IF you are a member of a group like "Rid the Republican Party of R.I.N.O.s" then the RINO is you.
Every time you bash the Republican Party and its members and its elected officials, YOU are the Republican In Name Only.
People who claim to be more Constitutional than the US Surpeme Court are like a Catholic who claims to be more Catholic than the Pope. I do not believe them.
People who claim to be conservative and hate democracy, the consent of the people, I do not believe them.
People who claim to be Republican and are "RINO Hunters" who bash the party and its elected officials, I do not believe.
If you proudly claim to be a member of the Republican Party without bashing the Party or its elected officials, that I will believe.
You have NO business attempting to define what it is to be a Republican when you only CLAIM to be a "Constitutionalist, Christian, Conservative, or Patriotic.
Dec 31, 2009
Attorney Generals' Letter to Pelosi & Reid On Unconstitutional Health Care Bill
December 30, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed.
As chief legal officers ofour states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.
It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees.
In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates.
In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what isfair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.
In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a "display of arbitrary power." Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program.
However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the
‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207.
It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universalhealth care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of theincreased Medicaid costs the bill will generate.
The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.
The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution.
As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the
“Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs.
Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.
We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issueis readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.
By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.
Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry McMaster Attorney General, South Carolina
Rob McKennaAttorney General, Washington
Mike CoxAttorney General, Michigan
Greg AbbottAttorney General, Texas
John SuthersAttorney General, Colorado
Troy KingAttorney General, Alabama
Wayne StenehjemAttorney General, North Dakota
Bill MimsAttorney General, Virginia
Tom CorbettAttorney General, Pennsylvania
Mark ShurtleffAttorney General, Utah
Bill McCollumAttorney General, Florida
Lawrence WasdenAttorney General, Idaho
Marty JackleyAttorney General, South DakotaEdit Post
Delete Post
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed.
As chief legal officers ofour states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.
It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees.
In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates.
In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what isfair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.
In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a "display of arbitrary power." Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program.
However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the
‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207.
It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universalhealth care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of theincreased Medicaid costs the bill will generate.
The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.
The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution.
As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the
“Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs.
Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.
We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issueis readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.
By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.
Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry McMaster Attorney General, South Carolina
Rob McKennaAttorney General, Washington
Mike CoxAttorney General, Michigan
Greg AbbottAttorney General, Texas
John SuthersAttorney General, Colorado
Troy KingAttorney General, Alabama
Wayne StenehjemAttorney General, North Dakota
Bill MimsAttorney General, Virginia
Tom CorbettAttorney General, Pennsylvania
Mark ShurtleffAttorney General, Utah
Bill McCollumAttorney General, Florida
Lawrence WasdenAttorney General, Idaho
Marty JackleyAttorney General, South DakotaEdit Post
Delete Post
Dec 29, 2009
Dec 24, 2009
Dec 22, 2009
Mrs. HUTCHISON on MORE MANDATES AND TAXES FROM 1:00AM AMENDMENT:
Mrs. HUTCHISON on MORE MANDATES AND TAXES FROM 1:00AM AMENDMENT:
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, for weeks we have been debating legislation that will dramatically and permanently reform our health care industry. It will impact the life of every American, and it will add to our growing national debt.
On Saturday, the... majority leader filed an amendment increasing the size of this bill. Early this morning at 1 a.m., we had a vote to proceed to the revised bill that makes a mockery of transparency and public policy. Yet even though the majority took the opportunity to amend the bill, it is clear the concerns of the American people were not heard by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
I was astounded to see this revised bill still contains $ 1/2 trillion in new taxes, $ 1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts and mandates and penalties on individuals and businesses throughout our country at a time when businesses are struggling, unemployment is up, and families are trying to make ends meet.
I wish to talk about the taxes. The revised bill has an additional $25 billion in taxes than the bill as introduced. We have been hearing for weeks about families who are struggling to pay their mortgage, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay their utility bills. Yet what do we find in this new bill? More taxes and more mandates.
The American people overwhelmingly oppose this bill, and just when we thought the final product could not get any worse, it does.
Under the revised bill, the taxes collected from individuals who cannot afford health insurance has been raised from $8 billion to $15 billion--almost double. Why? Because the penalty for not purchasing insurance has become more severe. If you cannot afford insurance, the tax is either $750 or 2 percent of your taxable income, whichever is higher.
There are still taxes that begin next month, less than 2 weeks from now. [Page: S13657]
Less than 2 weeks from now in this bill, $22 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies will start, and the public can expect to see higher prices for medicines.
