lawsuits amount to about 1% of total health care costs.
“make insurance companies compete for patients business by allowing them to shop across state lines…”
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed this idea in 2005, and found it would have a negligible effect on cost savings and:
“the legislation would not change the number of insured Americans or save much money, but it would make insurance more expensive for the sick and cheaper for the healthy, and lead to more healthy people with insurance and fewer sick people with insurance. It’s a great proposal if you don’t ever plan to be sick, and if you don’t mind finding out that your insurer doesn’t cover your illness. And it’s the Republican plan for health-care reform.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_across_state.html
And health-care spending accounts, which allow medical dollars to be tax-free, wouldn’t affect costs at all. Most company plans already allow tax-savings on premiums via IRS Section 125; HSA’s require the user to have discretionary funds to begin with in order to use them. How would they do anything?
Not one viable idea to be found in this litany of buzz words and phrases. A bankruptcy of ideas on display here. But perhaps that is all the ‘faithful’ need…illusions.