Next Wednesday, the House of Representatives will take up legislation sponsored by new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., that is titled, "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act."
On its face, this two-page bill is very simple. It would turn back the clock on federal health care laws to the instant before President Barack Obama signed his massive health care bill last March, making it as if Obamacare "had not been enacted."
So far, so good.
But in addition to offering this bill to repeal Obamacare, the Republican leadership will also offer a resolution that will instruct "certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law."
No doubt this resolution is intended to fulfill the provision in the "Pledge to America" that House Republican leaders released during the 2010 campaign that vowed not only to repeal Obamacare, but to "replace" it.
This is not good.
In their "Pledge," the Republican leaders said: "We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick."
This pledge raises questions for the Republican leaders that echo questions they asked Democrats during the debate over Obamacare: Where does Congress get the authority tell a private insurance company and its private customers that in a free society they cannot freely agree to an insurance plan in which there is some cap on the amount of money the insurance company must pay to the client in any given year, let alone over the course of a lifetime?
And if a Republican-majority Congress did order insurance companies to pay limitless benefits to all of their customers, who would end up paying for those limitless benefits?
The "repeal and replace" plan suggested by the Republican House leadership is just another road to socialized medicine. Its endgame is much higher health insurance costs, followed by demands for expanded federal subsidies of health insurance, followed by future Congresses using those subsidies to justify even greater federal regulation of the insurance industry.
"Repeal and replace" would tighten the federal noose around American medicine in a different manner than Obamacare, but it would tighten the noose just the same.
There is a better way: Get government out of the way. Let people be responsible for their own destinies, including their own health care.
The road back to the land of the free starts not with replacing Obamacare, but with defunding it.
Yikes: New Hampshire Democrat Holds Pro-Abortion Rally in Front of Halloween Decorations Portraying Death | Katie Pavlich