No, three things do. There are lots of things about holding costs down. First of all, the cost driver is the increased ability to diagnose and treat illness. We know a lot more about diagnosing. We can do a lot more tests and treatment. I want a solution that guarantees you will still get the diagnosis and treatment you want. I don't want arbitrary global budgets that will deny you treatments or care when you need it. I want to change the system so it makes better decisions, doesn't duplicate tests, doesn't provide inappropriate care, doesn't give you stuff you don't need just to make a profit, and that is what the Republican system does.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing healthcare costs and the need for effective diagnosis and treatment.
Share
More from Nancy L. Johnson
if an employer mandate were enacted, my State would lose 14,300 jobs. As we debate yet another mandate on America's employers, let us not forget the real world implications of such mandates. I challenge each of my colleagues to find one…
We have been devastated by a recession. Our small businesses need subsidies if they are going to have to provide better benefits. The President's bill will check them out of the subsidy plan, and you support that bill.
And you know this issue that you bring up about the subsidy structure that both the Clinton plan and the Stark proposal provide is very important. It recognizes that small businesses for the most part cannot afford to provide health…
People have choices of what plan they buy. My reform legislation guarantees that choice in the public and private sector.





