Gibson: Repealing health care reform an important first step
“By voting to repeal the health care legislation passed last year, we’re one step closer to enacting health care reform that increases access to quality and affordable care in a way that does not result in a massive government takeover, harm small businesses, or step on our freedoms.
“My focus today was ensuring that I represent my district in Upstate New York. Time and time again, I have heard from constituents that we need health care reform, but that this bill was not the answer. With health care costs continuing to rise at several times the rate of inflation, we simply must drive down costs.
“Yet, the bill passed last year would result in higher costs, higher premiums, and higher taxes, all while creating more burdensome regulations for health care providers and small businesses and expanding government. Changes to the Medicaid program will put an additional and untenable burden on states already facing difficult financial challenges. New taxes and regulations will hurt our small businesses, including the medical device industry, a sector of the economy where our region leads the country.
“However, just as important as the vote today to repeal this health care bill is the process to replace it. That process begins tomorrow. H.Res. 9 instructs four committees to begin work on replacement legislation, a process which needs to be undertaken with care and deliberation and respects the committee system and rules of the House.
Ultimately, I believe the fate of this repeal effort will hinge on the content and quality of the replacement bill.
“I’m confident our replacement bill will include insurance reform for wider access to options and choices, medical liability reform, coverage for preexisting conditions and an assurance that coverage can’t be dropped when you get sick. I believe that when the American people see this replacement bill, which will be a patient-centered solution, and evaluate it against the government expansion bill, they will choose the replacement legislation.
“It’s time to start over. I look forward to beginning a civil discourse with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass the health care reform that Americans want and need.”
“I’m confident our replacement bill will include insurance reform for wider access to options and choices, medical liability reform, coverage for preexisting conditions and an assurance that coverage can’t be dropped when you get sick. I believe that when the American people see this replacement bill, which will be a patient-centered solution, and evaluate it against the government expansion bill, they will choose the replacement legislation.
The American people have been waiting decades to see a Republican health care solution. Now you are asking us to wait still longer. You claim you want to keep the good parts of the Affordable Health Care Act in your new bill. Most of those good parts are going to cost money (which is why the AHCA requires everyone to purchase insurance; a Republican idea BTW). Please tell us how you plan to pay for these good parts in your new bill. Please tell us anything about your new bill. You’ve had at least two years to think about it.
If the Republicans were serious about improving health care, they would only repeal the parts of HCR that they claim are problematic instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Actually, if they were serious about improving health care, they’d follow Vermont’s example and push for Medicare for All. Take a program that’s already proven to work and expand. That’s the sensible thing. But of course, that takes power away from the insurance rackets that control both the Republicans and the sainted Democrats.
Let them make their proposal first and argue that it is better (and try to get it passed). So far all they offer is platitudes.
They also offer patently dishonest analysis, which I have gotten so used to that I dont pay much attention to it. It would be helpful if they started to think using real numbers.
I don’t see Senate Republicans canceling their own publicly financed health care Once gain they demonstrate that what’s good for them, is socialism for us. What a disgrace. Nice work voters of the 20th – you deserve what your corporate masters paid for.
But, if Rep. Gibson is truly committed to opposing taxpayer funded health insurance then I urge him to show the way and give up his own.
This is nothing more than a cynical ruse to create a self-fulfilling prophesy for 2012. The Republicans intend to create so much uncertainty and doubt about whether the current legislation will survive, so as to have this issue front and center for the 2012 presidential election. Their propaganda machine is in in full vigor, as we speak. They have so maligned and and lied about the provisions of the bill that the public is once again entering a state of agitated confusion about death panels, deficits, socialized medicine, etc that the truth is fighting to be heard or seen. After all, who wants to be confused by facts from listening to boring explanations when the sound byte artists can make it so much simpler to see the “faults” of the existing legislation. Apparently, the oligarchs in the health care-industrial complex are displeased.
People need to realize insurance companies are a lot like Wall Street and Las Vegas. All three bet you will lose and they will win.