In 2011, we see $60 billion in taxes on insurance companies except for companies in two particular States. That does not seem fair. Fortunately, the Constitution's equal protection clause may have something to say about this gross situation. This will not stand the test of the Constitution, I hope, because the deals that have been made to get votes from specific Senators cannot be considered equal protection under the law.
If it does stand and the taxes start in 2011, people who have insurance are going to pay higher premiums--even higher than what has been projected already.
In 2011, we also see the taxes on medical device manufacturers. So the public can expect to see higher prices for devices--thermometers, blood sugar machines, canes, walkers--the things people need to stay healthy. That is another $19 billion in taxes.
Then there is another round of taxes in 2013: $149 billion in taxes on high-benefit plans; a 40-percent excise tax on the amount by which premiums exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families; $87 billion collected from a Medicare payroll tax. This tax is actually $33 billion higher than in the prior bill. Individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 are now assessed at a tax rate of 2.35 percent for a new Medicare payroll tax rather than 1.45 percent.
So if you are a couple earning $125,000 each, you have another tax increase, in addition to possibly a tax on not having insurance or a high-benefit plan.
Also, $15 billion will be collected by raising the threshold for the medical deduction. To receive the medical deduction, you must now spend 10 percent of your income on medical expenses rather than 7.5 percent. This tax will impact those who have high medical costs or are suffering from a catastrophic or chronic illness.
This bill taxes those who have insurance and those who do not. All these taxes are collected. All the taxes I have mentioned will be collected before there would be the option that is the purpose of this bill. Whatever the insurance option becomes, it takes effect in 2014. All the taxes I have mentioned start before 2014.
Senator Thune and I had a motion that would have sent this bill back to the committee and required that everything in this bill start at the same time. So if the program starts in 2014, the taxes would start in 2014. Under our motion, not one dime in taxes would be paid before Americans are offered the insurance option in the bill. The motion was defeated. Now the Democrats have revised their bill and the taxes collected are even higher than the previous bill.
But do not forget the penalties to businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees. A tax of $750 per employee is assessed. This at a time when unemployment has reached double digits. We should be encouraging employers to hire new workers. Yet this bill imposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers.
What will these taxes do to small businesses which create 70 percent of the new jobs in our country? In a letter sent to the majority leader, the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care stated:
With its new taxes, mandates, growth in government programs and overall price tag, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--
The bill we are discussing--
costs too much and delivers too little. ..... Any potential savings from those reforms are more than outweighed by the new taxes, new mandates and expensive new government programs included in this bill.
That letter is signed, in addition to the Small Business Coalition, by associations such as the Farm Bureau, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Retail Federation, and more.
The National Federation of Independent Business, which is the voice of small business, sent a letter expressing their strong concerns over this bill. It says:
The current bill does not do enough to reduce costs for small business owners and their employees. Despite the inclusion of insurance market reforms in the small-group and individual marketplaces, the savings that may materialize are too small for too few and the increase in premium costs are too great for too many.
That is the tax situation. How about the $ 1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts? They are still there. They were in the first bill, and they are there now.
There are $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, which we know reduces choices for seniors. In my State of Texas, over 500,000 currently enrolled enjoy the benefits of Medicare Advantage. That is in my State alone. Millions across the country like Medicare Advantage, but many seniors, without a doubt, are going to lose this option.
Oddly enough, once again, one of the points in the new bill is, there was an opt-out for certain States on Medicare Advantage cuts. So some States are going to have the Medicare Advantage cuts while other States will not.
The individual fixes for certain States, presumably to get the votes of certain Senators, do not pass the test of transparency. If you put it in the nicest way, it does not pass the test for fairness, for due process and equal treatment under the law, and it certainly does not pass the test for what is the right way for us to pass comprehensive reform legislation.
The other health care cuts in Medicare would be $186 billion in cuts to nursing homes, home health care, and hospice providers.
Then there are the cuts to hospitals, approximately $135 billion in cuts to hospitals. The Texas Hospital Association has estimated that hospitals in my State will suffer almost $10 billion in reduced payments.
I have a letter from the Texas Hospital Association that outlines their concerns with these cuts and this bill and they are very concerned. Here is one of the quotes from their letter. The Texas Hospital Association says:
With a significant reduction in payments, hospitals may be forced to reduce medical services. [H]ospitals ..... may be forced to close or merge with another hospital, or severely reduce the services they provide to their community. Essential services, such as maternity care, emergency services, medical-surgical services or wellness programs may be reduced or entirely eliminated.
