Murphy: Health care bill bad for paper mills, med equipment makers
Here's a chunk of Rep. Scott Murphy's (D-Glens Falls) explanation for why he voted against his party's health care bill.
"I have consistently said that any bill that Congress passes must curb costs and keep health care affordable in the long term. During these difficult economic times, an unacceptably high price tag will stress our already overstretched federal budget and place even more burdens on our hard working individuals, families and small businesses.
"We need to fix the system now, and not put off the hard choices for another generation. Furthermore, I am deeply frustrated by the last minute addition of over $50 billion in taxes on the two largest private employers in the 20th District – medical device manufacturers and paper mills.“As a small businessman, I am also concerned that H.R. 3962 falls short of making health insurance affordable for the small businesses of the 20th District; it fails to reform the fundamentally flawed incentives in the system, which continue to drive costs upward; and it fails to restrain the monopolistic practices of private insurers, which allow them to continue to increase premiums already weighing on families and small businesses."
Labels: healthcare
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/09/2009 08:05:00 AM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
Sounds like a man who has actually read the bill, or part of it, and realizes it's not going to be roses and lolipops. Good for him.
After months of debate the House passed a health care reform bill late Saturday night.
It is not perfected at this point and there are issues that people have with it from the left, middle and right of the political spectrum.
Personally, I do not like any provisions that force American citizens to buy into health insurance or risk being fined. Smacks of "Big Brother" oversight and regulation.
Now, remember folks this is not yet the law. This bill will go to the Senate to be debated, torn asunder and put back together again with input from 100 Senators. It is expected to take several more weeks or months before the Senate presents it's final version to the President for signature.
In the meanwhile, if we have misgivings or problems with how things are being settled, then it is incumbent upon us (citizens) to keep the pressure on our Representatives and Senators.
I must admit that thus far, the far right (Teaparty?) has been doing a better job of being engaged in this debate. Of course, this movement is not "grassroots" in the traditional sense. Many big time insurance companies and other related industries, along with the organizing and antagonizing of FOX News, have funded and rallied these "storm troopers" from the right. Makes for great television.
But it is also interesting that the Reps and Senators that are opposed, are also in the pocket of big pharma and the health insurance industry. Or are they in the pockets of our Reps and Senators?
Frank, why is it that the Tea Party types are "storm troopers", that Ins Co.s and Fox are on board, but Soros billions, SEIU, the Hollywood elites, etc aren't a left wing version of storm troopers/big money backers? Were the participants in the Million Man March storm troopers? Were all the people supporting Obama at his rallies storm troopers?
You complain about my verbiage, but you're doing the same thing.
Hmmmm, we're both stubborn. Bust be something we ate at PI!
Newly sworn Rep. Owens seemed to take an entirely different view of the bill than did Rep. Murphy. I find that interesting.
I compare a mandate to have health insurance to the mandate for automobile insurance. If you are a living, breathing individual, you are at risk for the need for healthcare. If you don't have insurance, you are either independently wealthy or someone else is going to pick up the cost for your care. Mandating health insurance means we all share in the cost (where has the idea of the "commons" gone in all this crazy debate?), and eventually, by the time we die, we will all pay our fair share. To do otherwise is to continue foisting the true cost of healthcare onto others and onto future generations.
Makes me reconsider. However, I'm still not sure if "fining" people who don't buy in is the right way to motivate the public. Maybe having a sliding scale depending upon one's standard of living/economic situation> All of these many good people wihtout jobs in the N.Country and around the nation would find it almost unendurable if the costs were like putting a yoke upon the backs of the poor.
Is this bad for paper mills and medical equipment makers? Then by all means let's get our duly elected leaders to make this bill as fair as possible to give all sides less reason to oppose it.
Mark, auto insurance is to protect the OTHER party from being injured or damaged and them not having recourse to collect damages. That's not really an accurate analogy to health insurance. There are those that prefer not to carry health insurance but they have other means to pay for health care. Whether they're wealthy, have a private group fund, or just prefer to pay as they go, as long as they take care of their responsibilities why should they be fined? This isn't voluntary folks. As the bill stands now you either have insurance that is approved by the Gov't or you get fined. If you don't pay the fine (think Amish) you'll go to jail- eventually.
