Fri
Oct 30 2009
11:32 am

The East Tennessee Congressional delegation reacts to the House health insurance reform bill. Allow me to retort...

continued...

Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN1):

This bill taxes job creators and the middle class at a time we can least afford it. This bill creates a government-run health system which will result in a national version of TennCare, which yields the result of millions of Americans losing their current coverage. [T]his bill will lead to decreased access to care, decreased quality of care, and increased cost to beneficiaries.

In fact, the bill will increase access to health care, particularly for the 40+ million uninsured and for those who cannot obtain health insurance from their employer or those who are being excluded because of preexisting conditions. It also provides for standardized minimum benefits and performance and outcome based incentives to improve the quality of care. It also limits the amount of private insurance premiums that can be spent on overhead and profit and executive bonuses, making more available for actual health care, and caps out of pocket expenses to prevent "medical bankruptcy." Along with the competitive public option, negotiated rates for services and pharmaceuticals, and other cost saving and control measures, the bill is actually intended to reduce the cost to beneficiaries.

As for taxing job creators, the bill in fact provides tax credits for employers who provide health insurance. Employers who do not provide insurance will have the option of paying 8% into the exchange to subsidize premiums for the uninsured poor. So each employer can go out in the open market (which includes the exchange), look at the numbers, and choose the most cost effective way to provide insurance for their employees, and get tax credits if they choose to provide it directly.

As for taxing the middle class, Rep. Roe apparently considers couples making more than $1,000,000 annually "middle class." They would be subject to a surcharge (similar to the Medicare payroll tax we all pay already) for a portion of their income over $1,000,000 ($500,000 for individuals).

The only new "government-run health system" being proposed is the public option, which is nothing like TennCare (Medicaid) and instead is fully funded by premiums, just like private insurance (minus profits and executive bonuses) and is in fact about the only "free market" provision in a bill that provides for many choices. What Rep. Roe apparently means by "government-run" is "regulated."

Rep. John Duncan (R-TN2):

...will make health care even more expensive and bureaucratic in the years ahead. With a national debt of $12 trillion and a deficit just this year of a staggering $1.4 trillion, we simply cannot afford it.

As noted above, the bill aims to make health care more affordable. (The title of the legislation is "The Affordable Health Care for America Act.") Further, the CBO estimates that the bill will actually reduce the deficit by at least $30 billion over 10 years. Rep. Duncan either opposes deficit reduction or hasn't read the bill. As for making health care "more bureaucratic," what Rep. Duncan apparently means is "regulated."

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN3):

...the 1,990-page bill released today actually increases the cost of health insurance. It raises taxes on middle class families, cuts Medicare benefits for seniors and imposes an additional tax burden on small businesses, among other things, on the way to a government takeover of health care.

The bill actually expands Medicare Part D benefits to more seniors, eliminates the "donut hole," and reduces premiums, expands Part B low-income subsidies, eliminates out-of-pocket expenses for preventive care, and aims to make sure that providers are fairly compensated. As for the other remarks in his statement, every one of them is wrong as noted above. And similar to his colleagues, by "government takeover" Rep. Wamp really means "regulation."

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN):

...raises the cost of premiums, cuts Medicare, and raises taxes. The new government insurance plan will cause millions to lose their employer-based insurance and become part of the government-run option.

By law, the "government-run option" will not be available to individuals covered by an employer provided insurance plan. Further, only the smallest of small business will be eligible for the option to provide insurance through the exchange at first. It will be phased in for more employers over several years, but as written even this is currently limited to small businesses with less than 100 employees. It's likely (I don't have the statistics) that most of these employers are not providing insurance anyway. And as noted previously, the "government-run option" (aka public option) is the most competitive, free market component of this bill because it is completely funded by premiums just like private insurance (minus profits and executive bonuses). As for his other remarks, they are all wrong as noted above.

It's obvious that Republicans are desperate and have nothing left except disinformation in their fight to prevent you from getting affordable, portable, and renewable health insurance with more choices and options. They offer no solutions other than some tax credits and "tort reform" (which is less than 1% of medical costs). Democrats working on this bill have been open and transparent about what it does and what it will cost. And most of that cost relates to covering the uninsured, so what Republicans and other opponents are really saying is they don't care about the 40+ million uninsured and will do everything in their power to protect the status quo run by those who fill their campaign coffers. Republicans and others who oppose these reforms should either bring serious, reality-based alternative solutions or shut up and get out of the way.

And another thing. These or similar remarks were published in today's Knoxville News Sentinel unchallenged and without any qualification, and with no opposing viewpoint or rebuttal. It's no wonder the people of East Tennessee keep electing people like this to Congress.

PREVIIOUSLY: House health care bill 2.0

ShannonSz's picture

hmmmmm.....thank you for the

hmmmmm.....thank you for the 'clarification' from a registered repub. standpoint.

Virgil Proudfoot's picture

Yep, there they go

This is just what Paul Krugman predicted. By eschewing a single-payer Medicare for All approach and choosing instead to go with a complex plan that tries to preserve the worst of the present system—for-profit insurance companies—the Dems are creating a very complex new system.

Despite the complexity, it still might make things somewhat better.

However, the complexity in and of itself supplies the Repubs with lots of ammo to shoot at the Dems. By having the good stuff phase in over several years, the Dems are making things even worse for themselves. Those scared folks out in fly-over country are going to hear about lots of new federal rules and regulations, but they won't see any benefits until well after the next election cycle.

This is pure gold for the Repubs.

It's uncanny how well the Dems aim at their own feet and shoot them every time.

"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you."
—Abraham Simpson

R. Neal's picture

Yeah, it kinda sucks to have

Yeah, it kinda sucks to have to defend a "less than perfect" (to put it mildly) proposal, and to be arguing about "public options" and "exchanges" and "opt outs" instead of single payer.

WhitesCreek's picture

It's curious to me how Dems

It's curious to me how Dems are such stupid strategists on the National level. They've got the momentum and the numbers. Why not go for single payer right now and in the process crush one of the big money sources for Republicans at the same time? Could it be that it's a big money source for Dems as well?

bizgrrl's picture

Thanks for the rundown. Our

Thanks for the rundown. Our taxpayer dollars at work. Tennesseans are not getting their monies worth, but they keep renewing the subscriptions anyway. Some day we're going to be able to get the word out that our representatives need to be thrown out and replaced by people who care.

jcgrim's picture

Revoke their taxpayer funded healthcare

jcg

bizgrrl's picture

Yes. If not that, then let

Yes. If not that, then let them only have a COBRA plan like the least of us.

R. Neal's picture

I wrote: so what Republicans

I wrote: so what Republicans and other opponents are really saying is they don't care about the 40+ million uninsured

Regarding the Republican "plan," Rep. Boehner confirms today on CNN State of the Union:

BOEHNER: ... But it's a common sense approach to make the current system work better. We do not attempt to cover 46 million more Americans.

KING: How many?

BOEHNER: We will cover millions more Americans, but we don't attempt to do this.

KING: But how many more? The American people want to know how many more.

BOEHNER: This is not -- what this is going to do is bankrupt America. It's going to cost millions of Americans their jobs and cut benefits for seniors. This is not what the American people want.

OK, then.

P.S. It would cost about $200 billion to cover the uninsured even if none of them paid any premiums. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $190 billion in 2008.

gonzone's picture

Did anyone notice

Did anyone notice a $680 billion "defense" bill passed while they were haggling over a $90 billion health care bill?

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

      Wire Reports

      Lost Medicaid Funding

      To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

      Search and Archives