Loading ...
I received the following from my state representative, Greg Wren, yesterday:
Dear Constituents,
The United States Senate is preparing for a vote on the latest version of a massive government funded intrusion into the health care system. Senator Harry Reid (Democratic Majority Leader) will force a vote on President Obama’s health care plan which will cost U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars, increase taxes on the middle class in America, provide health care to millions of illegals (as the Democrats move forward on their agenda to grant citizenship), reduce access to Medicare patients, increase taxes on small business owners and millions of their employees, and establish a federal government-run bureaucracy to dismantle private health insurance competition.Other than these highlights, the Obama-Reid Plan is simple to understand. Government run, taxpayer financed, reduced coverage for Americans except illegals. Simple. Sad. Shameful but expected.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama have iced down the champagne, set up the ticker tape route down Pennsylvania Avenue, and have lined up America’s media to blow the trumpets announcing their political victory. Hopefully, prayerfully, their hammering through of such a massive government run health care system will awaken millions of Americans who didn’t think they were voting for THIS type of ‘change.’ Only time and trillions of dollars out of American’s pockets will tell.
Well, that’s all I can say about this power grab by the Democrats to begin the dismantling of our health care system. It makes me ill. I should call my doctor to get an appointment soon—before I have to call some federal bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.
Below are several key points of the the Obama-Reid plan provided by the Alabama Policy Institute. I hope you find these insightful.
Let’s all stay tuned. First, say a prayer.
Representative Greg Wren
Alabama House of Representatives
He the proceeded to attach a “Legislative Update” from the Alabama Policy Institute that admitted it was a repeat of information put out by Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, minority leader in the US Senate. I found the e-mail and attachment to be highly misleading and did not feel it was appropriate to let them stand unanswered. This was my response:
Representative Wren,
This is a deeply misleading analysis of the bill. I like Michael and we have had online discussions about issues in the past, but API is passing along unfiltered opposition spin, not objective analysis. I have found the Kaiser Family Foundation, amongst others, to be an extremely valuable resource during the health reform debate in obtaining facts and understanding the provisions of the different bills http://healthreform.kff.org/
The analysis you forwarded leaves out a great deal, but the biggest piece is the cost of doing nothing. Saying this bill bends the cost curve upward is simply ridiculous. The cost curve if we do nothing is astronomical. Saying that this bill cuts Medicare, when what it’s doing is slowing down the unsustainable increase in spending (which IS bending the cost curve downward) amounts to talking out of both sides of their mouths.
I have no problem with honest debate, but cherry-picking the spending/taxes from the bill and leaving out the savings (or calling it CUTS in Medicare, when it’s attempting to slow the unsustainable growth in healthcare spending) is disingenous and unfair. The fact is that the CBO says this bill will be a net cost-savings to the federal budget and the national debt over the next ten years, and ensure access to healthcare coverage for tens of millions who are unable to obtain it today.
In addition, to state that this bill dismantles our existing healthcare system shows an extreme lack of interest in understanding what the provisions of the bill really are. I have no problem with arguing that what the bill does is the wrong approach, but I would hope you would present the truth about what the bill does honestly instead of passing along one-sided spin.
Your comments and thoughts are appreciated below.
loading...
Related posts:
- My Conversation with Representative Greg Wren on the Tax Fairness Act – Part 2 I did receive a response from Rep. Wren to...
- Myths on Both Sides in Healthcare Debate I came across an excellent column about the myths...
- Rep. Wren Puts Forth A Counter-Proposal on State Sales Tax Well, my State Rep. Greg Wren stepped forward with...
- Healthcare Reform for Alabamians: Is it Really Too Much To Ask? For those who want to slowdown the healthcare reform...
- Bipartisan Groups Get My Attention: Need for More Cost Controls in Healthcare Reform Anytime you can get budget analysts from the Urban...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
NEW TWAY Blog Post: Rep. Greg Wren and the Whole Truth on the Senate Health Bill http://bit.ly/63PuhW #alpoliticsGD Star Rating
loading...
