Americans need greater access to health insurance, and we must ensure that families are able to choose the best plan suited for them. I do not believe a Washington-run, big government health care system is the answer. I am an original cosponsor of S. 1099, "The Patients' Choice Act of 2009," legislation to provide individuals and families with tax incentives to allow them to afford to purchase their own health insurance. This tax break would put people on the same playing field as corporations, and employees would no longer have to pay more for the same coverage provided through work and could take their coverage with them if they decided to change jobs. Private insurance companies would have to cater to individuals' needs, and individuals will have to power to choose the plan best suited for them.
Additionally, "The Patients' Choice Act of 2009" would cover pre-existing conditions, would provide incentives for living healthy lifestyles, and would not make cuts to the Medicare program. This legislation would also allow individuals to purchase health insurance outside the state in which they reside.
"The Patients' Choice Act of 2009" addresses tort reform and medical malpractice lawsuits by creating three separate venues to pursue compensation for injured patients at the state level. Under this system, we can limit lawsuit abuse without sacrificing legal justice.
During the health care debate, the Senate moved too quickly with radical proposals that may not achieve their worthy objectives. This rush to legislative passage will limit Americans' access to health care and lower quality while increasing taxes and the nation's debt. Instead of ramming through legislation -- largely kept secret-- to overhaul our entire health care system, we should have focused on incremental reform to improve the areas of greatest need.