Congressman's Column by Adrian Smith

The Health Care Debate Continues

For several weeks the nation has watched as the leadership in Congress held fast to an artificial deadline to push through a government takeover of your health care.

At the time, I voiced my opposition to such an arbitrary date - insisting instead Congress should work together in a fiscally disciplined, bipartisan manner. Eventually, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared he was going to hold off on scheduling a vote until senators had a chance to hear from their constituents about this tremendously important bill.

Unfortunately - and despite pleas from both Republicans and Democrats - the leadership of the House of Representatives stuck to its guns, determined to push through a bill before August.

In the end, the Majority party conceded to Members of Congress who insisted on actually engaging in a meaningful discussion on health care and reading through a 1000+ page bill. Instead of rushing headlong into action on a tremendously expensive and complicated bill - a scenario which has been repeated all too often in Washington, D.C. - we now have the opportunity to hear directly from small business owners, seniors, and others affected by this proposal.

The idea of a health care program which will cut costs while providing more choices is an extremely attractive one. I fully support thoughtful, sound health care reform; but this legislation almost certainly would empower government bureaucrats to make health care decisions currently entrusted to doctors and patients.

Also, the health care overhaul being pushed forward in Congress right now significantly increases taxpayer liability and compounds our national debt well beyond current levels. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects costs associated with the Administration's health care proposal will exceed $1.5 trillion over ten years, and then increase at least 6 percent each following year. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf reiterated his concerns with this proposal and our nation's projected budget outlook in a recent website posting, saying "the federal budget is on an unsustainable path."

In testimony before the Senate the very next day, Director Elmendorf warned lawmakers the health care reform proposal currently under consideration lacks the necessary spending controls.

Through your responses to surveys, telephone town halls, your phone calls, e-mails and letters, I have heard from thousands of Nebraskans concerned about this proposal.

I am concerned about the impact this legislation would likely have on small businesses nationwide, particularly in a fragile economy. The legislation includes several employer mandates, requiring business to provide employee health benefits or incur a tax penalty equal to 8 percent of annual payroll. Employees also would be subject to this tax for employers who choose not to offer plans or if the plan fails to meet standards set by a panel of federal bureaucrats.

Given the costs associated with providing these benefits, many small businesses would be faced with the unfortunate decision to either lay off workers, significantly reduce inventory or, even worse, close their doors altogether. Independent estimates project as many as 4 million jobs would be lost under this proposal and 114 million Americas would be forced away from their current coverage.

Health care reform is necessary, but we must ensure any reform proposal accomplishes our shared goal of providing Americans access to quality health insurance without creating an even more uncertain economic future.

I support meaningful health care reforms which reduce insurance costs by increasing competition; allowing the purchase of insurance across state borders, making it easier for individuals and employers to band together to negotiate rates and reducing government mandates.

We should be exploring a way to ensure all Americans can deduct from their taxes health insurance costs, not just those who purchase it through their employer. A 2005 study estimated the average family pays $1,700-$2,000 annually just to cover the cost of defensive medicine. So, we also should reform medical malpractice to reduce the need for doctors to practice defensive medicine.

Some claim the American people are doomed to either the status quo or a government takeover of health care. This is a false choice. We can achieve reforms which lower costs and ensure the highest quality of care without handing over personal medical decision to unaccountable bureaucrats.

By increasing patients' control over their own health decisions, we will make coverage more affordable, accessible, and responsive - while offering more choices and the highest-quality care Americans have come to expect.