I have talked with so many hospital administrators and people on hospital boards, and they are very concerned about the cuts in this bill because most of them are on very thin margins. They are struggling, especially in our rural areas. They are very worried there are going to be shutdowns of hospitals throughout our State and certainly our country.
Our aging population is growing, so cutting payments to providers who treat those patients, whether it is in hospitals or health care providers, does not seem to be a way to reform Medicare.
Cuts in Medicare, and especially the payments for treating low-income seniors, will disproportionately impact rural hospitals which are the safety net for health care outside the metropolitan areas. The Texas Organization of Rural and Community Hospitals, which represents 150 rural hospitals in Texas, said in a letter:
We also fear the Medicare cuts as proposed could disproportionately hurt rural hospitals which are the health care safety net for more than 2 million rural Texans. Because of lower financial margins and higher percentage of Medicare patients, rural hospitals will be impacted more than urban hospitals by any reductions in reimbursement. These proposed Medicare cuts could have a devastating effect ..... which could lead to curtailing of certain services. And the closure of some of these Texas hospitals
is a very real possibility. .....
How could anyone support a reform bill that will result in seniors having to drive 30, 60, 90 miles and more to get the care they need--care that was accessible in their own community before this bill took effect?
Mr. President, what we have is a bill heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and government intrusion. This bill is being forced through Congress the week of Christmas because everyone knows this is not the reform that Americans want. The polls are showing that. We all know polls can have margins of error, and maybe they are not completely accurate, but the trend in the polls is clear: It has gone from people thinking that health care reform is a good thing and supporting it, in the majority, to
going down now to the point where the trend is clear the [Page: S13658]
American people now do not support this bill, they would rather have nothing, according to the latest polls, and have Congress start all over and do what
they hoped it would do, and that is bring down the cost of health care not have this be a big government increase in debt, cuts to Medicare, and increases on taxes to small business and families, especially at this time in our country's economic period.
My Republican colleagues and I have tried to offer fiscally responsible alternatives to reform, allowing small businesses to pool together, increase the size of their risk pools, which will bring premiums down. If you have an exchange it would be fine unless you have so many mandates, such as we see in this bill, that are going to cause the prices to stay up and even go higher because of all the taxes on the underlying companies that are providing the health care.
Creating an online marketplace free from mandates and government interference where the public can easily compare and select insurance plans would be a Republican proposal, something that I think would be a point at which we could start having health care reform that would be truly effective for America, if you didn't have the mandates that would drive up the cost.
Offering tax credits to individuals and families who purchase insurance on their own, that is a bill that we have put forward. Five thousand dollars per family would cut the cost and make it affordable without any government intervention that would be necessary.
Of course, medical malpractice reform could take $54 billion out of the cost of health care by stopping the frivolous lawsuits, or at least limiting them. Yet Republicans were really not at the table. The bill was written in a room, with no transparency, no C-SPAN cameras, and no Republicans. We did not have input into this bill. That is why it is a partisan bill. That is why the vote last night--or this morning at 1 a.m.--was completely, 100 percent partisan. Why would a Republican vote for
a bill that goes against every principle we have--higher taxes, higher mandates, and cuts in Medicare--and in which we had not one amendment pass? We offered amendments, but there were hundreds of amendments left on the table that we were closed out of offering because of the rush to pass this bill before Christmas.
Mr. President, Americans asked for reform; they deserve it. This bill is not the reform Americans hoped to get from a Congress that should have acted responsibly but did not.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, for weeks we have been debating legislation that will dramatically and permanently reform our health care industry. It will impact the life of every American, and it will add to our growing national debt.
On Saturday, the... majority leader filed an amendment increasing the size of this bill. Early this morning at 1 a.m., we had a vote to proceed to the revised bill that makes a mockery of transparency and public policy. Yet even though the majority took the opportunity to amend the bill, it is clear the concerns of the American people were not heard by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
I was astounded to see this revised bill still contains $ 1/2 trillion in new taxes, $ 1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts and mandates and penalties on individuals and businesses throughout our country at a time when businesses are struggling, unemployment is up, and families are trying to make ends meet.
I wish to talk about the taxes. The revised bill has an additional $25 billion in taxes than the bill as introduced. We have been hearing for weeks about families who are struggling to pay their mortgage, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay their utility bills. Yet what do we find in this new bill? More taxes and more mandates.
