After months of deliberation, the House voted yesterday on its version of a health care reform bill. Titled the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962 is an expansive bill that contains significant changes and reforms to our health care system. I voted against the bill.
My vote against H.R. 3962 was not a rejection of health care reform; it was a rejection of a bill I believe fell short on some of the goals agreed upon by members of both parties and the president. In his address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama correctly stated that the number one problem our health care system faces is its unsustainable cost. We cannot expect to fully address our health care crisis unless we deal with the rising cost burdens on the federal government.
The House version of the health care bill would actually increase the federal government’s budgetary commitment to health care after 2019, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. As it stands, our spending on health care is set to expand exponentially, rising to approximately 30 percent of our entire budget within the next 30 years. By all accounts, this is unsustainable.
Reducing the rate of spending growth is immensely effective. For example, if we reduce the rate of growth for health care expenditures by a mere percentage point, then health care as a portion of Gross Domestic Product will be reduced by 4 percent in that same 30-year timeline. Frankly, we’ve missed our mark and missed a real opportunity to address a serious problem.
The vote by the House is just one step in a long process. Each house of Congress must pass its own legislation, iron out their differences, and then pass the exact same bill before the president signs it into law. The final product could be much different, but I don’t like what I’ve seen so far. Many in my district have spoken strongly against it as well.
Aside from the bill’s failure to address cost, it has other serious problems. For example, one of the main reasons the bill is so costly is due to its inclusion of a public option. I am opposed to a public option because I believe in a free market approach to health care reform. A public option would have far-reaching and severe implications to an already overburdened health care system.
Additionally, H.R. 3962 would levy new taxes on individuals and small businesses during a time in which more than 10 percent of Americans are out of work. Though there are some signs that the economy is improving, these signs bring little solace to people who have been unemployed over the last year. This is certainly no time to place additional burdens on our citizens and the small businesses which will bring us to a full economic recovery.
The bill mandates coverage for both individuals and small businesses, leaving Americans with no choice about whether they even want health insurance. We are a fiercely independent people and are right to be suspicious whenever the government mandates anything. People should be able to choose — or not choose — the type or amount of health insurance they want to have without the government’s involvement in that decision.
Without question, we do need health care cost containment. Our country spends too much money on health care for tens of millions of Americans to be uninsured. But we have to get it right and not pass a bill to simply say we’ve done something.
There are some basic reforms I think would achieve some of these goals. Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and the arbitrary dropping of coverage should be prohibited. I support allowing businesses and individuals the opportunity to purchase insurance from entities beyond their state lines to help meet our goal of greater competition. Medical liability reform should also be seriously addressed in any health care reform.
In Alabama, especially in rural areas, we have a serious problem with access to primary physicians. Health care reform should incentivize physicians to specialize in primary care, especially in ways that encourage them to move to rural, underserved areas to practice medicine.
Moreover, I believe that health care is also about personal responsibility. Healthy behavior should be rewarded not only as a benefit for individuals, but as a way to lower long-term costs and make the country healthier.Health care reform must help ease the burdens on small businesses rather than increase them. Employer-sponsored health care premiums have increased more than 130 percent in the past decade alone and are projected to double in the next 10 years. Many are faced with an untenable choice between dropping coverage for their valued employees and cutting their workforce, or in some cases, closing their doors all together. This must change.
Finally, a strong health care bill should contain restrictions on funding for abortions and prohibitions on illegal immigrants obtaining government-subsidized plans. As a pro-life and anti-illegal immigration member of Congress, these are absolute must-haves.
In closing, a health care bill needs to be bipartisan. For Americans to have confidence in legislation which directly affects them, it shouldn’t appear as a purely partisan exercise. Nearly every significant bill that has been signed into law in our nation’s history was passed with the support of members of both parties. Unfortunately, and without laying blame on either party, this entire process has been mired in partisanship. Historic health care reform supported by both major parties is a great opportunity to change the climate in Washington.
