What You Are Writing About

Top concerns from Idahoans for week ending June 19, 2009

Universal Health Care

Healthy Americans Act, S. 391

Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 909

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

Payday Loans

Each year, I hear from thousands of Idahoans who write, e-mail, fax and call my offices to let me know how they feel about issues facing our country today. On average, I receive approximately 1,000 letters and e-mails a week. In recent years, an increasing number of that correspondence has come via electronic means. Even with such a volume of correspondence, I try to respond to each Idahoan as promptly as possible. In an effort to be even more responsive and to fully utilize the technology available through the Internet, this web page features the top five issues of concern from Idahoans and my response on each from the previous week. You may also wish to review information in the Issues Section or details from my Legislative Record, which lists bills I have sponsored and co-sponsored.

 

Universal Health Care

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding universal health care, access to insurance, and proposed tax increases to fund a government-run health care system.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

 

Providing effective and affordable health care is one of the greatest challenges facing the health profession, insurers, and local, state, and federal governments.  I have heard similar concerns from numerous Idahoans and understand the burden that high insurance and medical costs place on working families, and especially on seniors with fixed incomes.  Our nation’s families should not be forced to forfeit vital necessities in order to afford adequate health care. 

 

Congress continues to review various health care proposals that will shape the health care industry in the future.  The goal of these proposals, and the focus of this debate, is to increase affordability and choice, address barriers to accessing insurance, and to stem or even reduce the growing number of uninsured persons.  Congress must work to improve not only the access of health care, but also the quality of health care.

 

In order to address these issues, some lawmakers have advocated the creation of a single-payer healthcare system run by the federal government which would be mandatory for all Americans.  I am opposed to such a system as it would certainly lower the quality of care that Americans enjoy.  In Canada’s single-payer system, for example, patients must wait for months in order to receive certain types of surgery.  In addition, such a system would be extremely costly, burdening American taxpayers and the economy with large costs and inevitable, significant tax increases.  Without the beneficial effects of competition among insurers, or cost-cutting measures developed by the private sector, a government health care monopoly would likely lead to higher prices.  The archaic, confusing and inaccurate formulas and policies used by Medicare to determine physician and hospital reimbursement levels serve as an example of the ramifications of adopting a universal, government-run healthcare system.         

The best solution is to expand public-private partnerships that utilize the greater efficiency and existing infrastructure of private insurers to expand quality health care to the uninsured.  One promising development in health insurance is the idea of health savings accounts (HSA).  HSAs are a new method of paying for medical expenses not covered by insurance or other reimbursements.  Authorized in November 2003 as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA), HSAs allow eligible individuals to establish and fund a medical savings account when they have a qualifying high deductible health plan.  Deductibles under qualifying HSAs are at least $1,000 for single and $2,000 for family coverage.  The new accounts have tax advantages that can be significant such as deductible contributions and tax-exempt account earnings.  In addition, account withdrawals used for medical expenses are not taxed.  Unused balances may accumulate without limit.

 

Instead of giving the government more power over health care, individual patients must be given more control, choice, and information to make their health care decisions.  When individual patients have these choices, they will reward innovative insurers and providers who reduce costs and improve quality.

 

Providing quality health care for all citizens must remain a priority for this Congress.  Please know that I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to improve our system of health care. 

Back to top

 

Healthy Americans Act, S. 391

Thank you for contacting me to express your ideas and concerns regarding health care reform and the future of employer-based health care plans.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

 

You may be interested to learn that I have cosponsored S. 391, the Healthy Americans Act.  As you may know, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) introduced S. 391 on February 5, 2009.  This bill would require anyone who is not enrolled in a health plan to enroll in a private plan through state-level Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plans (HAPI).  This legislation would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publicize HAPI state options, standards regarding benefits, and premium requirements.  Additionally, it would stipulate that the Secretary of HHS establish the Healthy American Advisory Committee to provide yearly recommendations regarding modifications to HAPI and establish Chronic Care Elderly Centers. 

 

S. 391 would provide school-based health centers; establish the Healthy Americans Public Health Trust Fund to fund premium subsidies and bonuses to states for instituting medical malpractice reform.  This measure would also terminate federal health benefits provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and the State Children’s Health Insurance program.  

 

Additionally, S. 391 would allow employers to cancel their health plans and instead pay the amount saved from doing so to employees for a two-year period.  With a Health Help Agency plan, employees would pay the full premium for any selected plan, which would be subsidized for those living below 400 percent of the federal poverty level.  Premiums would be collected through income taxes and enrollees would receive a standard tax deduction for health care.