The American people overwhelmingly oppose this bill, and just when we thought the final product could not get any worse, it does.
Under the revised bill, the taxes collected from individuals who cannot afford health insurance has been raised from $8 billion to $15 billion--almost double. Why? Because the penalty for not purchasing insurance has become more severe. If you cannot afford insurance, the tax is either $750 or 2 percent of your taxable income, whichever is higher.
There are still taxes that begin next month, less than 2 weeks from now. [Page: S13657]
Less than 2 weeks from now in this bill, $22 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies will start, and the public can expect to see higher prices for medicines.
In 2011, we see $60 billion in taxes on insurance companies except for companies in two particular States. That does not seem fair. Fortunately, the Constitution's equal protection clause may have something to say about this gross situation. This will not stand the test of the Constitution, I hope, because the deals that have been made to get votes from specific Senators cannot be considered equal protection under the law.
If it does stand and the taxes start in 2011, people who have insurance are going to pay higher premiums--even higher than what has been projected already.
In 2011, we also see the taxes on medical device manufacturers. So the public can expect to see higher prices for devices--thermometers, blood sugar machines, canes, walkers--the things people need to stay healthy. That is another $19 billion in taxes.
Then there is another round of taxes in 2013: $149 billion in taxes on high-benefit plans; a 40-percent excise tax on the amount by which premiums exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families; $87 billion collected from a Medicare payroll tax. This tax is actually $33 billion higher than in the prior bill. Individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 are now assessed at a tax rate of 2.35 percent for a new Medicare payroll tax rather than 1.45 percent.
So if you are a couple earning $125,000 each, you have another tax increase, in addition to possibly a tax on not having insurance or a high-benefit plan.
Also, $15 billion will be collected by raising the threshold for the medical deduction. To receive the medical deduction, you must now spend 10 percent of your income on medical expenses rather than 7.5 percent. This tax will impact those who have high medical costs or are suffering from a catastrophic or chronic illness.
This bill taxes those who have insurance and those who do not. All these taxes are collected. All the taxes I have mentioned will be collected before there would be the option that is the purpose of this bill. Whatever the insurance option becomes, it takes effect in 2014. All the taxes I have mentioned start before 2014.
Senator Thune and I had a motion that would have sent this bill back to the committee and required that everything in this bill start at the same time. So if the program starts in 2014, the taxes would start in 2014. Under our motion, not one dime in taxes would be paid before Americans are offered the insurance option in the bill. The motion was defeated. Now the Democrats have revised their bill and the taxes collected are even higher than the previous bill.
But do not forget the penalties to businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees. A tax of $750 per employee is assessed. This at a time when unemployment has reached double digits. We should be encouraging employers to hire new workers. Yet this bill imposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers.
What will these taxes do to small businesses which create 70 percent of the new jobs in our country? In a letter sent to the majority leader, the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care stated:
With its new taxes, mandates, growth in government programs and overall price tag, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--
The bill we are discussing--
costs too much and delivers too little. ..... Any potential savings from those reforms are more than outweighed by the new taxes, new mandates and expensive new government programs included in this bill.
That letter is signed, in addition to the Small Business Coalition, by associations such as the Farm Bureau, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Retail Federation, and more.
The National Federation of Independent Business, which is the voice of small business, sent a letter expressing their strong concerns over this bill. It says:
The current bill does not do enough to reduce costs for small business owners and their employees. Despite the inclusion of insurance market reforms in the small-group and individual marketplaces, the savings that may materialize are too small for too few and the increase in premium costs are too great for too many.
That is the tax situation. How about the $ 1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts? They are still there. They were in the first bill, and they are there now.
There are $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, which we know reduces choices for seniors. In my State of Texas, over 500,000 currently enrolled enjoy the benefits of Medicare Advantage. That is in my State alone. Millions across the country like Medicare Advantage, but many seniors, without a doubt, are going to lose this option.
Oddly enough, once again, one of the points in the new bill is, there was an opt-out for certain States on Medicare Advantage cuts. So some States are going to have the Medicare Advantage cuts while other States will not.
The individual fixes for certain States, presumably to get the votes of certain Senators, do not pass the test of transparency. If you put it in the nicest way, it does not pass the test for fairness, for due process and equal treatment under the law, and it certainly does not pass the test for what is the right way for us to pass comprehensive reform legislation.
The other health care cuts in Medicare would be $186 billion in cuts to nursing homes, home health care, and hospice providers.
