NRCC - Shea-Porter Votes to Block Democrats' 'You Can Keep It' Promise

Democrats Say One Thing, Do Another

Washington- Carol Shea-Porter apparently doesn’t believe taxpayers have the right to choose the health care plan that works best for them. In the House Education and Labor Committee, Shea-Porter took a stand against consumer choice by voting against an amendment that would shield employer-provided health coverage from costly and complex mandates that would force Americans off of their current insurance plans. Instead of keeping the ‘You Can Keep It’ promise touted by President Barack Obama and Democrat leaders, Shea-Porter cast a vote against what was supposed to be an underlying tenet of the Democrats’ healthcare plan.


With her vote, Shea-Porter told New Hampshire families that she has no problem forcing them to endure hours of waiting, higher insurance costs, and ballooning costs to taxpayers. Without the ‘You Can Keep It’ guarantee, Americans could be forced onto a public rationing plan like those that exist in Canada and Europe.


“Carol Shea-Porter's stance to further burden taxpayers while allowing the government to force people from their current coverage is the last thing New Hampshire families want from a healthcare plan,” Said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Chalk Carol Shea-Porter's vote to undercut competition and drive up costs for New Hampshire families as yet another broken promise.”




Democrats’ proposal is similar to a ration-care plan that pulls “from a limited pot of money: “In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer. This followed on a 2008 ruling against drugs -- including Sutent, which costs about $50,000 -- that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients. After last year's ruling, Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director noted that ‘there is a limited pot of money,’ that the drugs were of "marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost," and the money might be better spent elsewhere. (Of NICE and men, Wall Street Journal, 7/08/09)


Small business groups immediately registered opposition, saying Democrats’ plan ‘threatens’ growth and job creation: “As our nation’s economy struggles to stabilize, policymakers agree that economic recovery, growth and job creation demand our focus and attention,” [National Association of Manufacturers] Executive Vice President Jay Timmons wrote in a letter to House Members. “However, some legislative proposals not only threaten sustainable growth and job creation, but also our economy’s ability to recover at all.”


“[National Federation of Independent Business] opposes the bill, it said, because “it threatens the viability of our nation’s job creators, fails to increase access and choice to all small businesses, destroys choice and competition for private insurance and fails to address the core challenge facing small business — cost.” (Murray, “NAM, NFIB Criticize House Health Care Proposal,” Roll Call, 7/15/09)


Similar systems in foreign countries force patients to wait for treatment – costing them valuable time and money: “The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high, according to a report released Monday.


“That's an increase of 97 per cent over 14 years, the report says.


“‘Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British,’ it reads. ‘Economists attempting to quantify the cost of this waiting time have estimated it to amount to $1,100 to $5,600 annually per patient.’” (“Wait Times for Surgery, Medical Treatments at All-Time High: Report,” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 8/15/07)