Finally a Response From My Representative

Now that our health care industry has been nationalized and taken over by the Kremlin on the Potomac, I have finally received a response from my non-representing representative. Of course with the amount of emails and calls he received, he most likely sent out an email that went to everyone. However his email is full of half truths, manipulations, and lies all the while not touching on the constitutionality of the bill.

His letter is as follows:

Dear Mr. Bergstresser:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding healthcare reform. On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the Senate's version of healthcare reform (HR 3590) and the reconciliation package (HR 4872) passed out of the House of Representatives, both with my support.

During the campaign and throughout the last year, it has become increasingly apparent that Americans can no longer tolerate the status quo when it comes to affording healthcare in this country. Double digit increases to insurance rates are bankrupting families, small businesses and our nation. Insurance costs for small businesses have increased 129 percent over the last 10 years and Oregon's insurance rates have gone up almost 20 percent per year for the past 7 years.

Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package. The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill. These levels continue to taper off in the out years as rising insurance costs continue to moderate. The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare. I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles and I authored a strong comparative effectiveness research (CER) piece of the bill. CER would give an independent authority the ability to foster solid, peer reviewed research into the best diagnostics, treatments and healthcare delivery. The research CER makes available will help doctors and patients have the best information to make their own healthcare decisions. Both of these elements are included in the final healthcare package.

More significantly, I and a few others refused to sign onto the final reform package until Congress and the Administration pledged to stop the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states that provide high quality, low cost healthcare as the result of an antiquated reimbursement formula dating back 40 years. Currently, Oregon, which practices quality, cost effective medicine, receives half the reimbursement rate of inefficient areas on the East coast. We won the battle. Legislative language was included in the bill, along with a signed letter and personal guarantee by the President, that will move our system from one that encourages waste and unnecessary tests and procedures to one that reimburses health care providers like Oregon based on successful health outcomes. These changes will dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare nationally.

The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020.

Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not drop people from coverage because they are sick, refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans. There will be a temporary risk pool for uninsured that may have pre-existing conditions and temporary reinsurance for 55-64 year old retirees until exchanges are available. Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan. There will be new investment in training primary care doctors, nurses and public health professionals to take care of the expanded population that now have access to healthcare. By 2014, these benefits will be available to all Americans through state exchanges that allow consistent regulation and decreased costs.

The final package is also much friendlier to small businesses. In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income. Small businesses with low average payrolls are eligible for tax credits up to 35-50 percent for healthcare costs if they choose to provide healthcare for their employees. Businessmen and women are also allowed to deduct the full cost of their insurance for the first time and the exchanges allow small businesses to pool their collective associations' buying power to give them the same ability as large employers to negotiate advantageous insurance rates.

Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years. Furthermore, the CBO estimates that the deficit will be reduced even more as the positive aspects of the health care overhaul affect different parts of the health care industry and economy. The CBO also feels the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare will decrease during the decades following the 10 year budgetary window.

I consider these all strong, positive reasons to vote for the healthcare reform proposal. There is more work to be done as we flesh out some of the outlines in the reform. The bottom line is that this work begins to address the desperately needed transformation of our 40 year old healthcare delivery system which is on the brink of implosion. If we like our current healthcare, we need to make these changes to be able to afford it in the 21st century.

I will continue to fight for the policies that best reflect the needs of the 5th Congressional District of Oregon. For more information on the final health care package, please visit my website at http://schrader.house.gov.

Sincerely,
KURT SCHRADER
Member of Congress

My response to his letter is as follows:

"Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package."

If he was concerned about the costs why is it he voted for the bill without the "cost containment" in it. Notice in the beginning of the letter he says that he voted for both versions of the bill.

"The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill."

The word "subsidy" is also known as money that is taken from contributers and is redistributed to the non-contributer/zero liability people. This may offend some people; if it does, suck it up. What is a non-contributer or a zero liability person? These are not interchangeable terms. A zero liability person is not always a non-contributer, however a non-contributer is always a zero liability person. When you file your taxes, if you get everything you paid in back or if you get more than you paid in back, you are a zero liability person. The non contributer is the person who sits on their ass all day and gets government assistance without having to work for it. So the tax payer funded "healthcare" ended up being less than they started. Well isn't that nice of them; my taxes will still go up but not as much as they first expected. Thanks for thinking of me.

