Guest post by Sen. Steve Martin (originally appearing on his Facebook page)
Really: Mr. President? I have the only current healthcare reform bill that has been debated and passed committees for further consideration in front of me right now (HR 3200). Section 102: You cannot keep your existing group insurance policy beyond 5 years after the bill is passed unless it is conformed to the terms of HR3200. You can keep your existing individual (non-employee or group based) health insurance policy only until you make a change to it (other then adding a dependent). Then, it must also be conformed.
You said that the “public option” is going to be self-sustaining … no cost to taxpayers … not government subsidized. The mere fact that there is no profit motive belies that claim. No taxes being paid by the government agency is itself a taxpayer/government subsidy. Furthermore, you cannot cover more people with higher risk (covering pre-existing conditions) and additional mandated benefits for less money then you were before. Another government subsidy is found in the form of the proposed 30% additional penalty on any plan sold by the private sector that has greater benefits than the government believes they should be providing their customers.
There are no “death panels?” There are no “death taxes” either, but many refer to estate taxes as such. There was no “Contract on America” either, but some of your political allies still to this day refer to the “Contract with America” as such. The truth is that there will be a panel that sets priority as to who gets what coverage based on the quality of the life they are expected to have remaining. Mr. President: you said this yourself, in a public forum when responding to question from Jane Sturm concerning her mother’s need for pacemaker. You told her that under your plan you may have to tell her to “take a pain pill.” To another question you responded that you may have to suggest that such a person “consider hospice care.” These are your words, about your plan, Mr. President.
Mr. President; your plan does require “end of life counseling” every five years, and even more frequently as health changes occur. Publications the government recommends, on the subject, are very suggestive about points in one’s life when they should consider whether or not they want to be any further burden to friends and family.
Your representatives keep saying that the Hyde Amendment prevents this plan from covering the cost of abortions while also saying you may seek passage of the measure by way of “reconciliation.” Both cannot be true. If it qualifies as a budget bill, which is necessary for reconciliation, then its language is not limited by existing code language. And while I am on that point, you cannot argue both that it qualifies for reconciliation and that it is also budget-neutral. Both of those things cannot be true, either, because reconciliation is reserved for the need to adjust existing budgets up or down.
Mr. President; you say that your plan will not provide coverage for illegal aliens. I do not see how that could be true since there is no need for proof of citizenship. However, after removing the self-insured and the voluntary uninsured from the number of Americans you say are uninsured, you have an actual number below 12 million (probably under 10 million). That is less than 3% of U.S. citizens who are voluntarily uninsured. Yet, your legislative leaders and you are recommending action that; 1) limits coverage (by penalizing insurers with a 30% fee for having sold a plan that exceeds the coverage that the government recommends), while also, 2) mandating minimum benefits for everyone, 3) requires immediate coverage of health problems that existed before premiums began, 4) limits the premium that can be charged for that higher risk coverage (community rating requirements), 5) requires all non-qualifying group plans to conform to the governments model by the end of the five year grace period, 6) requires any individual plan that is altered to be conformed to the government model, 7) expects premiums to somehow drop, 8) expects the private sector to be able to remain as competitors, and 9) results in a national takeover of 17% more of this country’s economy.
This massive change to 17% of our economy to address a less than 3% need, makes sense to whom?
