A Republican Response To A Constituent On HR 676

GOP Tactic: When You Have No Intelligent Response, Ignore The Question

I Wrote My Congressman And All I Got Was This Stupid Letter
A Campy Vacation T-Shirt Would Have Been More Meaningful 
NewsFocus, by Tim Watts 101409

After writing to all of my elected representatives regarding the merits of the best health care plan for America, the Conyers-Kucinich bill, HR 676, this is sadly the intellectually deficient response that I received from Congressman John Kline. While I understand it is indeed a form letter, it goes to show that they are not even seriously considering HR 676, giving mention only to HR 3200 instead.

Please write to your elected representatives and let them know who their real bosses truly are, "we the people." They should be answering to us, not the big money insurance corporations who line their pockets with campaign money and corrupt bribes.

We need HR 676, the one bill that costs our country far less, but gives all Americans the best insurance possible, with no premiums, no co-pays and no deductibles. Free health care for all Americans.

(see also: NewsFocus Health page)


Letter from MN Congressman John Kline (in italics) with my response (in blue).

October 14, 2009

Dear Mr. Watts:

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns with health care reform. I appreciate learning of your views.

As you may know, leaders in the majority party have introduced the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), a massive piece of legislation that seeks to overhaul our nation's health care system.

Yes, you’re correct, which is why I am asking you to vote for a better bill, HR 676. My email to you had nothing to do with leaving Americans uninsured; nor rewarding the insurance industry, their lobbyists and the corrupt politicians who are taking millions from them. Perhaps you misunderstood? I am for HR 676 and so are a great many Americans, as well as over 80 members of the House.

This 1,018-page bill includes reform proposals that would increase taxes, raise health care costs, ration care, and leave key medical decisions to government bureaucrats rather than patients and their doctors. This poorly crafted proposal would do little to help solve problems in our nation's health care industry and instead lead to excessive federal spending and regulation. 

Excuse me Congressman, but aren’t you a regulator of government bureaucracy? You seem to miss the point that the law you are helping to write is being crafted to do just that, reform and regulate our health care system. I would hope that you and your Congressional peers are capable of watching over and regulating our government bureaucrats.

You’re absolutely right that it is a poorly crafted bill, however, you are wrong that it leaves key medical decisions to “government bureaucrats.” You are clearly taking your own political license with the verbiage of the bill, assuming something which is not the expressed intent, but then I did not write to you about HR 3200 so it's a moot point to discuss it.

For any Congressman to not take HR 676 into serious consideration should give all Americans pause to consider the underlying motives of such an individual or a political party.

Even taking into account the drastic tax increases that passage of H.R. 3200 would entail, the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicates the bill will add more than $239 billion to the federal deficit over a 10-year period.  In its analysis, CBO did not find that H.R. 3200 controls or reduces underlying systemic health care costs, which is essential to making care and coverage more affordable. 

As pointed out above, I did NOT write to you about HR 3200, nor the Baucus Bill. Please contain your comments and a thoughtful response towards the actual content of my letter to you, HR 676, the Conyers-Kucinich bill. Your address of my chief topic would be greatly appreciated.

Included in this misguided proposal are provisions that create a government-run public "option" for health insurance. But rather than competing based on market rates, the government would essentially make the rules, play the game, and act as a referee.

As it stands, you and your colleagues seem more comfortable letting the insurance industry make these biased decisions for us. That is not what “We the People” want, nor is it in our best interest.

A June 2009 study put forth by the independent consulting company, The Lewin Group, found that a government plan based on Medicare-level reimbursement rates, would result in almost 114 million Americans losing their current private insurance coverage.

Congressman, I am literally floored by this most naive remark. The Lewin Group  is hardly an independent consulting company. They are owned by United Health Care. That would clearly be a huge conflict of interest.

From their own website… “The Lewin Group is an Ingenix company.  Ingenix, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group…”

http://www.lewin.com/WhyLewin/AboutUs/

I would sincerely hope that you will refrain from basing your personal judgments upon biased opinions from those with a vested financial profit interest in this debate. (This would include the recent Price Waterhouse analysis. Price Waterhouse has already conceded that they never took into account many of the reform provisions from the legislation for consideration. So much for an intelligent unbiased analysis.) Please stick with unbiased facts as you represent your district.

H.R. 3200 also creates a so-called "Health Benefits Advisory Committee," a new government board that would empower federal bureaucrats to impose new mandates on individuals and insurance carriers.  I especially oppose this push for a new federal bureaucracy with unprecedented powers that will determine "acceptable" health coverage.

This is a disingenuous remark that is easily refutable, but since I did not write to you about this and do not support this particular bill, let’s please refrain from topics that do not have anything to do with HR 676.

