Constituent Services
House Links
Search Legislation
Privacy Policy
|
Blog - Posting Detail
XML Blog
Postings via RSS
Why I am Opposed to the Democratic Health Care Plan
- Millions will lose coverage, whether they like it or not: despite the President’s claim that “if you like your coverage, you can keep it,” proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan would cause 83.4 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
- Your coverage will be affected, even if you are able to keep it: Because the Democrats’ health “reform” bill creates new standards that all plans must conform to, eventually any remaining plans will be forced to change their current benefits. These benefit “upgrades” will cause your premiums to rise.
- New government regulations will stifle, instead of increase competition: Supporters of a new government run plan say that it would force greater competition among private insurance companies. But a new government controlled health care plan, coupled with the government’s new rules for private plans, would surely put private health insurance out of business sooner or later.
- Government bureaucrats will pick your treatments: The President has said, “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. ... If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Based on statements like these, along with the creation of a new “health care tsar” who would give the final word on treatments, we can expect the government to be much more involved in choosing which treatments we can and can’t receive.
- Individuals will be mandated to buy health insurance, which means less liberty and more taxes: The Administration and Democrats in Congress are open to the idea of an individual mandate, which would require everyone to buy insurance that the federal government says is “qualified.” Individuals who did not buy the government approved health insurance would be faced with a tax penalty. Interestingly, in 2008, then Presidential candidate Obama said that he opposed an individual mandate because it would compel Americans to buy health coverage they would otherwise regard as unaffordable, and that it would be unenforceable.
- Taxes on business would be raised to higher rates than Europe: During a recession, when growth and jobs are at a premium, a surtax that will hit thousands of South Carolina small businesses has been proposed to pay for new government programs. If enacted, South Carolina’s top job creators and earners will have to bear a higher overall tax burden than Germany, France, Italy, and Japan, etc., with a national overall average tax rate of more than 52%. Raising such a tax during a recession, when we should be lessening the burden to create jobs and empower the consumer, is completely inappropriate.
- It’s another $1 trillion bill, and once again, it won’t be paid for: According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would cost at least $1.042 trillion, and would increase the deficit by $239 billion. However, the largest programs in the bill won’t be implemented until 2013, so we won’t know their true costs until much later.
- Rushing a thousand page bill prevents anyone from having time to read it: Policy as important to the American way of life should not be rushed. Some would like to prevent people from reading the bill, in order to prevent them from discovering provisions that could lead to loss of current coverage, rationing, interference with the doctor/patient relationship, and taxpayer funding of abortion. But when the Administration and Democratic leadership last told us we had to pass a thousand-page, $1 trillion bill in just a few days, as they did with the stimulus, we were threatened with 8% unemployment. Today, unemployment across the country stand at over 9% and unemployment in South Carolina rose over 12% on June.
- Someone other than you may be making your health care decisions: The President has offered his diagnosis that “maybe you’d be better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker. Further, he and Congressional Democrats have promised that somehow, their plan would save money without cutting benefits. Clearly, language is needed in any health reform bill that would block rationing of often life saving care through the deciding factor of cost or a federal board. But in both House and Senate committees, amendments that would have kept health care decisions between you and your doctor, and out of the hands of government bureaucrats, were blocked along party lines.
- Would cut a half trillion dollars from seniors’ Medicare: In order to pay for much of his more than $1 trillion plan to reform health care, the President has proposed cutting Medicare by more than $400 billion. Nevertheless, claims that a provision in the bill authorizing reimbursement for “end of life counseling” would encourage seniors not to utilize life saving treatments have been dismissed as untrue. Yet, despite the reduced commitment to Medicare, the President still claims the changes will be “painless.”
- Members of Congress who support a government run plan will keep their private plans: Proponents of H.R. 3200 have claimed that a government run plan would provide as good, or better, care than currently existing private plans. However, these same proponents want to keep their private plans, which do not resemble the proposed public plan they want to create. In fact, they feel their government plan is so important, that when an amendment was offered in the Committee on Energy and Commerce’s markup of the bill that would have given all Americans access to the same kind of private health insurance Members of Congress receive, they voted it down on party lines. In explanation, Chairman Waxman said, “I’d have to oppose this because it strikes the public plan.”
|
Posted by Congressman Brown (08-13-2009, 01:54 PM) filed under
Health Care
|
|
