Coffman Responds To My Email About Health Care Reform
Scott Pantall | April 16, 2010
The day after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was voted on, I posted my response to Congressman Coffman’s reasoning behind his vote (He voted “Nay” by the way). Since the Congressman more than likely doesn’t read my blog I also sent him an email. I wasn’t expecting a reply. I’m only 1 person out of roughly 614,466 residents in his district. Why would I get a response? So imagine my surprise when I checked my email yesterday and saw an email from Coffman!
Since I posted my email to him, I only figure it’s fair to post his response. Kudos to Coffman for replying with more than just a generic form letter.
Dear Mr. Pantall:
Thank you very much for contacting my office regarding healthcare reform. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and the opportunity to respond.
The House of Representatives recently passed health care reform. President Obama and his Democrat allies in the Congress have fundamentally changed the healthcare system of our country. Reforming this system was a top priority of mine, but unfortunately this plan seeks to do so in entirely the wrong fashion. For instance, taxes are increased by $569.2 billion over the next ten years. In this current recession, these increases will prove especially harmful to small businesses, many of which will be forced to close or lay off employees due to the employer mandate to provide coverage. The legislation has enacted $528.5 billion in cuts to Medicare, some of which will fall on the popular Medicare Advantage program, which provides seniors with a valuable alternative to traditional Medicare. The total cost of this legislation for American families is $1.2 trillion.
The plan establishes an individual mandate for Americans to obtain government approved health insurance. Many individuals do not want or cannot afford such insurance, but the President has persisted regardless.
Unelected federal bureaucrats now have the power to decide what plans are appropriate for private citizens. If a person decides to obtain high end health insurance, this plan taxes them for consuming too much. A person’s health is a very private matter and I am outraged that the government now has the ability to mandate that a person obtain coverage, and then have the audacity to tell people what coverage is “acceptable.”
I believe establishing such an individual mandate that all Americans obtain “acceptable” coverage is unconstitutional. States have the ability to impose such a mandate but the federal government does not. The bill forces such coverage on the electorate with the threat of a 2.5% tax of modified adjusted gross income if one fails to obtain this coverage. This plan has also stricken a provision that would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. Further, it contains no provisions to ensure that illegal immigrants do not benefit from taxpayer subsidized coverage.
For all of these problems, the plan will not decrease healthcare costs, a central tenet of the Democrat’s argument for reform. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, its provisions will increase health insurance premiums for individuals by 10-13%. In these times of growing national debt, federal budgetary commitments for healthcare will increase by $210 billion over ten years.
This plan institutes a massive unfunded mandate that the states provide Medicaid coverage to individuals at higher income levels than the program was originally intended for. In these tough economic times, such an increase in eligibility would force states to slash funding in other areas, such as education. For all these reasons, amongst many others, I voted against this legislation.
The President has been quick to claim that this is a bipartisan process, with the input of both sides being utilized. Unfortunately, this has not proven to be the case. This is evident in the use of the reconciliation process to get this plan passed. This process was designed to balance the federal budget. Using reconciliation, a process normally reserved for bi-partisan measures, is a backhanded tactic that circumvents the rules and traditions of Congress.
Instead of instituting new taxes that will cripple small businesses, we should have worked for common sense alternatives. I supported tax incentives for individuals to purchase private health insurance. This would be equivalent to what a business receives for enrollment of their employees. I also supported rational standards for the portability of health plans from one job to the next and allowing small businesses to band together for the purchase of healthcare insurance so that they may receive the same discounts that larger corporations receive. Insurance reform must cover those afflicted with pre-existing medical conditions. Individuals and businesses should be able to buy insurance across state lines. We should have addressed medical malpractice reform. Rising healthcare costs will never be controlled as long as baseless lawsuits are brought forward by unscrupulous individuals in an effort to win oversized damages from medical professionals who were only trying to help them.
These issues were addressed in House Resolution 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act. The text of this legislation can be viewed at www.congress.gov, and entering the bill number, H.R. 3400. I was therefore very proud to be listed as an original co-sponsor on this legislation. Introduced July 30th, 2009, by Representative Tom Price, a physician from Georgia, it was referred to the House Committees of jurisdiction where no action was taken. By providing these reforms, we could have expanded health insurance to more Americans while also protecting the free market’s ability to compete over your business.
Numerous states have decided to oppose this plan and I fully support their efforts. Over a dozen State Attorneys General, including John Suthers of Colorado, share my opinion that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and have filed a lawsuit against the federal government in court. The United States Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate individuals engaged in interstate commerce. It makes no mention of compelling private citizens to buy a good or service, and thus be subject to regulation. This matter strikes at the heart of our democracy, and would render the 10th Amendment meaningless. I also applaud the State of Virginia for passing legislation that prohibits the mandatory purchase of insurance for its citizens. I would encourage Colorado and other states to pass similar resolutions.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. For more information on my work in Congress on your behalf, please sign up for my newsletter at https://forms.house.gov/coffman/webforms/enews.html.
Sincerely,
Michael Coffman
Member of Congress
If you’re still reading, you must be interested. I like that a link to the congress.gov site was put in there. The more information you include behind your words, the more I’ll believe you. What do you think of his response?