Then there are the cuts to hospitals, approximately $135 billion in cuts to hospitals. The Texas Hospital Association has estimated that hospitals in my State will suffer almost $10 billion in reduced payments.
I have a letter from the Texas Hospital Association that outlines their concerns with these cuts and this bill and they are very concerned. Here is one of the quotes from their letter. The Texas Hospital Association says:
With a significant reduction in payments, hospitals may be forced to reduce medical services. [H]ospitals ..... may be forced to close or merge with another hospital, or severely reduce the services they provide to their community. Essential services, such as maternity care, emergency services, medical-surgical services or wellness programs may be reduced or entirely eliminated.
I have talked with so many hospital administrators and people on hospital boards, and they are very concerned about the cuts in this bill because most of them are on very thin margins. They are struggling, especially in our rural areas. They are very worried there are going to be shutdowns of hospitals throughout our State and certainly our country.
Our aging population is growing, so cutting payments to providers who treat those patients, whether it is in hospitals or health care providers, does not seem to be a way to reform Medicare.
Cuts in Medicare, and especially the payments for treating low-income seniors, will disproportionately impact rural hospitals which are the safety net for health care outside the metropolitan areas. The Texas Organization of Rural and Community Hospitals, which represents 150 rural hospitals in Texas, said in a letter:
We also fear the Medicare cuts as proposed could disproportionately hurt rural hospitals which are the health care safety net for more than 2 million rural Texans. Because of lower financial margins and higher percentage of Medicare patients, rural hospitals will be impacted more than urban hospitals by any reductions in reimbursement. These proposed Medicare cuts could have a devastating effect ..... which could lead to curtailing of certain services. And the closure of some of these Texas hospitals
is a very real possibility. .....
How could anyone support a reform bill that will result in seniors having to drive 30, 60, 90 miles and more to get the care they need--care that was accessible in their own community before this bill took effect?
Mr. President, what we have is a bill heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and government intrusion. This bill is being forced through Congress the week of Christmas because everyone knows this is not the reform that Americans want. The polls are showing that. We all know polls can have margins of error, and maybe they are not completely accurate, but the trend in the polls is clear: It has gone from people thinking that health care reform is a good thing and supporting it, in the majority, to
going down now to the point where the trend is clear the [Page: S13658]
American people now do not support this bill, they would rather have nothing, according to the latest polls, and have Congress start all over and do what
they hoped it would do, and that is bring down the cost of health care not have this be a big government increase in debt, cuts to Medicare, and increases on taxes to small business and families, especially at this time in our country's economic period.
My Republican colleagues and I have tried to offer fiscally responsible alternatives to reform, allowing small businesses to pool together, increase the size of their risk pools, which will bring premiums down. If you have an exchange it would be fine unless you have so many mandates, such as we see in this bill, that are going to cause the prices to stay up and even go higher because of all the taxes on the underlying companies that are providing the health care.
Creating an online marketplace free from mandates and government interference where the public can easily compare and select insurance plans would be a Republican proposal, something that I think would be a point at which we could start having health care reform that would be truly effective for America, if you didn't have the mandates that would drive up the cost.
Offering tax credits to individuals and families who purchase insurance on their own, that is a bill that we have put forward. Five thousand dollars per family would cut the cost and make it affordable without any government intervention that would be necessary.
Of course, medical malpractice reform could take $54 billion out of the cost of health care by stopping the frivolous lawsuits, or at least limiting them. Yet Republicans were really not at the table. The bill was written in a room, with no transparency, no C-SPAN cameras, and no Republicans. We did not have input into this bill. That is why it is a partisan bill. That is why the vote last night--or this morning at 1 a.m.--was completely, 100 percent partisan. Why would a Republican vote for
a bill that goes against every principle we have--higher taxes, higher mandates, and cuts in Medicare--and in which we had not one amendment pass? We offered amendments, but there were hundreds of amendments left on the table that we were closed out of offering because of the rush to pass this bill before Christmas.
Mr. President, Americans asked for reform; they deserve it. This bill is not the reform Americans hoped to get from a Congress that should have acted responsibly but did not.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Presidential Approval: Mere Approval Eclipsed By Strongly Disapprove
Today, 12/22/09, marked the first time that those who Strongly Disapprove has reached 46%. Those who merely disapprove are 56% is also at a new high for this Democrat Administration. The Strongly Approve is 25%, so the index of those who Strongly approve minus those who Strongly Disapprove is -21, another historic high for this Democrat Administration.
Dec 15, 2009
Name the Writer of that Quote
The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it have more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)