[mccookgazette.com] Partly Cloudy ~ 90°F  
High: 92°F ~ Low: 65°F
Friday, Aug. 22, 2014

The way ahead on health care

Friday, January 22, 2010

WASHINGTON -- On Tuesday, Jan. 19, America saw an upset of astounding proportions. Scott Brown's election victory in the Massachusetts Senate race changed the political landscape in many ways -- most notably the future of the proposed government takeover of health care.

Brown's election changes the math in the Senate, bringing the number of Republican Senators to 41. Until that point, Senate Democrats held 60 seats -- a supermajority which could defeat any filibuster attempt by Senate Republicans.

The bill had been moved on nearly party-line votes in both the Senate and the House. Without the luxury of a filibuster-proof majority, the controversial health care bill, which until last week's election was on a fast-track, now faces an uncertain future.

Some have called for an incremental approach to health care reform, or even scrapping the entire process and starting over. Let's be clear: the American people do not want a government takeover of health care. Jamming this legislation through would create even more animosity in an American public already expressing their displeasure with the lack of transparency and accountability coming out of Washington.

The House of Representatives should never function as a rubber stamp to the Senate, especially on such an important issue. The Senate bill runs more than 2,700 pages, cuts Medicare by $470 billion, adds $518 billion in new taxes, and $26 billion in new federal mandates imposed on the individual states -- many of which are struggling with their own fiscal crises.

The idea of simply passing this bill with the hopes of fixing it at a later point would be the height of folly.

A vote of this magnitude should be a bipartisan effort, not negotiated in order to meet an arbitrary deadline. Rushing this measure -- which spends money our nation doesn't have, opens the door for taxpayer-funded abortions, and leads the way for a one-size-fits-all rationing of care by putting Washington bureaucrats between patients and their doctors -- is not good for our nation and is not good for Nebraska.

Simply put: this is not the way to go.

I hope the Majority party listens to the message from last Tuesday and works with Republicans on reasonable health care reforms.

Let me share once again a few commonsense measures I support. One way to lower the cost of health insurance without increasing the size of government is to let the American people purchase health insurance across state lines the same way we buy auto insurance. We also should look at reasonable medical malpractice reform which would focus on lowering costs. I also support enacting genuine legal reform which cuts down frivolous lawsuits, and passing bills which give small businesses the freedom to join together to buy health insurance at lower rates and to shop across state lines for insurance in order to find the best deal - similar to options already available to most large businesses and federal workers. I also support expanding health savings accounts to provide additional flexibility to small businesses.

The crystal ball is very cloudy when it comes to the next steps on health care. What is clear is this bill is not what Americans want and it is not what we need.


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

just keep saying no you jerk. follow the party lines

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 10:59 PM

and the dems don't? while i agree that health care reforms are needed, poll after poll shows that the majority of the voters are not in favor of reform as presented.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 10:38 AM

I guess you missed the actual ideas in the article.

"Let me share once again a few commonsense measures I support. One way to lower the cost of health insurance without increasing the size of government is to let the American people purchase health insurance across state lines the same way we buy auto insurance. We also should look at reasonable medical malpractice reform which would focus on lowering costs. I also support enacting genuine legal reform which cuts down frivolous lawsuits, and passing bills which give small businesses the freedom to join together to buy health insurance at lower rates and to shop across state lines for insurance in order to find the best deal - similar to options already available to most large businesses and federal workers. I also support expanding health savings accounts to provide additional flexibility to small businesses."

I like him voting along party lines. I did not vote for republicans to be democrats and to go along with their socialist agenda. This bill is a POS and the fact is the dems completely shut the republican out of the process. If it were so good why did it have to be done behind closed doors? Why did it have to be rushed through on Christmas eve? Since when has congress ever worked on Christmas eve?

-- Posted by Chaco1 on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 10:42 AM

Just once I'd like the commenting wingnut-I use the term wingnut to define anybody who'd claim the current President and the kleptocracy which actually runs this country is "socialistic" in any manner except perhaps for the military industrial complex- to define "socialism".

militarism has all the characteristics of socialism most conservatives hate: Centralized power, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties, foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results, just consider our ill-advised rush to war in Iraq.

I'd also like the commenting wingnut to offer suggestions as to how those people who are legitimate victims of medical malpractice are served under their so-called "tort reforms".

As far as insurance availability across state lines wouldn't single payer serve that end as well as any measure further enriching the current insurance monoliths? I'd also assert the "dems" did not so much shut out the "reps" as the "reps" shut themselves out of the process by making it crystal clear from the beginning that their sole aim was to disrupt, distort, and oppose any measure offered regardless and that aside from their usual tired talking points they had nothing to add to any substantial discussion.

-- Posted by davis_x_machina on Mon, Jan 25, 2010, at 10:43 AM

This solution is closer to the desired result. It is sad that the President continues to libel the insurance industry with accusations about unfair treatment.

The most unfair treament is when Ted Kennedy destroyed acutarial science, and replaced it with adverse selection when he wrote HIPPA, and made group insurance accept pre-existing conditions. The same HIPPA document denied that same feature to individual insurance. Then he and his lefties used the left leaning press to vilify the insurance industry. Then he died while trying to fix his discrimination against anyone not union.

Then the Senate, dominated by lawyers, made tort reform go away. So now, medical malpractice awards put somewhere near 40% of the awards in the hands of the lawyers. How is that serving the needs of the "victims", and how, exactly did John Edwards get so wealthy? Ah, yes, chasing ambulances.

-- Posted by shredder09 on Mon, Jan 25, 2010, at 1:55 PM

Davis umm nice rant there about the military lets us know wherer you are coming from. I'd love to see a democratic military. Ok attack the enbemy, well lets take a vote first. And by the way the dems voted to al Iraq to be invaded didn't they?

Fact is I agree single party pay would be the best solution but it will never happen. Insurance was originally designed to be a hedge against a catastrohic illness not a maintennance policy that we have devolved into.

It is so easy to blame the insurance companies but who has regulated them into their current form? WHo wrote the laws creating HMO's and their total failure? Same people trying tom tell us they will "reform" healtcare.

I think you need to look up the defiintion of Socialism because it's clear that what this president and congress plan to do is take from the producers and give to non producers in other words socialism.

-- Posted by Chaco1 on Tue, Jan 26, 2010, at 11:45 AM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith
Washington Report