Lamborn Statement Reacting to President Obama's Health Care Address
What the American people need is a new plan, not new rhetoric
Tonight, Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) responded to President Obama’s address to the Joint Session of Congress with the following statement:
“What the American people need is a new plan, not new rhetoric. The President tried to repackage his plan tonight, but what he doesn’t realize is that the package isn’t the problem – it’s what is inside that’s the problem. He didn’t say anything tonight that will get me to support a government takeover of health care in this country.
“House Republicans have a plan, H.R. 3400 Empowering Patients First Act, which provides refundable tax credits for health insurance costs to low-income individuals. Additionally, this plan allows for improvements in the individual market by pooling mechanisms and opens opportunities for individuals to shop for insurance across state lines. By giving choice and portability, this bill addresses many of the problems currently facing our health care system without government intrusion.
The American people need health care reform, but what the Democrats’ plan proposes is a government takeover of the entire health care industry that will force Americans out of their own plans, and will have a tremendous cost that can only result in higher taxes and a larger deficit.”—Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Rep. Lamborn, that is absolutely untrue. The dems are not trying to get a government takeover of health care and you know it. The deception that the republicans are spewing is absolutely disgusting.
If you have a better plan why isn't there anything in the plan about taking someone with a pre-existing condition, or dropping someone when they have a catastrophic illness. Nothing is mentioned about that.
Most people including Republicans and Independents support the President's plan as you call it, with the Public Option.
I heard a coment a while back about the Tea Party in Washington Saturday.
It goes something like this: "Obviously, a large majority of the people that wanted to go to Washington could not make it, but if there are about ten or fifteen people who feel like the ones that made it to the protest, that would mean that millions of Americans do not agree with the Obama administration."
So, here it goes: The majority of American people do not want nationalize anything, period. We are a Republic. We want our freedoms. The Constitution states clearly what government can and cannot do.
Politicians: uphold the Constitution as you promised. Quit trying to go around it. The American people want the Constitution to be followed, protected, and enforced.
Washington politicians: take your fingers of your ears, listen to the people. YOU WARK FOR US, NOT THE OTEHR WAY AROUND.
The pot calls the kettle black, as the old saying goes. HR 3400 is...paired down to its bare bones, an old Repbulican formula: Tax cuts and dependency on the market to provide a reasonable price through competition.
Under HR 3400, the tax cuts are regressive and will be argued over until the bill simply dies. Secondly the idea of leaving pricing up to the private market has not provided reaonable prices yet, so why would it suddenly do so now.
Much like the President's plan, it is a series of half measures, which will probably leave the situation for convoluted than before.
As Elisabeth pointed out, HR 3400 does nothing to address some of the major problems with private health insurance today. Pre-existing conditions, denial of coverage (private industry's real death panels) and the cost.
As Elisabeth pointed out, death panels, and coverage illegal immigrants are categorically untrue. Check it out in the bill or go to fact check.org.
These issue obscure the real question Americans have to answer. Do we want universal healthcare with a single payer option, in which the insurance industry is nationalized. Or do we want to government to create and enforce regulations to force the insurance industry to provide affordable coverage without strings attached.
The answer is part philisophical, part practical. As a dyed in the wool Jeffersonian, I see the federal governments role in our lives as very limited, providing the glue to keep our society together, and making sure we don't hurt ourselves.
If that is the case then regulation is the answer. It is the governments role to make sure that health insurance companies hold to the contract which they took consideration for, and provide health care without arbitrary denial of coverage based on price or flimsy claims of pre-existing conditions. A contract is a contract and they are bound to it.
But, we can all admit that the governments role has crossed the rubicon so to speak, at least as far as the founding fathers were concerned. An 18th century man can hardly be expected to understand 21st century problems.
We already have most of the programs that Francis Perkins, Secretary of Labor for FDR got pushed through during the New Deal. (No they weren't FDR's ideas, nor did he even consider them before Perkins became his conscious.) These include current golden calfs such as social security and worker's compensation. Her one failure, universal healthcare, is still being argued today.
So the question becomes, "well we've already gone there, what's one more program among many?' Also the real question should not be will it cost money? Of course it will. The question is, "is it worth it?"
Arguments fly back and forth about whether the government can run this or that effectively. The answer is, like everything else, it runs some things well, some things not so well. Private industry is guilty of the same thing and for that matter, can anyone say they've run healthcare very well?
While the Constitution does not say it is the government's role to provide healthcare (as "strict constructionists" would point out) it does provide the vehicle for congress to pass healthcare into being. The Constitution is neither a living document or a suicide pact. It's our instruction booklet.
So after sifting through the arguments of death panels, and whether it is socialism (which died with Regean), isn't our true choice whether this is something we want, and is beneficial for the price.
Post a Comment