 

Most importantly, S. 391 would give individuals who are happy with their employer-based health plan the option to keep their existing coverage.  This legislation would also guarantee private health care coverage that remains constant through job changes, job losses, retirement, or disability.  It would grant employees the freedom to choose the health care insurance plan that best fits them, rather than choosing from limited number of employer-provided options.  If enacted, S. 391 would save $1.48 trillion over 10 years and would focus on prevention, wellness, and disease management, which would further reduce the cost of health care.  S. 391 would ensure that every American has access to the same affordable health insurance options, regardless of age, gender, or pre-existing health conditions.  S. 391 was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, where it awaits further consideration. 

 

As an advocate of improving and modernizing America’s health system, I am a proud cosponsor of S. 391.  This legislation would shift the emphasis currently on employer-based health insurance plans toward an individual-based health system that would provide more choice for all Americans.  In order to preserve and strengthen the U.S. health care system, we must be open to new ideas that will improve an increasingly inefficient and costly system.

 

Back to top

 

Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 909

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  I appreciate hearing your thoughts and welcome the opportunity to respond.

 

S. 909 was introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) on April 28, 2009.  This legislation would prohibit violent crimes motivated on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.  It would also, in limited circumstances, include crimes against individuals based on their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.  Additionally, the legislation would authorize the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial and financial assistance to state, local, or tribal officials when hate crimes occur in their jurisdictions.  This legislation was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it currently awaits further action.  A related bill, H.R. 1913, was previously introduced in the House by Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan), and passed by a vote of 237 to 180. 

 

Currently, there is an effort being made to amend current civil rights legislation to expand coverage to include sexual orientation.  Furthermore, an effort is being made to garner support for hate crime legislation that would allow the federal government to become involved in cases that otherwise would be handled at the state level.  I have long opposed efforts to expand the federal government’s powers to regulate matters currently and rightfully handled by the states, and I will continue this practice by voting against this bill should it reach the Senate floor.

 

All Americans should be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.  As a basic principle, any person convicted of injuring another individual should be punished to the highest extent of the law.  This should be applied equally and without regard to race, religion, or sexual orientation.  This is the guiding principle established in our Constitution, and I continue to support it. 

Back to top

 

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for full funding of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.  I appreciate hearing your thoughts and welcome the opportunity to respond.

 

As you may know, this legislation was introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) on December 8, 2005, and was signed into law on July 27, 2006.  The law implements a comprehensive national strategy to address the issue of sex offenders by establishing a public registry with information on individuals convicted of a criminal offense against a minor or on violent predators that victimize children.  The Act also tightens registration requirements, establishing additional mandatory minimum penalties for sex offenders.  I was a strong supporter of the legislation in the Senate, and will continue to advocate for state funding to fully implement the law.

 

The Act helps fill a critical gap in tracking sex offenders across state lines.  While Idaho has very strong sex offender laws, the new law helps coordinate efforts to deal with sex offenders who commit crimes in other states and then enter Idaho.  Unfortunately, many of the programs authorized by the Adam Walsh Act did not receive funding in the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus spending bill.  Though I was pleased that funding was included for several programs in the FY 2009 Omnibus, the funding for many programs still remained short of the full authorized levels. The sums authorized by the Act are necessary to fulfill the stated intent of the law.  As a result, I am requesting a one year extension on the funding deadline, and hope that such funds will be included in the FY 2010 Appropriations bill.

I have long supported federal programs that make our children safer and bring those who commit crimes against children to justice.  Accordingly, I strongly support full funding for the Adam Walsh Act in the coming fiscal year. 

Back to top

 

Payday Loans

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to legislation capping the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) that installment loan companies may charge.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

 

On May 21, 2009, Representative Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) introduced H.R. 2563, which would amend the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to limit the amount of charges, interest rate, and fees a lender may charge per payday loan.  Specifically, H.R. 2563 would prohibit a lender from charging interest and fees of higher than 20 percent of the original loan principal amount.  This bill has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services where it awaits further review.

 

Currently, payday lenders are required by TILA to provide clear disclosure and notice of a loan agreement.  However, the law does not tell lenders how much they can charge in fees through an APR.  Rather, it simply tells them to disclose the terms clearly to the consumer.  As a result, this bill would set a limit on the APR and related fees a company may charge for the loan. 

 

I am concerned about the potential unintended consequences that result from putting price caps on individuals seeking access to the growing demand for short-term, small denomination credit.  These advances can be less expensive than bounced checks, overdraft fees and late fees.  You may be interested to know that I recently voted against an amendment seeking interest rate caps on the credit card legislation.  This amendment would have set a cap of 15 percent on the interest rates charged by credit cards.  The amendment gathered bipartisan opposition, ultimately failing by a vote of 60-33.  

Currently, no legislation has been introduced before the U.S. Senate regarding this issue.  As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I will continue to work to preserve the availability of credit to all Americans, with meaningful disclosures.  I greatly appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.

Back to top