Just 24 hours after the Baucus health care bill was released, the Senate Finance Chairman has little support from the Republicans he hoped to attract. The three Republicans composing the Senate Finance Committee’s Gang of Six have said that they will not support they bill they helped to craft. Republicans are saying the bill has too many problems that need to be fixed before they can consider supporting the bill.
The problems highest on many Republicans’ lists include abortion funding, benefits for illegal immigrants, and cost. Joe Wilson, who shouted “you lie” over Obama’s claim that no illegal immigrants will receive health care under the plan, is just one of many who are concerned that this new healthcare overhaul will either explicitly, or through vauge language, provide taxpayer funded health care to illegal immigrants.
Many worry that the millions of illegal immigrants will be able to slip through the cracks and legal loopholes and receive benefits from the government, since regulation will be nearly impossible.
Pro-life Republicans and Democrats in Congress are worried that abortions will be funded through this new health care proposal. Two congressman Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) have proposed amendments to the proposed legislation to address the concerns of many that abortions will be covered under the health care bills. The amendment proposes that the current policy be kept, which does not allow public funds to support abortions or plans that cover it.
Republicans are also worried that this plan will grant the federal government too much control and strap Americans with high costs. The Baucus Bill will cost $856 billion over 10 years, while the House Democratic bill will cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The Baucus bill, the House Democratic Bill and Obama’s plan will use various tactics to pay for the high costs including: fee’s on insurance companies, drug makers, and insurers; taxes on premium plans costing more than $8,000; Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; business tax increases; penalties to business who don’t provide healthcare and individuals who don’t obtain insurance. Obama has stressed that his plan will be paid for by taxing high-value insurance plans (basically saying those who can afford plush insurance packages are punished for it) and by drastically cutting Medicare funding (apparently with out cutting services).
The Republican plan, which has not been even glanced at by House Democrats, has proposed no new taxes, does not mandate people obtain insurance and offers tax credits to small business owners and low income Americans. Republicans continue to oppose the Baucus bill calling the bill a “big-government boondoggle” for its harsh penalties on middle-income Americans and high taxes on everyone from citizens to businesses to insurance companies.
Republicans do not want the government to mandate insurance because it places an additional burden on young healthy Americans who do not need an extensive insurance package. Democrats insist that young Americans are imperative to funding the plan, hoping that the additional costs to young Americans will help pay for the increased need for older and sicker Americans. Younger Americans will face a minimum of $100 a month for the most basic coverage some insurance experts suggest; strapping a significant new expense to many Americans just starting out in the work force. Linda J. Blumberg, a health care expert from the Urban Institute says that requiring people obtain insurance is merely a “mechanism for financing health care reform.”
Those people who believe that they can afford an additional monthly expense and decide not to obtain health care face high tax penalties. Either way people are strapped with additional monthly costs under all Democrat supported bills in Congress.
While the Baucus bill claims it helps those who are unable to obtain insurance by expanding the amount of people eligible for Medicaid he also plans to cut Medicaid spending. How does he plan to pay for more people using Medicaid by decreasing funding? It’s a question that many Republicans need answered and are willing to discuss.
Republicans want to be at the table to discuss health care reform, but many Democrats are not willing to listen. Grassley wants to “keep working until [they] get it right” saying that “legislation that impacts every American should have strong bipartisan support.” Ben Nelson, a senator from Nebraska, describes the debate as “a marathon, not a sprint,” hoping that negotiations will be thorough not rushed just to meet some imaginary pressing deadline.
Baucus who is confident that his bill will pass seems to be more worried about finding his place in history than passing a bill that will positively impact the health care system. Rushing the health care legislation is dangerous Mr. Baucus, we need a low cost plan providing competition and access not one that straps citizens with high costs and drives our nation into an even higher deficit.
For more information about the Proposed Health care information visit:
Health Care 101: Terms and Phrases that have defined the Health Care Debate - Fox News
Health Care Proposals Compared - Wall Street Journal
Loading ...
September 18th, 2009 at 8:52 am
As regards cost of Inaction, $9trillion over the next decade, here is some of CBO analysis : While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion–60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout.
This note suggests if it were not for a fundamental change in a payment formula, Medicare & Medicate system are unsustainable, let alone clear waste and abuse. And the public option that has undergone harsh stress tests embodies innovative payment reform, so-called ‘a pay for value reimbursement’ , and this well-proven innovation also allows for Affordability and Quality simultaneously. For the record, Minnesota influenced by Mayo clinic spends “20 percent” less per patient than the national average and 31 percent less than in the highest cost state. By comparison, the baseless scheme by a few lacks this key component, too.
In brief, for Medicare & Medicate system to survive from the most wasteful structure on earth, sufficient savings need to be secured, conversely, the savings thereof suffice to meet the goal of well-planned public option.
Most crucially, but for a distinct cost-competitive edge in a proposition, as warned by economists, drastically rising health care costs is shaking the long-term fiscal security at all fronts.
Now is the moment to turn page to contemporary energy and financial upgrade glossed over in 8 years.
[Reply to this Comment]