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
|