Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 21 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Reform rebuttal
House could vote on health care bill today
Published Saturday, November 7, 2009
For Pike County residents with health insurance, the health care reform bill going before the House of Representatives will mean little, said local Rep. Bobby Bright.
That is, if it passes.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act, in all its 1,900 pages, is expected to go before the House for the first time this weekend, and if that happens, Bright will vote no.
“The big thing I’m concerned about it the cost of the bill,” Bright said. “If it passes, it may hold health care costs down for a short period of time. After 10 years or more escalate and have the federal government paying most of it by ways of taxpayers, it could get up to 30 percent of our budget.”
Bright said the bill, in summary, will not impact those who already are insured through a private company or employer. But, for those without insurance, it will provide a public option.
But, it won’t really be an option.
“You would have to maintain some kind of health care coverage, and if you didn’t, you would have penalty against you on your income taxes,” Bright said. “I don’t think that’s right. There are some people who don’t need or want health care. The government shouldn’t mandate every single American to have it.”
The Associated Press reports the health care bill would total $1.2 trillion for the 10-year legislation that would extend health care coverage through the public option and put restrictions on insurance companies.
Even with restrictions though, Bright said health insurance premiums will still continue to rise.
“Your premium next year is going to continue to go on up. If that’s going to happen, why do it?” he said. High costs aren’t the only reason Bright opposes the current legislation.
Like many of the bill’s opponents, federal funding for abortion is a key issue for Bright.
Federal law now bans government funds from being used to pay for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, reports the AP. This bill would create a stream of federal money to subsidize medical insurance premiums.
“I’m a prolife person,” Bright said. “There’s some real breakdowns of people saying indirectly some abortions would be funded through this program.”
Another group that would take a hit, Bright said, is small businesses with a payroll of more than $500,000.
“Your small business would have to (provide health insurance) if it had a salary payroll excess of $500,000 a year,” Bright said.
And, if it didn’t, Bright said the business would be penalized on its taxes.
Another hot debate in the health care bill is a provision in the Senate legislation that would ban illegal immigrants from purchasing health insurance from an exchange or private company, even with their own money.
Bright doesn’t disagree with that area.
“I’m a very legalistic-type person. If you’re illegal, you need to get legal before you have access to all the benefits a nation like ours provides,” Bright said.
While Bright is opposed to this health care bill, he is not opposed to health care reform in general.
“What we’ve got to do is create more competition…so they could compete on a bigger basis for insurance and spread the liability,” Bright said.
The vote is expected to come before the House Saturday, but Democrats may not have the votes by then to pass it, which could push it back to Sunday or Monday, the AP said.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Alabamaexpat (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So, what is the Republican alternative then? More competition? How? By doing what?
Posted by inaword (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about a little tort reform for starters.
Posted by Alabamaexpat (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll go along with a little of that too. Campaign finance, term limits etc.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Republicans are not even making a difference in this debate. It's the Democrats like Bright that will decide it. If it doesn't pass, you can't blame the Republicans.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh well, I just read that they passed it at 11:16 last night. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887....
That took guts, having such an important vote at Saturday night close to midnight. At least Bobby Bright didn't vote for it. Those cowards.
Posted by thor (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Those who say the Republicans have no reform solution are just plain incorrect. Thr Republican leadership has consistently stated that they would
1) reform the tort and liablity laws, which drive up health insurance costs for everybody
2) allow out-of-state insurance companies to compete in any state they chose. This will bring many more alternative policies to people, thus increasing marketplace competition and lowering costs
3) establish health savings accounts, totally tax-free.
Of course, the liberal spin machine keeps saying the conservatives offer no alternative, but this is simply not true.
Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
thor
those are pretty good ideas. Out-of-state ins. co. would have a problem with in-state ins. co. allowing them in to take away business. how would tort & liability laws change?(change what in them?) Still pretty good ideas.
Posted by shiftingshadows (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
werent some of you the same ones that said Bright would be like having Nancy Pelosi in this district??
