Home
Biography
Wisconsin 6th District
Constituent Services
Issues & Legislation
Press
Students
Email Rep. Petri






Washington, DC Office
2462 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Tel: 202-225-2476
Fax: 202-225-2356
Directions / Hours

Fond du Lac Office
490 West Rolling Meadows Drive
Suite B
Fond du Lac, WI 54937
Tel: 920-922-1180
Fax: 920-922-4498
Toll-free in WI: 800-242-4883
Directions / Hours

Oshkosh Office
2390 State Road 44
Suite B
Oshkosh, WI 54904
Tel: 920-231-6333
Directions / Hours

 

 

 

 

 

 

| More

Press Releases

For Immediate Release:
August 11, 2009
 

"No" to the Health Care Bill - Here's Why

 

This month I have been holding town meetings throughout east-central Wisconsin. Health care has been the main topic, and in Omro a gentleman stood up to say, "I'm a farmer, and when I plant 100 acres and I'm having problems with 15 of them because of water, I don't plow the whole 100 acres to fix the 15 - I deal just with the 15. This is how Congress should be dealing with health care."

Polls show that while there are concerns, most Americans like their current health care arrangements and see no reason to change them. They say: If there are a lot of people who can't get health care coverage, shouldn't we be doing something for them rather than messing with everybody else?

There are said to be about 46 million uninsured people in this country. Of that number, 11 million to 12 million are already eligible for assistance such as Medicaid, but haven't applied for it.

Of the rest, 20 million to 25 million either have enough income to purchase insurance but opt not to, are between jobs and without insurance temporarily, are non-citizens, or are young adults at the beginning of their careers and the least likely to need insurance. Clearly, we need to develop policies to address each of these issues.

That leaves 10 million to 15 million uninsured Americans out of a population of 299 million who truly have been left out in the cold. This approximately four percent of the population clearly needs assistance, but do we need to upend our health care system - one-sixth of the national economy - in order to do it, or would more targeted approaches be better?

"Okay, then," say the President's supporters, "we need massive reform to restrain health care costs."

It is true that rapidly rising costs are a terrific problem and the cause of justified anxiety on the part of individuals, families, business and government. We should be working on realistic ways to restrain costs.

But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been unable to find significant provisions in the House leadership's plan likely to slow health care inflation. Instead, the CBO has stated that the plan would result in over $1 trillion in new spending over 10 years which would "probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits."

The spending would partially be offset by cuts in Medicare and by $800 billion in new taxes, including hikes on small business - the engine of job creation in this country. According to economic modeling used by the President's chief economic advisors, that sort of a tax increase would result in 4.7 million Americans losing their jobs.

The President promises that if you like your coverage, you will be able to keep it. But what he doesn't say is that the economics of his approach would encourage businesses to drop their coverage and instead move their employees over to the proposed government plan which the President insists on including.

Wherever I go in the 6th District, business people tell me that if they are given a choice of paying, say, 15 percent of payroll expenses for private health insurance as some do now or instead paying an eight percent penalty for ditching the private plan and sending their workers to the public plan, they will be under economic pressure to pay the cheaper penalty on the assumption that their competitors will as well. Many people fear that this is a gradual path to the single-payer, government-run health care the President used to favor, but now says wouldn't work in America (at least at this time).

The President and his allies have been astounded by the level of anger at town hall meetings all around the country. They calm themselves with the preposterous notion that the concerned citizens in attendance have all been sent by the "special interests" to prevent the friendly discussions the President enjoys in his tightly-controlled forums.

But you can't manufacture that kind of anger, and you can't get that many people to go to meetings unless they feel a real need to go.

What has happened is that President Obama and his allies tried to hustle through massive changes in the way our country works. It was rush, rush, rush in order to get their way before the country at large could raise questions and demand changes. Fortunately, some of the President's own partisans were too uncomfortable with the legislation simply to flag it through.

Why are people so angry? The President is promoting truly controversial and alarming changes in American health care, and the public feels that it is being bum-rushed to accept it all. Outrage is the appropriate response - expressed within a non-violent exchange of views, of course.

I believe there is a lot we can do to improve health care. Our health care system should do a better job of emphasizing prevention and wellness. Chronic diseases account for 75 percent of our nation's medical costs. By implementing wellness programs to encourage healthy living, we will not only save lives, but reduce health care costs.

Also to restrain costs, we need to help people with their medical expenses while keeping them aware of prices in ways which encourage cost-effective spending. Currently, when most insured people go to the doctor they make a copayment but most of their bill gets sent directly to their insurance provider. As a result, people pay very little attention to, or don't even know, the total cost of their care.

People should have an incentive to spend wisely, which is why I favor health savings accounts (HSAs) as part of the solution. Americans can currently reduce their taxes by setting up an HSA from which they then make withdrawals for normal medical expenses and roll any surplus into the following year's account. HSAs are always tied to low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic coverage. This patient-centered approach is threatened by current reform proposals. Instead, HSAs should be strengthened and made more attractive for all income groups.

We should look for ways to pay doctors for the overall treatment of patients rather than encouraging them to order extra tests because they are paid "per procedure." Tort reform would also lead to lower costs by reducing the incentive for doctors to order unnecessary tests and services.

There are plenty of ideas for cutting waste, fraud and abuse, including standardizing medical records, doctor bills and insurance submissions, and we must find solutions for people who are denied affordable coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Identifying the best approaches requires careful consideration with a determination to get the job done and done right rather than taking chances in order to get it done fast.

Whatever we do, for a task of this consequence we need extensive hearings and discussion in Congress and a true national debate leading to a bipartisan consensus. Anything less threatens our health and economy, and treats the public with disdain.