WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: Americans Urge Elected Officials To Build On What Is Working, Reject One-Size-Fits-All Health Care
As experts from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) testified on Capitol Hill last week about the dire consequences of a one-size-fits-all Medicare for all system, voices throughout the nation also encouraged elected officials to improve and build on what is working and fix what isn’t, while opposing a one-size-fits-all government-run system that will force Americans to pay more.
The Affordable Care Act had its nine-year anniversary and while the law is not perfect, it laid the foundation for a problem presidents from Roosevelt to Reagan to Bush to Obama have been trying to solve for 85 years. With 2 million Floridians newly insured as a result of ACA, it’s been working for many Florida families. Yet extremists continue to rail against it. Conservatives want it gone, most recently with Trump’s DOJ lawsuit that eliminates the law (without replacement). Liberals want Medicare for All, which also eliminates ACA. Social Security passed in 1935 and was improved many times, including women and minorities in 1950 (15 years later) and adding Medicare in 1965. More of our leaders should invest in improving the ACA’s imperfections, like Rep. Stephanie Murphy is pursuing. We could build on the ACA’s foundation to cover and service even more Floridian families.
What raises the concern of so many of us connected to Connecticut’s insurance industry is the push to enact a “public option” or buy-in program. This would create a government-run health coverage program that would destabilize the private insurance market, hurt Connecticut companies and put us on the path towards a single-payer system.
… The inevitable result is that a “public option” or buy-in plan would be propped up by tax dollars, leading to large new burdens on individuals and businesses. It would use these taxpayer subsidies to undercut private insurance, destabilizing that market. The inevitable result would be a health insurance marketplace dominated by a government plan, or a single-payer system. That means the end to private insurance companies in the state. Under single-payer, consumers would have no choices — they would get what the government gave them. Taxpayers would be responsible for the ever-escalating costs
The national health care debate has continued as more and more candidates enter the presidential field and each is asked to weigh in on ways we need to improve our health care system. These usually include policies such as Medicare for all or a Medicare buy-in option or something else. What is usually missing from these policy discussions is something simpler: Fixing the system we have.
… As a chamber of commerce, we have worked to improve the lives of our members, their employees and their business in any way that we can … We also advocate for policies that will improve their lives. Medicare for all does not do that. It will rip away the health care coverage many businesses offer to their employees. These employees may be happy with their coverage, as most Americans are, but it will be taken from them nonetheless.
This misguided policy will also reduce access to medical care, create a national shortage of physicians, and create long wait times on patient visits. Those factors will simply not improve the lives of our members.
I urge our congressional leaders here in Arizona to work together to create a health care system that improves on what we have instead of tearing it down to create a system with many dangerous unknowns.