1) Has anyone presented an analysis to you or the Congress detailing whether or not his plan is constitutional or will face substantive legal challenges?
2) In both the House and Senate versions the statement of purpose includes the priority to "reduce health care spending" in America. If people want to be healthier and spend more money on research, technology and treatment, why should the federal government work against them? For example, a lot of money has been spent on eye surgeries in the last 20 years so that many people no longer need glasses or can get rid of cataracts. Why should federal law from the first word attempt to place a ceiling on individual choice for health therapies?
3) When something goes wrong in the new federal system, who will people call and what can they honestly expect in regards to expedited help from Washington, D.C.?
4) The Legislation creates a new federal authority and agency to run the national health care program. How large will this agency be? Will it be funded directly by tax dollars or by a portion of health care premiums paid by Americans?
5) The Secretary of HHS is given a great deal of new authority over this new federal agency. Given that the cabinet position of Secretary is a political appointment subject to change by a new President every four to eight years, how can we be certain that political agendas will not dominate the new health care system?
6) The Senate version requires the Office of Personnel Management to ensure each state offers at least 2 multi-state qualified plans. Why is it necessary to require that one of these plans be nonprofit? Is this another example of inequity in competition?
7) In the Senate version, a state may choose to not operate a Health Insurance Exchange. If this happens the HHS Secretary must establish and operate it for the state. Why can't there be an authentic opt out without federal intervention? Better yet. Why can't it be an opt in system?
8) Why are "grandfathered" health plans excluded from being a qualified plan without averting penalties?
9) Why can't there be authentic choice? For, example, why can't anyone choose to have a catastrophic policy instead of just offering this to individuals under 30?
10) Medicare and Tricare are government programs, i.e., Medicare beneficiary first; Tricare Standard being a second payer to Medicare claims. Tricare for Life was created by Congress for the military. Is there anything in the legislation that will reduce Tricare for Life benefits? Is Tricare for Life grandfathered into the legislation?
11) If the loser had to pay all expenses in torts related to medical care would that not reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and decrease the cost of malpractice insurance.
12) If we had a healthcare plan for the states that would:
a) cost the federal government zero dollars
b) would decrease the cost to business
c) served the indigent, and under insured at a cost less than Medicaid
Could we get someone in Washington to hear our plan?