This is what we need? Fines and prison? According to studies I've seen many of the uninsured skipping paying are illegal aliens. So we're going to finance health insurance for criminals and put the Amish in jail....cool idea.
Flame on.
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "Flame on," Bret. I was simply offering a rationale to Frank Thies to explain why I think requiring insurance and spreading the cost of healthcare across the population makes sense.
I believe the analogy to auto insurance still holds. My auto insurance gives me a level of financial protection that is clearly a benefit to me, not just the other guy. Without insurance, who would the "other party" collect damages from if not me? And, who is the "other party" when I hit a deer and total my car?
I also asked what happened to the idea of "the commons" in this debate. To me, healthcare, like education and defense is part of our social commons, the ground we share together for our mutual benefit. How do we otherwise effectively and fairly cover the cost for everyone of a fundamental human need?
When it comes to other public purposes, education, defense, highways, we all share the cost through one form of taxation or another, regardless of whether or not we have children, or drive cars, or, like the Amish, are pacifists. You don't pay your taxes, you pay a fine. In this case, mandatory insurance is just another form of taxation. How else do you provide for the common good?
These are, of course, just my opinions. They're worth exactly what you paid for them.
"Flame on", my way of saying I'm girding my loins for the oncoming assault.
Okay, you hit a deer. By law the minimum insurance you're required to obtain is liability insurance. That doesn't cover your deer accident. That takes care of "the other" party, not you. It's your creditor requiring you to obtain comprehensive to protect the creditor, not you. Where the analogy really fails is in the respect that it's an INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY for the owner of the auto to obtain and pay for the insurance. There is no gov't tax system to cover those who don't, won't or just can't be bothered to obtain auto insurance!
Now you can make the analogy that health insurance is to protect the taxpayer from having to foot the bill for those that don't pay (all those illegals that have bankrupted California for instance) but isn't the end result the same, or actually worse? Now, instead of the taxpayer having to pick up the tab for what isn't paid for, we're going to provide service for "free" to everyone? If there's no sense of "cost" to an individual that just opens the door for abuse of the system which invariably raises costs! We're creating a new, ENORMOUS, entitlement. Lets say it get's through the Senate essentially unchanged- based on past experience, how long till it's changed to allow for cosmetic surgery? Sex changes? Tattoo removal? Tummy tucks and breast implants? How long till the system is under a huge debt load and it's decided that more limits have to be placed on services? How long till payments to doctors drop below the sustainable level and regulatory paper work forces them to make the decision to quit their practice?
So beyond the fact we're going to tax and fine people into compliance with something that I can find no where in the Constitution (along with education, the arts, etc. etc, etc.) we're setting the stage for an even larger debt load in a country already at the breaking point.
You speak of the common good, a fundamental human need. What of the harm that increased taxes and costs, beyond just the health care bill, does to the "common good"? We're going to punish 300 million taxpayers to take care of the (alleged) 18 million that don't, won't or can't get some sort of insurance coverage? And we're going to do this in a revenue neutral fashion? Really? When did a minimum of 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS become "revenue neutral"?
I'm not against helping people, I'm against throwing good money after bad.
The bill is designed to bring 36 million uninsured people into the system. Does anyone think that those 36 million people get no medical care now? Of course they do. And guess who pays for that care: You and I. A bill that "forces American citizens to buy into health insurance" isn't Big Brother...it's simple fairness and logic. It says "the free ride is over." Join for the common good or pay the penalty.
18 or 36 million? Who cares what the number is since no one knows anyways. How many of those uninsured are illegals that will never contribute any way? How many are homeless or otherwise will not contribute? How many pay their own way and never left us to pay for them? How many COULD be insured but choose not to?
All this will do is create a HUGE entitlement and cost us plenty while lowering service and limiting choice. Whoopie!
The "free ride" is a long way from being over. It will continue, unfortunately, upon the backs of those that work hard to support themselves and their families.
Post a Comment
<< Home