The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Under Review
By: Stephen Crews
Updated: March 29, 2012
This
week the Supreme Court will conclude oral arguments over President
Obama's health care reform law. The key legal question is whether the
Constitution grants
the federal government the power to force individuals to purchase health
insurance. In my view, the answer is no.
But
even if the Court upholds the law, serious problems will remain. In
2010, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Congress to quickly pass the
health care bill "so
that [we] can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."
Two years later, consider what we've found:
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the law
will cost $1.76 trillion. That is double the original price, which was
based
on budget gimmicks designed to hide the true cost.
The CBO also reports that as many as 20 million Americans may lose
their existing coverage because of the law, a finding that stands in
stark contrast
to President Obama's repeated promise that, "if you like your health
care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
Provisions tucked inside the law give the Administration unprecedented
power, such as the authority to require religious institutions to
provide contraceptives
to their employees, even when doing so violates the employers' beliefs.
New estimates indicate that the law will cost 800,000 jobs, not create
400,000 jobs as Pelosi claimed. Many small business owners in Alabama
have delayed
hiring out of fear of the law's burdensome regulations.
Budget
gimmicks and broken promises undermine Americans' trust in government,
and public opposition to the 400,000-word health care law was a driving
force behind
the Republican takeover of the House in 2010. Since then, we have voted
26 times to repeal the law, block its individual provisions, or defund
its programs.
For
example, last week we voted to remove the Independent Payment Advisory
Board. Under the president's plan, the 15-member Board, unelected and
handpicked by President
Obama, will soon be authorized to ration Medicare services for seniors.
Even our veterans are not immune because TRICARE reimbursement rates are
tied directly to Medicare.
Doctors
and hospital operators in our area tell me that the Board's
unprecedented control could have "disastrous affects" on patients in our
area, and could "result
in a loss of essential services" on which seniors rely. That must not
happen.
We'll
have to wait until June for the Court's historic decision. Until then,
the House should continue to push for repeal of this massive,
government-run health
care scheme, while also making the case for market-based solutions that
truly control cost, increase access, and improve the quality of medical
care for Americans. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will join us in
that effort.
