By: Health Insurance
Submitted: 2009-11-16 13:28:51 | Word Count: 439
District 22 Representative Pete Olson has issued a statement in opposition to the $1 trillion health care bill that passed the House Saturday by a 220-215 vote.
[ advertisement ]
The bill requires individuals to have health insurance and larger businesses to provide health insurance for employees. It also includes a public option that is not tied to Medicare. Most of the cost is due to subsidies to help low- and middle-income people pay for insurance.
“Americans need reforms that will lower costs, increase access and provide coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions while maintaining individual choice in health care,” said Olson in a statement. “As we know in Texas, medical liability reform lowers health costs. Sadly the massive government controlled version of health care envisioned by Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and passed by the House of Representatives with no Republican input today achieves none of these priorities.
“Raising taxes, eliminating choices for Americans and placing the government in charge of health care is not reform at all. That is why I opposed this bill and encourage the Senate to consider implementing some of the Republicans proposals or start all over from scratch. If Congress truly worked on this together, we could achieve meaningful reforms that do not place jobs and our economy at risk or remove personal decisions from how individuals manage health care.”
Unemployment numbers and a “fragile economy” are among the reasons Olson does not support the bill, saying the employer mandate “will kill more than 5.5 million jobs during a time of growing unemployment.”
Olson also said that employers in District 22 have said that discontinuing private insurance for employees and paying a mandatory 8 percent surtax “makes the most economic sense,” which would mean employees would not have the option to keep their current health insurance.
Olson also lists cuts to Medicare, lack of tort reform, cuts to physician-owned hospitals and removing choice for individual coverage among his reasons for not supporting the Democratic plan.
“Our alternative gives small businesses the same tax incentives for providing health [insurance] that large corporations have,” said Olson of the republican alternative. “It allows small businesses to band together to negotiate lower premiums to provide affordable coverage to employees and provides high risk pools to provide coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions.”