Guess what? They win and you lose.
Of the three, Las Vegas is the most honest.
Here’s a little tid bit about Vermont’s effort toward a single payer system. Note that they need a waiver approved via legislation to get this moving. I wonder if certain interests will try and sink their effort in Congress:
EVEN AS GOP MOVES TO REPEAL HEALTHCARE REFORM, VT. LAWMAKERS
WANT TO PROVIDE SINGLE PAYER AT HOME.
Even as House Republicans prepared to repeal healthcare reform, Vermont’s
congressional delegation moved to speed up enactment of one key provision
of the landmark reform law.
Appearing in Vermont alongside Gov. Peter Shumlin at the statehouse in
Montpelier, the Vermont congressional delegation on Tuesday announced
federal legislation to let states in 2014 provide better health at less cost.
The lawmakers’ press conference came a day before a scheduled Wednesday
vote in the Hosue to do away with health reform, one of President Obama’s
signature achievements. However, even if the new House GOP majority
musters the votes to pass a repeal, that wholesale repeal has little chance
of being enacted. It would still have to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate.
A provision by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the healthcare law allows states to
propose pilot programs in 2017. Now Vermont’s congressional delegates —
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D), Sanders, and Rep. Peter Welch (D) — have drafted a bill
to authorize federal waivers three years sooner. Sanders will introduce the bill
in the Senate for himself and Leahy, and Welch will introduce the bill in the
House.
The goal of the Vermonters’ legislation actually is to move beyond the reforms
in last year’s legislation, to provide a single-payer plan to Green Mountain State
residents.
‘At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of
health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the
nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all-single-payer approach,”
Sanders says. “The goal is clear: quality, cost-effective health care for all
Vermonters. This is essential not only for the wellbeing of all Vermonters but for
job creation. We must do all we can to lower the crushing costs of health care
that are devastating Vermont businesses and their employees. I look forward to
working with Sen. Leahy and Rep. Welch to get the appropriate waivers and
flexibility for us to go forward toward a single-payer system.”
Sanders and others complained un the lead-up to Senate passage of the healthcare
legilslation last year that the government-run public option was dropped from the
final bill.
“VERMONT IS MOVING FORWARD.”
The Vermont lawmakers couched their new bill in terms of allowing their state to
innovate a new approach.
Leahy says, “While some in Washington are trying to turn back the clock back on
health reform, Vermont instead is moving forward. This state waiver bill will give
Vermont and other states the choice to go above and beyond what the federal
law does by devising their own reforms. Vermont has always been a leader in
health care quality and access, and this bill will give our state the flexibilty we
want to offer Vermonters the best care and coverage while controlling costs.”
Under their bill, states would be able to seek U.S. Health and Human Services
(HHS) Department approval to implement pilot health care systems beginning in
2014. To qualify, state plans would have to be at least as comphrehensive and
affordable as the federal model and cover at least as many people. States could
not offer lower quality or less affordable coverage. A single-payer system like
Vermont is considering or any other state initiative could not cause the federal
government to incur more costs, according to a statement released by the
Vermont delegation.
The waiver provision also requires HHS to create a coordinated process so states
in a single application also could seek waivers already available under Medicare,
Medicaid, and the children’s health insurance program.
Shumlin says the exisiting health care reform law “will bring Vermont critical money
to make our health care system work better and to cover some of the uninsured.
We want to do it better and faster than the federal law contemplates. We want
to control costs and cover everyone. I am so pleased that our congressional
delegation supports us in this effort, and I thank them for introducing this
important legislation. This is just the beginning of this process, and there are
other waivers we will need to get it done. If we work together, I am convinced
that we can persuade the federal government they shouild not stand in our way.”
http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/even-as-gop-moves-to-repeal-healt hcare.html
If NY State wanted to create it’s own single payer system that would be fine. The problem is this is the Federal Gov’t mandating a citizen purchase a service/good. That’s unconstitutional at the very least. That invalidates that whole program.
