Middle of the Road
Jan. 24, 2011

Take it or leave it? Health care revisited

NOTE: After reading, please leave your comments in the space provided at the end of this article.

Rep. Mike Rogers: Scott, thanks for having me join you again in the “Middle of the Road” so we can debate current issues in Washington, D.C. and hopefully find some common ground. With the Republicans now in the majority in the House of Representatives, one of our first priorities, and a promise we made to the American people, was to begin the process of repealing Obamacare and replacing it with more common-sense, less costly legislation that will expand quality coverage. Of course, whether it's repealed depends on the Democratic-controlled Senate and President Obama.

As most of your readers know, this has been a passionate debate. I believe, as we've discussed before, that the current health care reform bill signed into law last year President Obama is a jobs crusher. It's also expensive. This bill puts the price tag on the backs of our children and grandchildren by adding $701 billion to our nation's deficit over the next decade, according to a recent Republican House Budget Committee analysis.

Scott Wright: Good to share the page with you Congressman, as always. First off, I have to point out that the tactic of leaders in your party referring to the new health care bill as a “job killer” is totally erroneous. As the Associated Press reported on Jan. 18, the GOP's opposition strategy on health care is “a story of how statistics get used and abused in Washington.” National Public Radio went even further, reporting Tuesday morning on its website that this particular Republican argument has been “pretty thoroughly debunked.”

As the AP article explained, the GOP claims 650,000 jobs will be lost by implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office mentioned that number in its assessment, as House Speaker John Boehner has stressed repeatedly, but only in the sense that those jobs are now held by people who remain employed primarily because they cannot afford individual coverage — a fact Rep. Boehner has yet to mention. “Most of [that number] would come from people who no longer have to work, or can downshift to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job,” the article explained.

So actually, the health care overhaul, if left alone, will free up almost three-quarters of a million jobs now held by people who are only working because they can't afford to maintain medical insurance any other way.

Rep. Rogers: Let me elaborate of the jobs aspect of repeal. As I have said, small businesses are the heartbeat of our local economies. According to the country's largest small business association, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), just with the employer-mandated health care, 1.6 million jobs could be eliminated, with 66 percent of those lost jobs coming from the small business sector. Folks across East Alabama are hurting and supporting a bill resulting in more good-paying jobs flying out the window during tough times is not something I can do. I agree with my Democratic colleagues that some serious reforms need to be made to our health care system, but putting a bureaucrat between you and your doctor is not the solution. Let's repeal this law and replace it with something better.

Wright: A recent ABC News poll indicates that only 18 percent of Americans favor repeal. Congressman, if repealing the other party's accomplishments every time an election swings the majority becomes standard procedure, then Congress is quickly going to become even more unpopular than it already is. It took decades to finally get this far. Why not build on this foundation instead of throwing it all away?

Rep. Rogers: Scott, House Republicans didn't decide on our own that repealing the Democrats' agenda is what is best for the country, the American voters did – overwhelming so, I might add. If we're talking about the same ABC News/Washington Post poll, it also states that 50 percent of Americans oppose the law. From my travels across the Third District, I find that far more than half oppose it. Most folks I talk to consider the current law a government takeover of health care, which will eliminate jobs and create another entitlement program our country cannot afford.

Wright: Congressman, if the people across the Third District consider the new law to be a government takeover of health care it's largely because your party has misled them. To your great credit, I've never heard you do it, but plenty of your fellow Republicans have. In fact, the online blog Politifact recently chose “government takeover of healthcare” the winner of its 2010 Lie of the Year award. Simply stated the law is (among many other things, admittedly) a mandate that all Americans purchase private insurance, hopefully with the result that we'll all benefit from the resulting larger pool of money to pay for care and treatment. Claims that this law amounts to a “government takeover” are no more factual than Sarah Palin's “death panel” diatribes.

Rep. Rogers: As I stated before, $701 billion — yes, billion — would be added to our national deficit over the next decade. In September 2009 President Obama said during a joint session of Congress that he wouldn't sign any health care reform legislation into law that “adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.” I know we can agree that during these tough economic times creating jobs — not eliminating them — should be at the heart of any legislation that comes out of Washington. Scott, if you think for a second that this legislation does not grow the federal government, you are mistaken. When bureaucrats are put in between the doctors and their patients, what else do you call it? For the sake of our small businesses, which are the backbone of our local economies in East Alabama, I think the law should be repealed.

Wright: Congressman, you'll get no argument from me that the current healthcare law could be better. However, a discussion about the undue influence of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. will have to wait for another time, because we're about to run out of "Road". Instead, let's take a look at a few of the advantages provided by the current law that the Republican Party would have – POOF! – vanish tomorrow, if it had its way: coverage for millions of previously uninsured Americans; the assurance that hundreds of thousands of children cannot be denied health care because of pre-existing conditions; and the requirement that insurers must cover an enrollee's dependent children through age 26.

I understand and appreciate your valid concern about jobs for the people in your district, and I believed you in your opening paragraph when you said you'd like to replace the current health care law with “more common-sense, less costly legislation that will expand quality coverage.” That sounds like a great idea, and I believe the American people would be very interested in seeing and hearing the details of such a plan. As Republican Sen. Bill Frist said last week, the current bill is “the law of the land.” He also said it is the “fundamental platform” on which all future efforts to improve health care will be based. Congressman, I believe the country as a whole will be infinitely better off as soon as the rest of your party realizes it could better serve the American people by worrying less about political grandstanding and focusing instead on devising a way to combine your pragmatism with Sen. Frist's practicality. If there's a better health care law to be had, then I say build it on the existing foundation instead of tearing down what we already have.

Safe travels to and from the Third Alabama District, Rep. Rogers. I look forward to meeting you in the "Middle of the Road" again very soon.