"The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare."

Even when people are able to make a living, even with the increased taxes, the feds will continue to give them "free" healthcare through the Medicaid program. I have a novel idea, lower the tax rates to everyone and they will be able to be more independent. Oh that's right, this isn't about helping people, it's about more control over all of our lives.

"I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles..."

This is just the first step to controlling what we eat and our activities. How far of a leap is it to expect that in the coming years they will require everyone to exercise and eat the kinds of foods that they approve while they outlaw foods that aren't considered contain the proper nutritious value. While I am not opposed to healthy living or eating or exercise, I am opposed of government micromanaging our lives. It's a liberty thing, they wouldn't understand it.

"The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020."

This paragraph and the previous one are especially offensive. The previous paragraph talks about "ending the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states..." Why shouldn't Oregon and other States take the lead and take responsibility for our own senior's who were sold the bill of goods called Medicare. Show the rest of the States that we are more efficient than the federal government and start the dismantling of the beast. Medicare Part D was one of the ways that Bush showed how he wasn't a conservative but was at best a Decepti-Con and at worse, a RINO.

"Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not ... refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans."

What is wrong with paying a co-pay or deductible for preventative care? Why are those visits so expensive? Because people stopped paying for them and instead let insurance companies pay for them which means more paperwork and more people to process the paperwork. I know a doctor that used to charge $35 for a regular check-up but after years of increased costs and inflation finally raised the cost to $54 per check-up. Talk about breaking the bank. This means that you may have to forgo going out to dinner one or two times for each visit. As for the last part about preexisting conditions, you can usually still get coverage for everything else. After all these evil health insurance companies are still trying to make money too. When did profit become an bad word? If you take out the profit, you take away the motivation too. As for dollar limits on coverage; at some point you are more trouble than you are worth. Would you rather be dropped next time it comes to renew your policy? If you show that you're a good customer who isn't overusing your insurance, you will be more likely to be seen as a valued customer and your rates may actually decrease.

"Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan."

Since when did we consider a 26 year old a child? At 23 I was just getting out of the military and the last thing on my mind was moving back in with my Mom. If, at 26, you can't make it on your own, or at least buy your own medical insurance, you probably are at best a zero liability person and at worst a non-contributer. Get off your ass and do something productive for a change. On a side note, if you are trying to get assistance for college and are under the age of 25, you need to have your parent's income filled in order to fill out the forms completely. I oppose government involvement with paying for you to go to college. The only exception is veteran's benefits.

"...In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income."

It's nice to know that in this bill small businesses don't have to provide healthcare insurance for their employees. I have read and reread the Constitution and I can't find anywhere in there that gives the federal government the authority to tell businesses what benefits they have to provide for their employees. I know they use the "Commerce clause" as the catch all in regulating any and all aspects of business but their reasoning, if they were to see what was meant in the wording and why the Constitution was written with the words and phrases as they are. "Regulate Commerce ... among the several States" does not mean that you meddle in every aspect of commerce but make sure that the individual States aren't imposing taxes or tariffs anytime that a product crosses its borders. This means that federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional as are the all federal agencies that regulate any aspect of intrastate and many aspects of interstate trade. This includes this area of the bill, specifically, and the entire bill generally.

"Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years."

The reason that they are able to make the claim of a deficit reduction in the first ten years is because the bill will not be fully in place until 2014 so anything money that is supposed to put the money aside to run this bill will help show a cost reduction. Notice how the CBO isn't saying what the second ten years will do to the deficit.

If you notice in the letter Mr. Schrader doesn't mention the fact that everyone will be required to purchase healthcare insurance or face a fine. The last I saw, the fine for not having the proper amount of health insurance is $2000 or 2.2% of your income. So now just because you are alive, you will be required to purchase a good or service even if you do not want to. Even if you decide to set up a Health Savings Account (HSA) you will be required to buy health insurance or you risk facing a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine you will be sent to jail.

Why do people like me and millions of others oppose the health care bill? We value our freedoms and liberty and think that we are better equipped to take charge of our lives instead of relying on the government. I am not calling for violence but I am advocating for anyone who wants to stand up to a tyrannical government and tell them to back off.