Despite being ruled constitutional, the President’s health care bill still makes it difficult for our economy to grow and takes away the ability of patients to pursue their own health care decisions. The real issue, however, is not whether the law is constitutional or unconstitutional. It is whether it is good or bad for the country. While our health care system needs reform, imposing unpopular and unaffordable mandates is not the solution.
Health care should be about patients and doctors, not government and bureaucrats. Through promoting greater competition between insurers and by protecting our providers from frivolous lawsuits, we can ensure that consumers receive better services at a lower cost. In health care decisions, nothing is more important than patient choice.
We didn’t vote to repeal the President’s healthcare law because the system was perfect before, but there were aspects of the law that hurt the economy enough for us to justify starting over with reforms that actually decrease the cost of care and don’t hurt job creation.
As a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, I will be at the forefront of the effort to outline replacement legislation. At the top of this list has to be tort reform. I believe that capping medical malpractice damages is one important way to lower the cost for doctors and patients.
We also need to open up the health insurance market and allow policies to be bought and sold across state lines. Insurers have to comply with state regulations and mandates on care, so the consequence is that there is no national market for health insurance.
Implementing measures such as these will lower the cost of health insurance. By lowering the cost of insurance, more people will be able to purchase coverage. The goal here needs to be opening up the insurance roles to people who want coverage. Healthcare reform should never be about forcing people to buy a product they don’t want or taxing them if they refuse to purchase it.