Opinion Columnists
Email
Print
Let's give priority to the patients
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: August 19, 2009
The current health-care reform debate is both complex and emotional. After all, there's hardly a soul in America who won't be affected in some way by this debate. The complexity and emotion involved mean that sometimes all the facts don't make their way onto the table and clarifications must be made.
One of the main misunderstandings I hear from people about my position on the health-care debate is that I don't support health-care reform. That is nonsense. I have been a vocal supporter of health-care reform.
My position is straightforward. I support reform that give priority to patients -- not government or insurance companies. That means I can't support a new government-run health-care plan, which is a principle part of H.R. 3200, the House Democrats' health-care bill.
There is no doubt that our current health-care system produces high costs. This is the main reason we've got so many people who don't have health insurance. Most Democrats and Republicans agree with this central premise: health-care reform should pursue solutions that make health care more affordable.
The rub is the "how" of health-care affordability. The House Democrats' bill assumes that government-run health care will reduce health-care costs. Many disagree, including the independent number-crunchers at the Congressional Budget Office. They reported that the bill will add $239 billion to the federal deficit.
We can do better. For starters, we can lower costs by making health insurance companies truly compete with each other by allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. Allowing cross-border purchases would give North Carolina families far more choices. It would also foster a much more competitive health insurance marketplace. More competition leads to better service and lower prices.
We should also change the unfair way the government taxes some health-insurance benefits. One way to accomplish this is to offer tax credits to people who purchase their own insurance. I've co-sponsored a bill, H.R. 3218, to do just that.
Another distortion of my position on health-care reform has also recently cropped up. A few weeks ago I was describing the Republican health-care reform plan (H.R. 3218) in the House. I highlighted that the Republican plan didn't create a government-run system, thus avoiding the ethical thicket that such a system entails.
I can't begin to count the number of people who falsely claimed that I said the Democrats' bill "would put seniors to death." Many in the media joined the chorus and parroted this falsehood.
Let me be clear. I've never said that the Democrats' bill will lead to seniors being euthanized. The point I was making -- and, yes, I should have been more clear -- was that since the Republican plan doesn't create a government-run health-care plan, it steers clear of the aforementioned thicket.
This means that we avoid the many moral and ethical issues raised when bureaucrats or government committees decide what gets covered and what does not -- as could happen under a government-run plan.
Those ethical issues include the possibility of taxpayer-financed abortions or physician-assisted suicide. The current legislation does not exclude taxpayer financing of controversial procedures such as abortion or physician-assisted suicide. These issues are hugely important to millions of pro-life Americans.
I'll explain in more detail. The current bill does not require taxpayer financing for abortion or euthanasia. But federal courts have ruled that if a procedure is not specifically excluded, is it assumed that it can be financed with taxpayer dollars.
We saw this happen with abortions paid for with Medicaid in the 1970s. It wasn't until the famous "Hyde amendment" was added to spending legislation in the years following that this practice was put to a stop.
Unfortunately, the three House committees with jurisdiction over health-care reform have been unwilling to fix the bill to address these ethical pitfalls. For instance, the three committees rejected five separate bipartisan amendments to curtail taxpayer financing for abortion.
If the authors of this legislation were serious about setting pro-life Americans at ease, why have they shot down amendment after amendment that would keep taxpayer dollars from flowing to controversial procedures such as abortion?
It's true that the Democrats' legislation doesn't include carve-outs for abortion or physician-assisted suicide. But many pro-life members of Congress know history has shown that Congress's refusal to forbid taxpayer financing for certain procedures is simply the camel's nose in the tent.
■ Virginia Foxx is the U.S. House representative for the 5th District.
Email
Print