As I understand it, the bill actually cuts Medicare FRAUD. If that is to be construed as cutting access to Medicare, we should first decide whether access to Medicare should include access by fraud. I, for one, think not.
With respect to the “illegals” issue, I thought that issue had already been resolved (remember Joe Wilson?). From everything I’ve seen, this bill doesn’t even address the undocumented, so I’m not sure how this bill is a “move forward on their agenda to grant citizenship” to the undocumented. Whatever agenda some may have regarding amnesty or citizenship, this bill is a HEALTHCARE bill, not an immigration bill. Nothing I’ve seen suggests that this bill will “increase taxes on the middle class in America [to] provide health care to millions of illegals.”
As I understand it, this bill proposes regulation and oversight of the health insurance industry to reduce costs, an issue that people of all political pursuasions can agree needs to be addressed. We can certainly argue over how this bill reduces costs, but with all due respect to Rep. Wren, this just sounds like worn out scare tactics. If I am missing something, I hope someone will point me to an authority that supports Rep. Wren’s propositions.
loading...
The Alabama Policy Institute puts out “unfiltered opposition spin” and it is parroted by an Alabama politician of the Republican persuasion eager to advance in his party? I’m shocked, shocked! Solid response and I do hope you’ll share any reply you might receive.
loading...
Mr. Wren’s communication is disgusting. I hope the voters of his district remember this, next election.
loading...
Although I do not feel Mr. Wren presented his message clearly, I think his passion for his country and the people of his district is very clear.
The current proposed health care reform is not a reform our country and specifically our state can afford. Although it would be nice in an ideal world for everyone to have health care coverage, businesses cannot afford to provide health care coverage in the current economic state. When forced by government to provide health care benefits to employees, employers will resort to reducing their workforce or closing their doors. For a multitude of reasons the current prosposed legislation on health care reform is not sensible for America.
loading...
Michelle,
Thanks for stopping by…passion is fine for as far as it goes, but passion alone doesn’t win the day.
As to your point:
a) Artur Davis agrees with you on the burden to small businesses in the House bill and prefers the Senate version. The Senate provisions would not take effect until January 2014. The Senate mandate only kicks in for employers with more than 50 employees (straining the definition of “small”) and calls for a straight $750 fee per employee. Hardly a fee that will break the bank for any business.
b) Even in the House version the provisions would not take effect until January 2013. The House bill has no mandate for employers who have a payroll of less than half a million dollars. Those who are above half a million would be expected to pick up two-thirds of the premium cost of family coverage or three-fourths of individual coverage (or pay a tax of 8% of their payroll).
loading...
Kristopher,
The senate bill would require individuals to purchase health insurance, with a fine for noncompliance of $95 in the first year that would escalate to $750 by 2016. Parents would be responsible for providing coverage for their children up to 18 years old. Those eligible for Medicaid services must be (with this legislation’s provisions) making less than 133% of the poverty level. How do you expect the individual that does not qualify for Medicaid services, but is still poor to afford health care? Although $95.00 is not a massive sum of money, it may be the difference of groceries for a week for a family of four.
I will not debate reform is needed to the health care system but I would prefer a more feasible solution.
loading...
So are you giving up on your first argument and moving the target? So now it’s not about the economy it’s about poor people?
No less a conservative than former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist supports the individual mandate. And I love this supposed concern for the poor who “can’t afford” healthcare. If you were really concerned about what people can and can’t afford, wouldn’t that be an argument for pushing the Medicaid requirement to something higher than 133% of poverty?
Do you know what the number one cause of bankruptcy is in this country? Medical expenses. One of the most significant priorities of this proposal is to make sure that as many people as possible have a means to acquire healthcare coverage. It is being done through multiple actions, raising the Medicaid eligibility level, requiring employers to provide coverage…those that are remaining are those who are self-employed or work for very small firms and they will have a choice of plans, or can choose to have no plan and help pick up the cost to the overall system of that choice. This is a sound approach that makes sense.
loading...