Government takeover not good for rural health care

Friday, July 10, 2009

As anyone from Western Nebraska can tell you, there are many differences between urban and rural areas. Rural Americans face challenges completely unknown to folks from the big cities, and vice versa.

In particular, rural Americans face health care tests unique to our geography. Per capita, rural populations are older and face specific health care concerns. When the distance to the nearest town from a farm or ranch can be measured in miles, access to care can be an even greater crisis.

All Americans need access to quality health care regardless of where they choose to live. However, fewer and fewer are able to afford this care because of the rising costs of medical care and health insurance. Significant reform is needed to lower the costs of health care services and private insurance.

As the health care reform debate begins in Congress, some lawmakers are pushing a one-size-fits-all government takeover approach to health care. I have severe concerns over this proposal, and I am not convinced a plan of this sort would reduce escalating costs. In fact, I am concerned such an approach would jeopardize quality. Proposals often sold as "free health care" in reality must be paid for through increased taxes or spending cuts in other areas. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

The truth of the matter is the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the Majority party's health care plan could cost in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and to pay for it they want to cut Medicare by $500 billion. This is unacceptable.

We stand at an important crossroads when it comes to health care. Most would agree our current health care system requires reform to reduce costs. But I don't think the solution lies in having the government takeover your health care.

I have long held a plan which will let patients and doctors -- not Washington bureaucrats -- make critical and personal decisions about their own health care is the proper direction to take this debate.

Our focus should be on ensuring Americans who are happy with their health care plan can keep it instead of adopting a plan which would force as many as 114 million Americans to lose their current coverage. That's right -- despite the President's claims, experts expect nearly 60 percent of Americans who are currently insured to be forced into the government's plan.

Instead of going down this path, I recommend a more common sense approach. For instance, we should explore adjusting Medicare reimbursement levels to ensure rural health care providers are receiving payments equal to their urban counterparts. To this end, I have introduced the Medicare Equity and Accessibility Act, legislation designed to increase access to health care in rural communities by ensuring rural doctors receive a more equitable share of Medicare funds.

Medicare law specifies a formula for calculating the annual update in payments for physicians' services, which discriminates against areas which are thought to have lower costs of living, such as rural states. This formula, then, effectively guarantees physicians in rural states receive reimbursements at a lower rate.

Unless a fix is enacted, payments to medical professionals in rural areas will drop significantly in 2010, dramatically impacting care. My legislation aims to make sure that never happens.

Competition and individual incentive always have led to greater cost control, efficiency, and effectiveness. Adopting a government takeover of health care would offer fewer options and less patient flexibility.

Only a true exchange of ideas and a real debate on the different health care proposals will bring about the change needed.


Washington DC Scottsbluff Grand Island

503 Cannon 416 Valley View Dr. 1811 W. 2nd Street, Suite 105

Washington, DC 20515 Scottsbluff, NE 69361 Grand Island, NE 68803

(202) 225-6435 (308) 633-6333 (308) 384-3900

View 1 comment
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website 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.
  • I agree with Rep Smith in that government needs to

    back out of the idea of "National Health Care".

    We already have Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the people who cannot pay for or have access to private health insurance. Both of

    those programs are already in trouble, so what would government health care do for the rest of us? BREAK THE GOVERNMENT. I believe that Medicare

    should be reformed to include only those beneficiaries who cannot afford to pay for their health insurance, those who can... buy their own.

    Over the last 40 years, since Medicare began,

    the regulations put forth by the Medicare program

    have come down the pike in volumes of regulations

    to insure tax payers money is being spent correctly. With each regulation, hospitals and

    practioners have had to do less patient care and

    more and more and more and more paper work. The

    Medicare motto is, " If it is not documented, it

    did not happen". So very expensive medical care

    can and is denied just because all of the i's weren't dotted and the t's weren't crossed. This

    cuts into the hospitals ability to give quality

    care to all patients, regardless of the patients

    ability to pay. I guess what I'm saying is, we

    probably do not need Medicare or government national health care. All citizens who have the funds to buy health insurance, should buy. Those

    who don't, will get Medicaid. We all know that

    private industry can do business alot cheaper than

    the government.

    -- Posted by redjacket on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, at 4:25 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: