Middle of the Road
March 29, 2010

Rogers, Wright debate the health care bill

Wright: Congressman, it is a pleasure to share this page with you. I appreciate your efforts, ever since you first took office in 2003, to open lines of communication and show your interest in the people of Cherokee County.

Now, down to business: Your Democratic colleagues passed a nationwide health care plan last week which will, among its many reforms, provide coverage to millions of Americans, ensure that hundreds of thousands of children will not be denied health care because of pre-existing conditions, and require insurers to cover an enrollee's dependent children through age 26. You have stated that you plan to participate in efforts to repeal this bill. Please help me understand why you feel these historic reforms will harm your constituents.

Rogers: Scott, first of all, thank you for the opportunity. I hope your readers enjoy our back and forth.

First let's get some facts straight. You know I support common-sense solutions for health care reform. It's not that I am opposed; it's just that I was not okay with overhauling the entire system. We should have taken the roughly 15 percent of Americans who are uninsured and started there. The reforms you mention are certainly worthy, but as a member of the minority, I was not privy to the closed-door meetings that the Democratic leadership held to create this enormous bill. What we got was a mishmash of special deals, kickbacks, and Lord-knows-what-else. We're talking cuts to Medicare, tax hikes — almost a trillion dollar undertaking — which I believe will ultimately result in a government takeover of health care. I'm worried about how this bill will affect quality of care, whether families and seniors in Cherokee County will be able to choose their own doctor, and how this bill will permanently expand the role and scope of the federal government in our lives.

I do, however, agree that covering folks with pre-existing conditions is a good idea. So is allowing children through 26 to stay on their parents' insurance plan – ideas that both parties agree on. As you know, I also supported ideas like tort reform, which could help lower costs, and buying insurance across state lines to help drive down high premiums. In the current, tough economic climate we are in, now is not the time to cut Medicare to pay for this overhaul, nor is it time to enforce penalties on struggling small businesses that can't afford to cover employees. The taxes will go in effect immediately, but the benefits of this bill will not begin until 2014. This legislation is not good for our country.

Wright: At least we can both agree that comprehensive changes are required to salvage our nation's broken health care system. Maybe if the GOP – long before you became a member of Congress, I readily admit – had not derailed a similar effort 16 years ago, we'd all be better off today.

One person who would definitely be better off is Robin Beaton. Last week, USA Today reporter Evan Thomas told readers about the small business owner from Texas whose insurance company dropped her health coverage while she was in the hospital preparing to undergo a double mastectomy! Insurance companies do this to unsuspecting, long-time customers “thousands of times a year,” Thomas wrote.

Not anymore. As of last Tuesday morning – thanks to President Obama and those who voted for health care reform – that insurance company practice has been declared illegal.

Congressman, you know very well that many liberals – this columnist included – berated Republicans in 2003 for holding a House vote open for three hours in order to bully opponents in their own party into voting for the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. Seven years later, I think most early opponents (again, this columnist included) will admit that Part D, despite that embarrassing show in the halls of the nation's Capitol, was a step forward for the American people.

 But Congressman, Part D cost a trillion dollars, too, and Republicans never came up with a way to pay for it! How can your party honestly look the American people in the eyes and complain about a plan that both Democrats and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office claim will put the United States on the path to universal health care, pay for itself, and still reduce the budget deficit by about $1 trillion over the next two decades?

Why is it that Republicans do not seem willing to learn a valuable lesson in redemption from one of their own political victories and give this long-awaited – albeit Democratic – attempt at a national health care overhaul a fair chance to work for, and improve the lives of, millions upon millions of Americans?

Rogers: We do agree, Scott, that our nation needs health care reforms. But what the Democratic leadership did was just wrong. There are ideas that both parties embraced that should have been at the core of the debate. But they weren't.

I also agree with you that Robin Beaton's instance is something no one should have to go through. I support efforts that would make sure insurance companies do not drop coverage just because someone gets really sick. But Scott, you seem to make the case that the bill the president signed was the only option available.

In fact, there are many good, bipartisan proposals that would achieve the same goal of expanding health care and bringing down the cost for those who already have it. These include requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, increasing the maximum age of children to stay on their parent's insurance, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, creating association health plans, and tort reform, to name some. Unfortunately all those proposals fell on deaf ears. Speaker Pelosi decided on a one-size-fits-all approach that was negotiated behind closed doors.

But that is why I keep saying that this reform could have been what Americans wanted, not a “throw the baby out with the bath water” approach that could put us on the road to a single-payer system.

As a result, losing her health insurance is probably not the only problem Robin and other small business owners will face. The new taxes small businesses will pay because of this government takeover of health care will most likely force them to either lay-off employees or close altogether. Especially during these times of high unemployment, this could cause an even longer period of tough economic times.

When I first ran for Congress, one of the main issues I heard from everywhere I went was the need for prescription drug coverage for seniors. Medicare Part D is by no means a perfect solution. I would have liked to have seen more plans offered, with no doughnut hole. But over time it has expanded drug coverage for seniors and lowered their costs. It is making a positive difference in the lives of many seniors.

The fact of the matter is – and Scott, I think you can agree with this – no group can accurately determine how much the health care bill will cost over time. I have noticed during my time in Washington that when the CBO agrees with your position, they are considered dead-on. When they put out something that you disagree with, then they are dead wrong. What is not in dispute is that this new law raises taxes, threatens jobs, puts government bureaucrats square in the middle of doctor-patient decisions, and allows our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. Given those facts, this new law should be repealed and replaced with a prudent, bipartisan proposal that we all can agree on.

Wright: Congressman, we're running out of space for our first installment of "Middle of the Road." I respect your opinions very much, but disagree with several of your talking points about this health care plan, including your assertion that federal funding will be used to pay for abortions – and so does the Associated Press, which reported last week that under the bill President Obama signed on Tuesday, "no health plan would be required to offer coverage for abortion." I hope people will debate this issue only after arming themselves with facts (instead of erroneous, politically-motivated talking points) and give this new plan a fair shot at changing the lives of Americans for the better, as I believe it will. I also hope you have safe travels as you continue to represent the people of District Three – even those of us who disagree with you from time to time. I hope we'll do this again soon.

Rogers: I have certainly enjoyed this exchange and hope the folks in Cherokee County will gain some insight from our agreement to disagree on health care.

On the issue of abortion, it is interesting to note that the president's Executive Order was signed behind closed doors, with no press coverage. Here's my question: If the bill did not allow federal funding for abortion, why was there a need for an Executive Order? Executive Orders cannot reverse federal law, and courts will rule on the law every time. Ultimately, I think that's why groups like the National Right to Life opposed the health care bill.

I look forward to our next debate, Scott.