Washington, DC - "Congress has an opportunity to flex its muscles by moving forward with a plan to replace Obamacare with a law that actually enhances access to healthcare. The Supreme Court's ruling that allows insurance subsidies offered by Federal exchanges must not disrupt plans to enact a new law that is equitable and efficient," according to Dan Weber, president of the Association of Mature American Citizens.
"President Obama's Supreme Court victory may be short-lived. It will certainly invigorate the Republicans as the party pursues ownership of the White House in 2016. It is already a key issue for candidates, but today's decision may well catapult it to a top issue in the Presidential Election campaign. And, since Obamacare has already proven itself to be ineffective and inefficient and a blatantly disruptive influence on the country's economy, the ruling might be just what is needed to ensure a Republican victory in November 2016. And that will, in turn, finally allow Congress and the new President to repeal Obamacare and to replace it with a law that works and that is devoid of socialist concepts of government."
The court's ruling should "bolster" those lawmakers who seek to repeal and replace Obamacare. A likely choice to replace the present law is called the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment [Patient CARE] Act. There are a variety of healthcare proposals in Congress and it is likely that a final proposal will include many new and productive provisions such as those in the Patient CARE proposal.
"Mr. Obama's controversial Affordable Care Act is flawed. It has caused widespread hardship for the country on many levels since it was enacted. We need to scrap Obamacare and start over again to create a healthcare law that is fair and equitable and that won't bankrupt the country. And, the Patient CARE Act seems to fit the bill," Weber said.
The proposed alternative to Obamacare was created by Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Richard Burr of North Carolina along with retired Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. It provides a highly regarded alternative to the Affordable Care Act that relies on means-tested tax credits instead of subsidies to make it affordable. Hatch and Burr have gotten the support of Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman to move forward with their proposal, which some experts say is not only viable but superior to the ACA.
The Center for Health and Economy endorsed the Patient CARE proposal. Despite the fact that it does not include mandates for individuals or employers, the Center noted that "by 2023, the number of insured under the proposal is estimated to be one percent higher than under current law [Obamacare]."
Healthcare expert Avik Roy wrote in Forbes magazine last year that "in addition, the plan would reduce the deficit over ten years by a total of $1,473 billion. The biggest chunk of the deficit reduction comes from changing the tax treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance." It does this, he said, by eliminating the tax deduction for healthcare insurance.
In a more recent article, Roy pointed out that a means-tested tax credit would allow individuals "to buy a far broader range of insurance products, or deposit the funds in a health savings account. The tax credits would also be available to those who today are on Medicaid, freeing them to purchase private health coverage with superior health outcomes."
Other benefits of the proposed Patient CARE Act include medical malpractice reform, medical care price transparency, premium stability and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines.
AMAC's Weber said that the senior advocacy organization endorses the free-market principles of the Burr, Hatch, Upton alternative to Obamacare. "A lot of detractors have sought to denigrate the so-called Obamacare repeal-and-replace movement in Congress. They claim there's no other way to deliver affordable healthcare but the way President Obama has dictated. But, the Patient CARE Act proves them wrong, big time. Here's a viable alternative that actually lets people keep their doctors, that protects their religious freedom and that make healthcare insurance accessible instead of a law that creates inequities and inefficiencies."
