| User | Post |
|
2:14 pm
July 20, 2009
|
PrintDawg
| | |
| Member | posts 24 | |
|
|
Here is a response from Represenative Peter DeFazio of the Fouth District of Oregon to a friend of mine in Eugene Oregon. The request to the congressman was for him to oppose the current health care bill before congress because of negative impact on the economy and small business in particular. The congressman has a lot to say about health care and I am interested in your opinion of his remarks. I don't think he has read the bill but he is certainly enthusiastic about the subject.
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you.
In adopting reforms to the system of providing health care in the United States, Congress and the President should take heed of the adage \"First, do no harm\". Many Americans, particularly the 160 million who benefit from employer provided health insurance are happy with their coverage, their chosen doctor and the coverage provided under their plan.
I believe that reform should not be paid for by taxing the benefits of those already covered. They should not force anyone to change plans or providers. Finally, expanded coverage to the uninsured should not add to the ballooning federal deficit.
That said there are problems with our existing system. I've talked with small business owners who have seen their insurance renewals denied because one employee became sick or was injured. Others have complained about sustained policy price increases or exclusions of existing medical problems. These types of complaints point towards the insurance reform I have been pushing for 20 years; to have the insurance industry play by the same rules as other industries in America. Insurance companies and Major League Baseball are the only two industries exempt from anti-trust laws. That means insurance companies can legally collude to raise prices and exclude individuals from coverage. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1583, to repeal this exemption. The Consumer Federation of American estimates that repealing the anti-trust exemption could help lower healthcare premiums by 10 percent.
The plan being considered in the House would focus on a few key factors. First and most importantly, it would make sure that every American has comprehensive health insurance that they know they cannot lose even if they lose their job or get sick. It would stop insurance companies from denying coverage to people based on preexisting condition. It would guarantee coverage to all Americans with a minimum package of benefits. For the millions of people who have insurance through their employer nothing will change. For Individuals and small businesses that do not have or cannot afford to provide insurance, they would be able to get affordable insurance by choosing from a \"health insurance exchange\". This exchange would give them a wide array of insurance plans to choose from, including, if they so choose, a public option. They can choose the plan and level of benefits they want. If they want to pay extra for a premium plan, they can. If they want just the basic package, they can choose that as well. The idea of an exchange is to pool risk, meaning the premiums paid for the plans in the exchange are put into one big pot which will lower premiums for everyone. Furthermore, there would be limited subsidies for those making at or below the poverty line to make sure everyone can afford coverage.
The insurance industry wants it both ways. They complain about the prospect of a public plan option as \"unfair competition\" while at the same time they are fighting tooth and nail to retain the antitrust exemptions so they don't have to truly compete with one another. They don't want reform. They want profits. As a result they and their allies are doing their best to frighten the public about what the health reform proposal currently being written in Congress will or will not do.
Opponents say that the bill would lead to fewer choices for Americans to choose their plan or doctor. The truth is the proposals being considered in the House will increase choice by giving people the ability to choose from an array of private and public health insurance options. Most importantly, if you like the doctor or plan that you have now, you can keep it. The bill will simply give people more choices, especially since one of the critical reforms is taking away the insurance industry's ability to deny coverage and care.
Some have warned that the bill would \"ration care\". The bill would actually take medical decisions away from insurance companies and put them in the hands of doctors, nurses and patients. No longer will insurance companies, whose primary goal is profits, dictate what care patients receive.
Some people warn of the \"Canadian System\" of people waiting in line to receive care and having to come to America to get a needed procedure. This is a bogus argument because the plans being considered in Congress today are nothing like the Canadian or European systems. What we are considering is an American system, based on choice and savings.
Simply put, we must do something soon or we face a health insurance crisis. The 47 million Americans in our country today lack health insurance get their health care in the most expensive way imaginable; by waiting until it's too late and going to an emergency room. The cost of this care is then passed on to the rest of us who have health insurance at the rate of over $100 billion a year in increased premiums and higher taxes. If we don't act now, the cost an employer-sponsored family health insurance plan will reach $24,000 by 2016 forcing most American households to spend 45% of their income on health insurance. This is unacceptable to me.