Let them deal with the basics first before trying to create something.
I think a “good first step” might be to offer a solution, as has been noted.
The question of constitutionality is yet to be decided. All we have right now are opinions.
To those who oppose a government/taxpayer-funded health care system, who do you think foots the bill when an uninsured person goes to the ER when they finally really need medical care?
Preventive care is much more efficient.
“But, if Rep. Gibson is truly committed to opposing taxpayer funded health insurance then I urge him to show the way and give up his own.”
Actually, he has. Which makes him a rare GOP bird:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/dems-press-gopers-to-repeal-their-own-benefits-along-with-health-care-law.php?ref=fpa
Oa: thanks for that link. Though I wonder if he’s able to do that because he already gets benefits as a retired soldier.
Pete is right. Insurance companies are nothing but money changers. They administer no actual health care to anyone. They merely shift money around and take a 30% cut.
In any insurance pool, there are individuals who are winners (who get more in benefits than they pay in premiums) and those who are losers (who subsidize the winners AND pay the bureacrats’ salaries, provide the company’s profits, etc). By definition, the losers lose more than the winners win because that’s how the company stays in business.
That’s the whole premise of any for-profit insurance system: you pay for others and others pay for you and the amount paid in is always more than the amount paid out so the company can make a profit. This is why any private insurance system will always be more expensive than a public system.
As Matt Miller pointed out several months ago: “Every dollar of health-care “waste” is somebody’s dollar of income. “ That poses a real problem in reducing health care costs.
The legislative process of health insurance reform is inherently ugly. The GOP is now choosing to be on the business end of that ugly process. I can envision it being just as ugly as when the Dems did it, only the Dems actually had a chance. The GOP will not only face criticism for their ideas but they will also get criticized for wasting time. This will be interesting
PNE: you can say that about pretty much all public spending.
Brian, yes, if you consider all public spending waste.
Many people make the mistake of believing insurance companies are in the business of making us whole in the face of illnees, injury, accident, fire, etc.
They’re in the business of making money, and finding ways to avoid paying claims.
If repealed, there is a chance for real reform of the health care system.
You know, the kind where law makers actually get input from stakeholders and craft some kind of legislation that actually addressed some issues.
Probably won’t happen this time around, but it is good to have some adults back in the system.
Although I’m not a fan of the healthcare bill, I find Gibson’s rationale laughable. The bill that was passed last year lacks any meaningful measures to truly contain costs – the major healthcare issue facing the country. That said, the Republicans had control of the government for the lion’s share of the last decade or so and their major contribution to addressing healthcare was a bill (passed in the dead of night) that dramatically increased healthcare entitlement to the benefit of the pharma industry. Rather than staging a kabuki dance that will go nowhere, these charlatans should be working on measures that have a reasonable chance of improving the system.
It is interesting that a person who spent their whole adult life in the socialized, government run health-care system thinks that other people shouldn’t be able to have that same health-care.
It is worth noting that while running for office Gibson said that Republicans should repeal and replace Obamacare in one step. Now he has voted to repeal but there is no bill to replace. Mark that as a promise not kept.
If you own a car you are required to have car insurance. No one disputes the significance of that. Distributing the cost over the entire car owning public makes insurance that much less expensive and affordable for everyone.
If you have a life, you should have health insurance. Why is that is that such a difficult concept to grasp. That mandate makes insurance less expensive and more affordable for everyone. Case closed.
Those who refuse to pay for insurance are simply gaming the system for their own greedy benefit. Inevitably, they will need healthcare that they have not otherwise been willing to pay for, except at the expense of all the rest of us.
khl:
“…thinks that other people shouldn’t be able to have that same health-care”
In fact they can’t.
Obamacare didn’t provide the common peons with cadillac-style health-care. That was all part of the lie to get peon-minded people to go along with it.
