I don't think they care (or don't think it's that big of a problem) and yes.
ERISA is one of those workhorse pieces of legislation that is often amended. For instance, I believe there was a bill up before Congress just recently that sought to amend ERISA to provide more protections for private entrepreneurs.
On edit... I just searched
http://thomas.loc.gov and there were in fact two bills seeking to amend ERISA this past year.
HR 241: To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their employees
http://tinyurl.com/yp44gjH. R. 4222: To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and title XXII of the Public Health Service Act to extend COBRA benefits for certain TAA-eligible individuals and PBGC recipients.
http://tinyurl.com/ys78j6On further edit, an excerpt from the book Making a Killing: HMOs and the Threat to Your Health claims that a 1987 Supreme Court decision is to blame for overly broad immunity being extended to HMOs:
In 1987, creative insurance-industry lawyers convinced a majority of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or ERISA put the industry above state common law — under which damages are available to injured consumers.2 How did they convince the highest court in the land? Company lawyers argued that the corporation was not technically in the business of insurance but merely an administrator of employee benefits. This meant that it could not be held accountable under state laws, but was subject to ERISA’s federal scheme, which provides little remedy, as discussed in more detail below.
The Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux case did not involve an HMO, but rather a disability insurer. But as managed care became ascendant, the precedent stuck.
If a patient who is denied doctor-recommended care by his HMO tries to file a case in state court, where damages are available under state common law, HMO lawyers will have the case "removed" to federal court under ERISA's rules. HMOs or insurers that lose the federal ERISA grievance only pay the cost of the procedure or benefit they denied in the first place, no other damages or penalties. Thus there is no financial incentive for the HMO to provide timely treatment. And that is the good news. The bad news is that companies are obligated to provide the cost of the benefit only when the patient survives long enough to receive it. If the patient dies before receiving the treatment, the insurer or HMO pays nothing. Because there is no meaningful penalty for denying medically necessary treatment, there is no incentive to approve costly care.
...For this reason, even conservative judges have condemned ERISA's injustice and pleaded for Congress to clarify accountability for HMOs.
More:
http://www.makingakilling.org/chapter5.html