Also of concern is a provision that would result in more than half a trillion dollars in tax increases, a majority of which would imposed on small businesses. Additionally, the bill mandates that individuals either buy health coverage or be subject to a fine of 2.5 percent of their income. Businesses also would face a fine of 8 percent of their payroll costs if they did not offer insurance coverage to their employees. Instead of helping those living with the challenge of affording basic health care for themselves and their families, these mandates will only encourage waste, fraud, and abuse and result in higher costs for all Americans.

Again, this is not an issue with HR 676. One would think that the Conyers-Kucinich bill is starting to look much more attractive to you.

My Republican colleagues and I are seeking to advance a meaningful solution that empowers doctors and patients by making health care more affordable, more accessible, and more accountable.

With all due respect, this is nothing more than political rhetoric. In all actuality, isn‘t that the crux of this debate? You are stating the obvious for which there is no debate. For the record, you and your colleagues have done very little to date to come up with a meaningful proposal or solution, other than protect the insurance industry that has paid millions to Congressional representatives.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/Health_Insurance.asp

Since the GOP readily argues that we have the best doctors and hospitals here in the United States, how would a European or Canadian style plan give us inferior health care? The argument proffered by Republicans is not tenable and seems to insinuate that if we have free health care, we will have to see Canadian doctors, or physicians outside the U.S. (No offense meant here to Canadian or foreign doctors. That illogic comes only from those arguing against socialized health care.)

Minnesotans and all Americans deserve the peace of mind that comes with knowing they have the health care their families need, when they need it, at a cost they can afford.  Our solutions rest on the following principles:  

Ensuring that the government does not interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.

HR 676 does not interfere with this at all. It lets you pick your own doctor and health provider. It is starting to sound like you and your staff have not done the necessary homework required of you to serve your constituents’ best interests. I respectively implore you to read HR 676. Since it appears from your comments that you might not have actually read the bill, I encourage you to do so. Here is a link that will be helpful to you in understanding the best bill for all Americans…

http://healthcare.kucinich.us/petition/nhi_bill_final1.pdf

I am also quite certain that Congressman Conyers and/or Congressman Kucinich would be more than willing to expend the bi-partisan effort to educate you on the merits of their bill.

Preventing the government from denying care on the basis of age or gender.

No one in their right political mind would ever dare propose such a thing, nor have they. You may as well have included eye or hair color. This misleading statement is a continuation of outrageous fear tactics and the sheer lunacy of death panels. We expect a more intelligent response from this debate.

Making sure that the government does not break the bank at a time when America simply cannot afford it.

To be frank here, the Bush II administration already did that, but let’s not dwell on this undeniable fact and look ahead instead. HR 676 is the most cost affordable bill submitted for health care. By your logic, you certainly should be weighing heavily in favor of HR 676.

Additionally, I, along with my Republican colleagues, support you and your family continuing to have access to affordable health coverage if you lose or change your job.  It is also critical that you not be denied access to coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.  Finally, any medical liability reform should be real and meaningful.

Again, you are posturing with political rhetoric. I expect more substance in a dialogue from my elected Congressional representative. Your letter failed to address the primary topic of my correspondence to you, HR 676. If I seem offended, you would be correct in your observation. I can only hope that you take ownership of the discourse caused by your lack of a thoughtful response.

Reforming our health care system is far too important to be done behind closed doors.  We must end the partisan battles that have been waged in recent months and press the "reset" button. 

Congressman, we are in 100% agreement. As noted previously, those of us paying close attention, those who are not spoon-fed their news in five-minute sound bites or political bullet points, we fully understand who the party of no has been and who the entities are that have truly bellied up to the bar.

As the Senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, one of the three committees with jurisdiction over the health care legislation, I will continue to do all I can to work toward delivering the commonsense, bipartisan health care solutions Americans need.

As you have noted, you clearly appear to realize that it is your duty to place serious consideration for HR 676, a plan that costs less to our government, with far superior health insurance coverage for “We the People.” We will certainly hold you to your statement and are most comfortable with the allowance of proper accountability when it comes to the next election.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to do so again regarding any issue of importance to you.

Sincerely,

JOHN KLINE
Member of Congress

Congressman, I can only hope that next time you will afford me the dignity of a respectful response regarding the specific topic for which I wrote to you about. While I understand that you certainly must be busy trying to grasp all the various nuances and ramifications of this most important health care debate for your constituents, a form letter that does not give the slightest regard to my specific request is most insulting and is not appreciated.

Respectfully submitted

Tim Watts
 

More Health Care Reform News On The Health Page