The following is a statement by Rep. Eliot Engel regarding the release of the Senate Finance Committee’s health reform bill.

Washington, D.C.--“I would have preferred the Senate Finance Committee to have introduced a bill having sharper teeth in it than the one Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) presented today. What he introduced was a watered-down, ‘bipartisan’ bill without actually having bipartisan support. In his attempts to cut costs and lure Republican support, he has managed to create legislation, which in many cases, will fail to help middle-class working families afford health care. The bill also failed to attract a single Republican in the process.

“The goals of health care reform have been clear - reducing insurance costs, covering the uninsured and protecting people with pre-existing conditions, all while making sure the biggest drain on our nation’s economy becomes more cost effective. The House bills do a much better job of accomplishing this, as does the bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. While Sen. Baucus’ attempts at bipartisanship have been laudable, bipartisanship is something the Republicans in Washington have never embraced when dealing with health reform. As a result, he should have adjusted the bill accordingly to ensure that it achieves our goal-to provide quality, affordable health care to all Americans.

“The people of New York will especially be shortchanged by the Finance Committee’s legislation, as would other regions with a high cost of living. By cutting the cost of the bill, this version reduces subsidies for working families to buy insurance, something which may still work in Montana, but it certainly will not help people living in New York.

“I remain convinced that absent a single-payer system, a strong public option is the best way to provide the proper competition and incentives for insurance companies to both maintain affordable rates for Americans and to expand coverage to the 47 million uninsured.

“I will continue my review of the legislation with an open mind, and will carefully watch whatever changes are made to it in markup and when it is combined with the other Senate proposal. However, I am skeptical that it will be as effective in reducing health costs and providing better coverage for Americans as what will eventually pass the full House.”