web analytics
Your Independent Alternative!

Crenshaw: Empty Promises vs. Real Solutions

crenshaw-post1America has the highest quality health care of any country in the world, but when millions of Americans can’t afford it and are left on the outside looking in, we’ve got a crisis. If cost and access are the two roots of the crisis, proposed reform must speak to both.

I’ve been listening to Floridians. All raise concerns about how proposed reforms will impact them. Will I get to choose my health plan or doctor? Will health care cost more? Will the government take over health care?

Now, I want to clearly respond to what is being proposed in Washington and how it will affect every American. On the table: the Democrats’ proposal for government-run health care versus the Republican alternative that offers more choices at less cost.

For a crisis characterized by high cost and lack of access, the Democrat plan is befuddling. First, with a price tag of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, the plan actually increases health care costs. Doug Elmendorf, the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, commented: “The way I would put it is that the [cost] curve is being raised.” That’s right, Democrats actually want to increase the cost of health care, expanding the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years.

As if that was not enough, Democrats are increasing the deficit on the backs of the very Americans who are key to our economic recovery: small business owners. Since the mid-1990s, small businesses have created 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs. But small businesses often operate at the slimmest of profit margins—a third of all small businesses go out of business within the first two years. Nevertheless, House Democrats propose that if small businesses can’t afford to offer insurance, they must pay a penalty of an 8 percent payroll tax.

Instead of crushing small business with a burden they can’t bear, Republicans take the cost-effective approach of proposing that small businesses, the self employed, and others band together and purchase health insurance at lower costs resulting in coverage for more people. And no insurance plan can reject a consumer because of a pre-existing condition. Moreover, Republicans would attack high costs by implementing comprehensive medical liability reform. The practice of defensive medicine costs an estimated $100 billion-plus each year, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. We must eliminate costly, unnecessary defensive medicine being practiced by doctors trying to protect themselves. In the end, lower cost equals more access.

Democrats promise more access by introducing a government-run health care plan that will ‘keep private companies honest,’ but it’s an empty promise. Any government plan subsidized by taxpayers inevitably means it can control prices and undercut private plans, running them out of business. With price controls and a monopoly, Americans will end up with one choice: the government which is really no choice at all. Why don’t you hear this from Democrats? Because they don’t want you to know.

Republicans offer true choice by allowing individuals and families to choose their own doctor and get the treatment they need when they need it. If we really want to ‘keep private companies honest,’ let’s increase transparency in the health care system so consumers know what they are getting.

Plans that provide quality care for a fair price will survive and thrive, while plans that demand hefty premiums with little benefits will fall by the wayside. This is a formula imbedded in the fabric of America: choice breeds competition which spurs innovation and value. And it does not raise taxes or the deficit by a single cent.

There are clear problems with the system the way it is—health care in this country is on an unsustainable fiscal path. But any change is not necessarily good change—certainly not change that increases cost, hurts small businesses, and decreases access. With a plan that will affect every American, rich or poor, Congress needs to take the time to get it right. Only the Republican plan gets to the heart of the health care crisis by slashing costs through competition and increasing access through choice and transparency.

19 Responses »

  1. Congressman Crenshaw is one of the good guys. If we had 534 more like him, this country wouldn't be so screwed up as it is.

  2. Crenshaw is NOT one of the good guys. He voted for the 'Stimulus' bill and needs to be run out of office like the rest. They (congress) have become too comfortable where they are.
    One thing Crenshaw did not even mention in the above, it is not the job of the government to provide health care.