To be clear, I fully support the idea that people who are happy with their health insurance should be able to keep what they have. However, the cost of not doing anything is too great for all of us.
Sincerely,
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
|
|
|
4:02 pm
July 20, 2009
|
Citizen Duke
| | |
| Member | posts 18 | |
|
|
Sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors, The CBO says that a single payer program,– oopps barry doesn't like that word– will be very expensive and it will drive employers into not offering health insurance, if it was my company and I was paying 20% of wages for health coverage for my employees, you bet I would cancell it and pay the 5 to 8% tax/penalty to the Government so they would then cover my employees. With all of Barry's nonsense the latest estimate for the top tax rate will be very close to 60% next year, what makes any one think that that tax rate will not migrate down to the middle class. The corporate tax rates will be going to 32%, do you realize that is higher than Canada, Britain, France, and probably very close to that of the Socialist Scandanavian countries. The bills have not even ben written yet, so how does he know what is in them?
|
"To hate injustice and stand on righteousness is a difficult thing" -
Hagakure The Book of the Samurai
|
|
|
10:50 pm
July 20, 2009
|
PhillyDude
| | Philadelphia, MS | |
| Member | posts 3 | |
|
|
Actually, the House version was posted ** you don't have permission to see this link ** on July 16.
|
|
|
11:05 pm
July 20, 2009
|
TheGunNut
| | |
| Member | posts 24 | |
|
|
Even after accounting for the fact that this letter is from a liberal Oregon Representative (is that redundant?), and his left-coast philosophy, this plan does not make good sense. Why can't these folks see past the end of their nose, to see the effects of this type of plan? Higher costs for employers is not a good thing….Health insurance is already too expensive. AS Duke pointed out above, at some point it is cheaper for the employer to drop their coverage and pay a lesser fee for employees to be on the Government Plan. The plan doesn't increase competition among insurers, it just allows them to decline coverage and move people to the Government Plan. Estimates put the cost of the plan over one trillion dollars (1,000,000,000,000.00 – that's a lot of zeros); presumably we'll borrow that money as well, sending us further into debt. What about the effect on us little old consumers? As business people we understand that businesses don't pay taxes (those costs are passed on to the consumer at some point), so we the consumer will ultimately be left holding the bag for all of this. CHANGE WE CAN COUNT ON? I don't think so…this is the same old liberal \"Tax & Spend\" methodology we know so well…
|
|
|
12:11 am
July 21, 2009
|
TheGuru
| | |
| Admin
| posts 129 | |
|
|
The clear thing in the letter was that DeFazio was quoting the liberal talking points regarding Health Care Reform while at the same time trying to placate a disgruntled voter. He started by agreeing with the voter's complaint and then turned the conversation to trying to convince the voter that he was wrong and the Government knew best. He was trying to have his cake and eat it too. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Here's a key quote:
Most importantly, if you like the doctor or plan that you have now, you can keep it.
As we reported earlier this week, Investor's Business Daily reported that the health care bill essentially outlawed access to private coverage because it prevented buyers from purchasing a private plan with an effective date AFTER the date the Health Care Bill becomes a law. Additionally, when I read the first part of the bill, I saw language that appeared to prevent private plans from duplicating the benefits of the public option which seemed to me to limit competition.
Here's the problem, we must confront this take over of private enterprise and the socialization of medicine. We must draw a line in the sand and if the government does not listen to us, we must be prepared to send elected officials home if they vote for this behemoth.
I can't understand why no one is talking about the pink elephant in the room: Why don't we allow doctors to compete like the rest of us. Allow them to advertise. Force them to publish their prices. Return some control to patients. Bill the patient and force them to file their own insurance claims. Once personal responsibility is returned to health care, I guarantee you the prices will come down. The free-market always works whenever it is tried. The fact of the matter is, the only time health care was a free-market enterprise was when doctors were paid with chickens or free meals. I'm not saying that we should return to that level of health care, but it should be returned to the free market and bring personal responsibilty back to the table.
|
|
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Print this Topic 
Topic RSS 