I will remain a firm “no” on any health care bill that does not address these goals and concerns.
Watch the video related to health care reform bill
This is Rep. Alan Grayson on Real Time with Bill Maher, 10/16/09. He discusses his health care statements and general political philosophy. “Huey Long… You gotta put some jam on the bottom shelf where the little man can reach it”
Help answer the question about health care reform bill
What is bipartisan about the current health care reform bill?
I keep hearing about how the republicans are ruining health care reform with their partisanship.
Doesn’t there have to be at least one concession to the republicans in the bill before you call it bipartisan?
What parts of the bill did republicans write?
About Author
Quoting & Saving just got easier…EasyToInsureME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds
It’s right there in black and white.
2010 will be a conservative blowout, so obama is gonna try to pass as much BS as he can
First of all, Obama wants to make insurance more available to all and change the system so that it is cheaper. He also wants change so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland where private companies are involved in providing insurance.
Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.
Third, Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected by the American people to do this.
FACT – the US has higher death rates for kids both for kids aged under one and those under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.
FACT – American insurance companies push up prices and work to stop paying out claims on those they cover.
FACT – the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.
That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.
Last of all if you do not like the policies that Obama was elected to bring in, he can always be voted out of office in 2012.
Yes you are talking about TORT reform. the Democrats do not want to touch the Lawyers. it seems the Lawyers are in the democrats pocket.*
This looks to me like the print version of the actual bill.
Its 615 pages though, so you may want to find a summary.
http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf
Not positive that that is the final/current draft of the bill, but its the one on the senate website, so I'm guessing its good.
This just another astro-turf lobby ad. get the facts for yourself at the white house website!
Obama does not have a bill. He has only given guidelines to what he wants. His last address made it more specific.
The bills in congress are not healthcare bills. They are health coverage bills. The government is trying to take control of a large portion of our economy. They are trying to make it so the government is a single payer source (I know i will get thumbs down for this, but follow hr3200 to its logical conclusion).
The current bills want to cover everybody in the US (Illegals too, there is nothing in these bills to prevent illegals from being covered. Amendments to ensure citizenship were tabled)
The federal government wants to punish you for not having insurance (they will get your money one way or another)
The government wants to regulate what care you will get. (When the system becomes overblaoted as any government system does, they will have 2 options increase taxes or ration care)
I know that there are a lot of people that will disagree with this. If they actually read the bills, and follow to there logical conclusions, in 10 years we will be a whole lot worse of than we are now. So doing nothing would actually be cheaper.
Reform must actually deal with the underlaying problems. HR 320o does not. Obama gave lip service to 1 of them.
send this video to congress… 100 times
Who would believe the White House?
You are commenting on Bill that was defeated by We The People – The new bill, the corrupt US gov will not disclose the actual legislature until 2014 HEALTH PLAN PREMIUM PAYMENTS, REFERRAL CERTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION.—The set of operating rules for
health claims or equivalent encounter information, in a health plan, health plan premium pay ments, and referral certification and authorization transactions shall be adopted not later than July 1, 2014
the new york times has an interactive feature which is actually very clear to understand. check it out.
Under any Democrat President in history, the same M.O. emerges.
The Democrats "identify" a "crisis" and whip the people up into a frenzy about it. They proclaim themselves the carriers of the elixir that will heroically save all mankind from this "crisis.'' When Republicans seek to oppose the spending it will take for this elixir, they are automatically called hate mongers and obstructionists.
Clinton tried it with school lunch menus. He whipped that whole thing into some kind of "crisis." The Democrats wanted to raise the program by 10% and the Republicans wanted to raise it by 7%. That got reported in the media as a 3% CUT by Republicans. Only when a Democrat is President could an INCREASE be reported as a CUT. Just to make Republicans look bad, but too many people buy into the bullshit.
Al Gore, who wasn't even President, tried it with global warming and it didn't work. Today, it's health care. What'll it be tomorrow? The whole "world is ending in 2012" thing, or what?