U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers has joined a handful of freshman Republicans taking over subcommittees in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Ellmers, of Dunn, will become chairwoman of the subcommittee on health and technology within the Small Business Committee, announced committee Chairman Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri today.
Ellmers is a nurse and runs a small business with her husband, a physician. She was supported by tea party activists and campaigned heavily last year against the new health care law. Ellmers voted this month with other House Republicans to repeal the overhaul.
“I am honored by the opportunity to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care and Technology,” Ellmers said in a statement. “I look forward to working with Chairman Graves and my colleagues to promote economic growth and private sector job creation through work on this important subcommittee.”
Graves issued a statement as well: “As a nurse and small business owner, Renee Ellmers will be a great resource as the Committee examines ways we can improve the health care law without creating new problems for American entrepreneurs.”
Ellmers is one of several freshmen who have been named to chair subcommittees, a plum assignment for a lawmaker in his or her first year. Her appointment could signal the efforts of GOP leadership to include tea party-supported members in the new Congress.
Comments
Interesting Concept
January 31, 2011 - 9:48pm — rhlentzThat is an interesting concept that the health care law is confiscation of property as it forces you to be covered by insurance thereby costing you money. The government requires drivers to purchase car insurance. Is that a confiscation of property? You say it is not the same? Well car insurance is there to protect the other person's interest in their property. When you don't have health insurance, my money is taken to pay your medical bills. Maybe as a society we should simply refuse to treat people without insurance, then my insurance bill would go down. Then MY property ($$$) won't be confiscated with higher insurance rates. To be clear, I am in favor of the health care bill, but I hope if it is repealed we will also pass a law that should be in line with the TEA Party thinking - no health care without insurance or payment upfront. Hospitals beware and extend credit to only those with the ability to pay. Then they can say, oh I'm sorry, your unemployed, no treatment for you.
Missing the point
January 31, 2011 - 7:45pm — onslownativeHealth care costs increase due to a lack of balance between the power of providers and the power of buyers.
Economists KNOW that single-payer plans are the only check on that imbalance. Lobbyists for the status quo call this socialized medicine. They are wrong. Single payer changes NOTHING about supply -- all private for profit providers continue as is, all so-called insurance companies can still compete to provide LESS EXPENSIVE processing claims -- just to a single payer who can negotiate prices.
Remember pricing? Get a statement from your insurer that says which part of the bill you don't owe? Ever wonder about that? Single payer has the matching power to make that pretend charge for service the actual charge for service.
Providers get tax deductions for what you don't pay of their charges -- what do you get? They make profits on what is actually paid -- so why give them tax deductions on top of that?
Ellmers ran as a nurse -- but she is an administrator of a for profit business that gets real good money from government rules that favor tax deductions and too high fees. Conflict of interest, for sure. Seems coverage of "liberal" media missed that.
Understand concerns by citizens (not companies) that law might require buying things, like coverage. Just don't understand how that is any different than laws requiring car insurance to drive.
Ellmers and TEA folks miss the point: THEY now own a $14 trillion debt and they have said nothing about paying it. Taxed enough already? You are under taxed by $14 trillion -- until you pay it off, TEA has no credibility.
Pay the debt -- things bought by YOUR government, with YOUR permission, then tell me about your plans for the future.
Until then, stop whinning and get to work.
Mistaken identity
January 31, 2011 - 5:17pm — RdcressYou have mistaken the Tea Party for the ultra-left and ultra-right anachists. The Tea Party is all about Constitutionally protected rights. This means that the government is impowered to enact legislation that protects rights regardless of the industry. The Patient Afforadablity and Protection Act does not do that. It forces some individuals to purchase insurance to cover the excessive cost of providing "free" insurance to the rest of the population. Government is charged with protecting property rights as specifically cited in the Constitution. How can it suddenly exclude income from that protection. Income is just as much property as is a house, or car. This legislation is clearly confiscation of property and the redistribution thereof.
The government's purpose
January 31, 2011 - 5:11pm — RdcressThe purpose of the government is simple: protect the rights of the individual. This applies to health care as it does to medicine, domestic policy, economic policy, foreign policy, and every other aspect. This does not give government carte blanche to impose mandates, increase costs, impose additional taxes, or declare individual property (income) as fair game to be redistributed. The government can implement reforms in not just health care but energy, monetary, banking, finance, and insurance by first and foremost protecting the rights of the individual. Insurance is not some bottomless pot of money from which anyone can draw. Insurance is basically paying another to assume your monetary risks. Currently, does anyone think that the drop clauses contained in insurance policies are not previously sanctioned by government regulation? If you want to eliminate drop clauses you will have pay higher premiums. If you want to end pre-existing denials, you will pay higher premiums. It's simple math. The assumption of more risk requires higher payments. The problem is that in ObamaCare, government has sided with the big insurance companies to force everyone to purchase. This included those in the healthiest age groups being required to purchase full spectrum insurance when they least need it, providing unused premium dollars for those exceeding what their premiums cover. This provides the pay off for the insurance companies to accept economically nonviable policies. Nothing in this life is free. The main issue is the redistributive effect of the legislation and as always, those on the receiving end love it while those on the paying end are generally less enthusiastic.
@warobins
January 31, 2011 - 4:24pm — TheLibertinea) There's no problem with those committees as long as they stay focused on their missions. As a medical professional, I would hope she could actually offer a qualified opinion much more so than the average ambulance chasing attorneys who typically warm the seats in Congress.
b) Your unions helped run business out of this country as well as depressing the quality of education -- that and your fixation with buying garbage at Wal-Mart and parking your kids in front of the tv instead of giving them a book and some math problems to do in their spare time.
That is all.
Why hasn't the Tea Party
January 31, 2011 - 2:23pm — warobinsWhy hasn't the Tea Party eliminated this committee? They believe there is no role for government in health care and in crippling our education system so that all technology is imported from China.
congrats
January 31, 2011 - 1:53pm — sandhilsmarcCongrats to Renee Ellmers Fudd. Hopefully she will do NC proud.