What you get is a law that makes you buy government health care, at ever-increasing rates, with ever-decreasing benefits.
Who hooo.
JDM, exactly why I opposed Obamacare. I wanted socialized medicine.
So when everyone brings up the statistics about all the people who don’t like Obamacare remember that about half of them think it doesn’t go far enough.
For those of you who think that using the word “socialism” is un-civil:
Socialism, socialism, socialism, I LOVE socialism. Thank god for police, firemen, the post office and all the branches of the military. All good socialist institutions!
Someday we will all have socialized medicine after the insurance companies and for-profit health entities have milked us dry. Better late than never.
JDM – you need to get your facts straight. “What you get is a law that makes you buy government health care, at ever-increasing rates, with ever-decreasing benefits.” That, specifically, is what we DIDNT get. We didnt get government health care – we got a law saying we had to carry private insurance. The rates would be subsidized for low income people, and the benefits would be increased. If you want to be against it, thats your business, but please try to stick to real reasons.
Single payor. Leverage with Big Blue, Big Pharma, results based coverage, digitized medical records. Everybody’s covered, just like they were 65. No constitutional battles that go nowhere and line attorneys’ pockets. And our premiums go for medical treatment, not monstrous fat cat salaries and advertising.
Making it a crime to sell or purchase health insurance would be a better second step. First step is to take away the health insurance from the congress and the senate.
The current bill looks to me like on giant unfunded mandate.
How can we pass health care reform, real reform without paying for it, I don’t understand? Which is why I think this bill might actually be just as big of a show as the show “vote” was on repealing it in the House last week.
Right now it is just mandates. I just find it amazing and quite cynical that the guts of the bill the actual true insurance was intentionally delayed until 2014. If this really is good if this really is going to help and is really needed why wait?
The health care system in this country is not good it needs to change, however make no mistake it could be worse and it could get worse. My concern is that this bill will cause things to get much worse for most Americans and a little better for some. The concern is massive increases in price and a decrease in health care supply as doctors leave the field and hospitals close because of this bill. Maybe it won’t happen I really hope not but who is going to pay for this? We can’t afford medicaid right now how is that model extended to all Americans ever going to work?
Mark 7:30PM= the diff is not everyone drives or owns a car, the Federal Gov’t doesn’t unconstitutionally mandate we have car insurance (states do and can legally) and there is no provision for competition across state borders in health insurance as there is in car insurance. We could have a larger pool if the gov’t got out of the way and used th elaw to enable competition instead of ignoring it.
Mark 7:30PM–I can’t seem to find that Bible verse. Must be the one about “render unto Ceaser…”
Bret4207,
Just a couple of thoughts on your last post. You speak of a larger pool and in the same breath talk about competition.
Larger pool is a good idea but competition creates many pools.
This causes me to think that only one insurance company, private or public, would be the best way to create a truly large pool and the lowering of premiums for all.
Just a thought because what we have now is a shell game run by insurance companies. An awful lot of bait and switch is what is taking place.
Pete, if there was an altruistic insurance company out there that might work. Do you think that’s likely?
Bret, not really, which is why I wrote “private or public.” Private might work if the company were to function and be regulated in a way similar to what is done with the power companies. Not perfect but possible.
Which reminds me of the way things were when there was a Ma Bell with telephones. With the advent of cell phones, we have a real mish mash out there with 100’s of “deals” and “opportunities” to have outrageous cell phone bills.
Well Pete, you have a good point. Do you think it’s possible that we could have “one big company” that could be controlled like Bell was in todays atmosphere? I think the little companies would squawk at that idea. Of course we could have Uncle Sam foot the bill, but that comes with it’s own set of problems.
I like your original idea- outlaw health insurance.
For some people, due to the cost and who they work for, health insurance is already outlawed in a very real and practical sense.
The problem here is that they are still treated by doctors and hospitals who make up the difference by charging more to those who have insurance or can pay out of pocket.
As you well know, nothing is free and someone pays.