Posted by thor (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bamaslick, the diea is to stop frivilous lawsuits entirely and to limti jury awards to a reasonable level, so the doctors are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance. They also would stop running needless tests just to make them bulletproof in a lawsuit. All of these actions would lower the cost we pay for our health insurance.
Posted by FoX (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
thor,
I am all for tort reform and I have been from the beginning, but that doesn't mean a public option is still not a good idea. I see healthcare as a basic human right and I think that a government run insurance that is non-profit will offer the lowest cost solution for healthcare. There are also problems with the some of the Republicans alternatives such as no limits on costs, or bans on denying access based upon preexisting conditions and then there is the limitations on funds for abortions. In my opinion, paying $400 for an abortion is a much better alternative than paying ten of thousands of dollars to support an unwanted child living in poverty.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know, I would rather be living in poverty than dead.
Posted by FoX (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So in the previous article you're essentially hating on the lower class and resent them for the lack of taxes they pay, yet here you want to deny them aid for an abortion, which is a financially responsible decision. So you'd rather see a woman in the projects with three kids than a woman in the projects who has had three abortions? Don't you know children raised in poverty tend to live in poverty as adults. In a way, denying abortions to the poor is like promoting poverty. Then there's the issue with you seeming to be compassionate to a unborn organism, yet you have problems with the government helping to provide health care to the poor. You're just all over the place aren't you.
Posted by regis (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about being a responsible human being and thinking about the consequences of your actions instead of thinking you can do whatever you want because everybody else will take care of your screw-ups?
Posted by regis (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And don't tell me about being poor. I grew up in a cinder block house with no heat and a yard that you had to sweep with a sage broom. But I didn't let that stop me from studying hard, going in the Army to raise money for college, eating Ramen noodles and living in a roach infested trailer in college, and getting my degree.
Sorry, I know times is hard, but I have very little sympathy for people who live in a perpetual, self-inflicted spiral, who keep asking for more and more help only to never try to help themselves because they "deserve" to be taken care of. Give me a break.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee FoX, I would rather see a woman in the projects that has enough sense to know that if she can't afford to get out of the projects, then maybe it's not a good time to have children. By the way, the organism that you refer to is a BABY! Wake up and start living in the real world.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, FoX, which one really hates the lower class? Someone like me who wants their situation to be a temporary one, or someone like you who calls their babies "a unborn organism." You are a disgusting person.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on Regis!! I eat ramen noodles now.
Posted by White_Lightning1 (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You were lucky Reis. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in
a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down at the mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, our Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!
Posted by FoX (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sure, in an ideal world, there would be no need for abortions, but it is far from ideal. In the case of a woman living in poverty, I think the decision to abort an unwanted fetus that she cannot adequately provide for is a responsible decision, both financially and socially. The matter of a few hundred dollars should not be the determining factor in this decision. It is a much smaller burden on the rest of society as well as the wallets of complaining taxpayers to pay for her abortion rather than spend thousands of dollars a year to provide for a unwanted child living in poverty. Do you not get that?
If a woman can't afford to have a kid, then she should not be getting pregnant, but complaining about her getting pregnant after the deed is done is not solving anything. Do you mind providing some useful solution to a pregnant woman who can't afford a child? You don't seem to support abortions, but you're also complaining about being taxed to provide for social programs for the poor. It seems you want to force her to have the child, but then not provide any help to her and let the child starve.
Also, as for me referring the the baby as an "unborn organism" that is what it is. It's unborn, because it hasn't been born, and it is an organism because it a living thing. It was not meant to be derogatory in any way, so I'm not sure why you consider me disgusting because of that. Do you take offense to me calling you a living organism? Is it okay with you OldSchool if I call it a fetus since that is also what it is also? How about a "precious little miracle for Jebus". Does that work for you?
Posted by regis (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So you really were raised in a septic tank. That was actually my initial guess. Thanks for the confirmation.
Posted by shiftingshadows (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fox/white lightning were born in septic tanks...
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)