In times when hard working families are struggling each month to make ends meet, Congress remains focused on passing a massive healthcare reform bill.
After the auto bailouts, the $787 billion Stimulus bill, a jobs-threatening Cap and Trade bill and passage of the largest budget in American history, Congress is borrowing money at the speed of light with no end in sight, and no real plan to curb the increasing national debt.
Alabama's state unemployment rate is up to 10.4 percent, double what it was this time last year, making it painfully obvious our economy needs help to save and create more jobs.
Many of our new jobs come not from the high-profile major employers, like the auto sector, but instead from our small businesses. That's why during the health care debate, Congress must remember not to do more harm than good by putting our jobs-creating small businesses in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, that still could happen.
With no money, but big plans, the Democratic Congressional Leadership is working to figure out a game-plan to pay for what could be, down the road, an enormous government take-over of health care.
Currently, H.R. 3200 helps pays for a "public option" by putting a $544 billion surtax on high income Americans.
With recent news of big Wall Street bonuses, it's tempting to say "tax 'em all, they make so much already!" The reality, though, is some of Alabama's small business owners could be pulled into the health care tax trap.
That's because a lot of these "rich" folks are actually small business owners who file their taxes as individuals.
On top of the tax hikes, there is also talk about mandating employers to offer their employees insurance coverage. If the employer can't cover their employees, a high penalty fee will be enacted.
Now, almost all of us agree offering health insurance coverage to more workers is a good thing.
The question is whether a mandate on employers — in particular our small businesses — will do the trick. Judging by the feedback I get from many of East Alabama's employers, I am deeply concerned this mandate and higher taxes could dampen our prospects for new job creation.
Would a "public option" help all Americans have access to quality health insurance? That is debatable. But what isn't, in my opinion, would be the fiscal cost to our nation of a government-run insurance plan, as the Federal government could kill access to private insurance while racking up more debt.
And what would that massive new Federal spending do to our already weak economy? That, of course, brings us back to the fundamental question of the proper role of the Federal government in our lives and in our economy.
As always, check out my YouTube page at www.YouTube.com/MikeRogersAL03, please contact me at www.house.gov/mike-rogers or follow me at www.twitter.com/RepMikeRogersAL.
http://www2.oanow.com/oan/news/opinion/mike_rogers/article/mike_rogers_public_option_should_be_off_table_for_non-partisan_solution/107497/#comments
Congressman Rogers press release as well as a few observations from myself and others are on the Opelika Auburn News website opinion section.
Please take a look and consider commenting, the broader the participation, the more we all benefit from the discussion. I will be happy to help identity available information concerning any health reform comments or questions other readers may have.
Thanks,
David
http://www2.oanow.com/oan/news/opinion/mike_rogers/article/mike_rogers_public_option_should_be_off_table_for_non-partisan_solution/107497/#comments
Congressman Rogers press release as well as a few observations from myself and others are on the Opelika Auburn News website opinion section.
Please take a look and consider commenting, the broader the participation, the more we all benefit from the discussion. I will be happy to help identity available information concerning any health reform comments or questions other readers may have.
Thanks,
David
Thank you for acknowledging that a “public option” is debatable. Let’s take the next step and debate the facts concerning the key issues.
Speculating a vision suggesting that the opposition party is forcing us to “pay for what could be, down the road, an enormous government take-over of health care” reflects another emotional device of ad-homonym flaming, devoid of current facts.
Yes, H.B.3200 would tax the top 1.2% of tax payers nationally, in Alabama .9%. For a couple filing jointly, the surcharge would equal to 1 % of income in excess of $350,000 but less than $500,000 , 1.5% of income between $500,000 and 1 million, and 5.4% of income over 1 million. JCT (Joint Committee on Taxation)
Impact on small business? For 96% of tax payers with business income, this tax will have zero impact. (JCT) Of the effected 4% of taxpayers, only 23% earn over half there income from an effected business.
Are employer mandates un-American? , Would you prefer individual mandates, or perhaps no mandates? Forcing employers or individuals to buy insurance they don’t want may appear socialist, however, when one chooses not to purchase insurance and has a serious illness or accident, the person in all likelihood will be bankrupted and everybody else pays most of the cost. How does this promote capitalism through individual responsibility?
The potential impacts of a public option are primarily dependent upon how access to capital, market regulations and legal redress are structured.
In the legislation currently under consideration, tax payers will initially pay the startup cost of any public option, subsequent funding, will be 100% from premium dollars and member coinsurance deductable payments. Provided the public plan has access to the same capital markets as are available to the private sector, pricing is acuity adjusted and negotiated, and each competitor has fair access to the courts to insure fair competition; it will reduce overall healthcare cost by increasing competition. (Key to cost control and quality coverage Jacob S. Hacker, 2009)
The profits of insurance companies are not the problem, it’s the inefficiencies. Yes, Medicare has significant waste, fraud, pays fewer claims per beneficiary, and doesn’t include premium and payroll tax collection expense in overhead calculations. But there are no data that demonstrate the 3% Medicare overhead is anywhere close to the average private insurance cost which ranges from ~7% in large group to ~40% in individual coverage. (Universal Coverage With Private And Public Group Health Insurance,” Health Affairs, Volume 27, No. 3, May/June 2008, 647)
Currently in 36 states, 3 insurance companies control at least 50% of the market (Health Affairs, Volume 23, No. 6, Nov. /Dec. 2004, Exhibit 1.), BCBS of Alabama maintains between 75% of 78% of the market within Alabama. Is this almost monopsony/monopoly competitive? If so, how is it functionally different from your vision of a public option? The actual difference is that the public option is estimated to include 10 million by 2019, out of an under 65 population of 228 million. (CBO 2009)
If you do not favor initially subsidizing a public option, what is your position on the federal government subsidizing private insurance companies 14% over traditional Medicare in the Medicare Advantage program? For the financial benefit of insurance companies and 22% of Medicare beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage, the tax payers currently spend $1.30 for every $1.00 of equivalent services under traditional Medicare (Medpac 2009).
Although the concept of forcing Medicare was replaced with using negotiated rates this week, if rates go to current Medicare levels will doctors and hospital go out of business?
Currently, 99.5% of physicians accept Medicare payments, and the number of physicians billing Medicare has increased faster than the beneficiary population; from 7.6 to 8.0 physicians, per thousand, between 2001 and 2006 (Medpac 2008). Medicare beneficiaries were more likely to report better access to physicians than private insurance members (Medpac 2009). Primary care physicians are an exception, and should receive additional pay increases. (Medpac 2008, 2009)
What about hospitals, can they cost shift to private insurance?
Hospitals located where private payers pay higher rates tend to be less efficient in controlling cost. These hospitals generally show greater losses in treating Medicare patients as compared to hospitals with lower payment rates from private payers. (Medpac 2009)
Hospitals that earn the highest profits levels, treating Medicare patients, typically are in competitive locations, where private payers incentivize hospitals to become more efficient in the delivery of healthcare for all patients. (Medpac 2009)
Congressmen, in 14 paragraphs you raised three facts, stimulus cost, an unemployment rate and a 10 year sir tax total.
I appreciate the recent call from your staff person in Washington that advises you on healthcare, however, aside from your financial constituently which is currently 85% coded “industry specific”, of which health care only ranks behind defense and insurance, the rest of the voter constituency will appreciate your publicly answering these specific questions factually.
Thanks,
David