James Lankford on Health Care

Predicts that ObamaCare will destroy the health-care system

In Congress, Lankford fights presidential overreach, including Obama's frequent use of executive orders, from the Legislature. Shannon assails federal interference with legislative state prerogatives and authority. Shannon may position himself as the more conservative and point to Lankford's support for increases in the federal debt limit to bolster his case, but he has more than once had allies "whip" reluctant Republicans into toeing a party line. Lankford has worked with his House leader, but he's the author of a "shutdown prevention" act aimed at future shutdown fights--combining an initial freeze on spending with 1 percent spending reductions every 90 days until a continuing resolution is negotiated.

Federal control of healthcare is unconstitutional

Repeal any federal health care takeover.

The Club for Growth`s `Repeal-It!` Pledge for candidates states, `I hereby pledge to the people of my district/state upon my election to the U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Senate, to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.`

Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law.

Repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective as of its enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by such Act.

Repeals the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010, effective as of the Act`s enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by the Act`s health care provisions.

Religious exemption from ObamaCare individual mandate.

Congressional Summary: To provide an additional religious exemption from the individual health coverage mandate. This Act may be cited as the `Equitable Access to Care and Health Act` or the `EACH Act`. The `Religious Conscience Exemption` exempts individuals who are members of a recognized religious sect which relies solely on a religious method of healing, and for whom the acceptance of medical health services would be inconsistent with their religious beliefs.

Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (TheHill.com weblog, April 29, 2013): `We believe the EACH Act balances a respect for religious diversity against the need to prevent fraud and abuse,` wrote Reps. Aaron Schock (R-IL) and William Keating (D-MA). `It is imperative we expand the religious conscience exemption now as the Administration is verifying the various exemptions to the individual mandate,` they wrote. Religious exemption from ObamaCare has come up before, including contraception. The EACH Act, however, deals only with exemptions from the insurance mandate.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (CHILD, Inc. `Children`s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty`, Dec. 2014): The Christian Science church is pushing hard to get another religious exemption through Congress. The EACH Act exempts everyone with `sincerely held religious beliefs` from the mandate to buy health insurance. We are particularly concerned about uninsured children: hundreds of American children have died because of their family`s religious objections to medical care. The EACH Act increases the risk to children in faith-healing sects and the cost to the state if the children do get medical care. Some complain that their church members should not have to pay for health care that they won`t use. But insurance works on the assumption that many in the pool of policyholders will not draw from it. Most people with fire insurance don`t have their homes burn, for example.