  3. If the market were going to eliminate insurance companies that charge hefty premiums with little benefits, it would have done so. It is a lie that we get to choose our own doctors and care now -- the insurance companies choose, not us. If the public option would run the insurance companies out of business, that would be the best thing that could happen. The primary goal of any insurance company is to not pay out. A system built on that is a failed system

  4. Let me add my straw into the poll: I thinink Crenshaw is one of the good guys.

    Having said that, let me say that any Republican voting for this bill become anathema- this is the line in the sand. All Democrat politicians are anathema: there is no such thing as a good one. If they truly disagree with this legislation; they should threaten to switch parties. If they don't; they are playing the "I didnt vote for this bill" game.
    Their home districts should be boycotted, as well as the businesses who donate to their campaigns. Their family members should be eschewed as lepers, their lives made isolated. Extreme? No more extreme than the socialist bill they vote to enact. Those who support this bil can credibly be deemed "enemies domestic".

    The line has been drawn: do not cross it.

  5. Ander Crenshaw is absolutely one of the good guys. Any elected official cannot please every constituent with every vote. The best you can hope for is an elected official who based on the information he or she has will do what he or she believes is right. I know Ander will always do that.

  6. If he were a good guy his votes would be for needed legislation that is Constitutional. His votes are not that way. That makes him a bad guy.

  7. Mike
    you and those like you will never win elections because you don't understand people. You are always right. If you were around during the negotiations surrounding our founding document we would have been left with the Articles of Confederation. Crenshaw cannot and will not be defeated by someone that has not proven themselves responsible and productive to the taxpayer and investors that contribute to campaigns. Mike-I bet you work for a governmental agency don't you?

  8. Crenshaw isn't the perfect guy, but he IS one of the good guys!

  9. Johnsteve, I'd wouldn't mind the Articles of Confederation at this point. I'd take it over the bastardized version of the Constitution we are living under now. And that's due to people like Crenshaw.
    And just so you know, because you asked, I own and operate a small business. (not that I expect you to believe me)

  10. You guys are arguing over things that won't resolve. It's the difference between being a realist. We all know that the Constitution has been bastardized from some degree to another- and yet I've not heard one candidate, be he Republican or Libertarian (we know the Dems dont care) run specifically on that issue.
    The reality is the reality. Scholastic conversations are interesting, informative and even cathartic(sp?)- but you have to work with what you have. Some idoms to get your mind around that concept:
    1. "It is what it is."
    2. "Just deal with it.'
    3. "Bloom where you're planted."

    Don't try to hold a Representative to a higher standard than you're willing to represent yourself. You Libertarians should start running candidates on "Let's get back to the Constitution" as their primary message. If the issue is that important to you: then run on it.
    But by all means, continue the discussion. . .

  11. The sad part is next election the people in Ander's district are going to vote him right back in. Will anything change? Nope. Instead they are making a career politician and they don't care.

  12. I think if Crenshaws constituents are happy with him: then its a good thing they can vote him right back in. Thats "freedom" in my mind.

  13. No, that's stupid. You have a guy that has voted for unconstitutional legislation, and doesn't even question the constitutionality of 'health care' reform. Yea, piss on the founding documents, sure, that's freedom. HA!

  14. I would refer you to my post on Constitutional issues versus reality.
    Are you saying it's unconstitutional for Crenshaws constentuents to be happy with him as their representative amd they therefore should not have the option voting for him because of that?
    That positionwould not only be stupid: it would also not subscribe to the Constitutional principles you seem to be dedicated to.

  15. Mike,
    What you don't get is that votes whether on a local, state or federal level are based on a number of things that you and other voters may not be privy too. We elect Representatives that we believe will make decisions based on what they believe is right. I don't agree with every vote by every elected official that I not only voted for but many I helped to get elected. But, if your measure is based on agreement with you on every issue, then you are going to have a hard time finding candidates that measure up.

  16. Wow, you really have to ask that question? Are you serious? Well, if you really need an answer, I was calling the people that put him into office stupid because of his voting record as of late. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

  17. Duval GOP, that is the reason I left the Republican party years ago. Because we don't 'agree'? If it's not Constitutional then it's a NO vote, no questions asked. There is no compromise on that. Ever.

  18. but you do agree if thats who they want to represent them, then thats who they should vote for, yes?

  19. Again, you really have to ask that question? Are you really that dense?