What You Are Writing About

Top concerns from Idahoans for week ending October 23, 2009

Baucus Health Care Plan

Cap and Trade/American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)

Social Security Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) for 2010

Planned Parenthood/Abortion in Health Care Reform Legislation

Single Payer System for Health Care

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.

 

Baucus Health Care Plan

Much of the correspondence I have recently received deals with the various aspects of health care reform.  Many have expressed concerns regarding Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’ (D-Montana) health care reform proposal, the America’s Healthy Future Act.  The Finance Committee voted this legislation out of committee on October 13, 2009, by a vote of 14-9.  Upon a Democrat-only backroom merging with the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee’s health care legislation, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act, the bill will undergo full Senate consideration.  I voted against this measure and would like to share with you of my concerns with this legislation and my plans to continue to oppose it in its current state. 

 

The principle proposals in this overhaul legislation are problematic.  Quality and affordable health care is understandably one of the highest priorities among Americans.  A successful health care bill would allow Americans the ability to choose plans that fit their specific needs and those of their families.  Thus, any successful reform package must properly address all logistical and personal components of our nation’s health care system.  There is no simple solution to health care reform.  Forcing this legislation through committee without a full score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and without providing lawmakers – and the public – adequate time to review this measure is alarming. 

 

In my weekly travels through Idaho, I have had the opportunity to listen to my fellow Idahoans’ ideas and concerns regarding our nation’s health care system.  In doing so, I have heard overwhelming opposition from Idahoans regarding the prospect of the federal government further encroaching upon their lives.  They continually express their distrust of a government plan, losing their existing coverage, and paying more money for an inadequate health plan.  Instead of giving the government more power over health care, individual patients must have 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.

 

Health care spending currently exceeds 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product and continues to rise at an alarming rate.  Unfortunately, Chairman Baucus’ $856 billion proposal would increase health care costs and cut $500 billion in existing health care programs such as Medicare, while simultaneously creating $300 billion in new taxes.  His proposal would mandate that states expand Medicaid at their own expense.  This added expense is one that the American taxpayer would incur through increased taxes.  Furthermore, the CBO estimates that the legislation would cause millions of people to lose their current coverage, which contradicts the President’s repeated promise that those who are content with their current health care coverage will keep it.  The proposal also targets popular programs such as Medicare, Medicare Advantage, thereby resulting in even more Americans losing coverage.  Despite the proposed cuts to popular health programs and increased taxes, the CBO concludes that this legislation would still leave millions of Americans uninsured.  This is unacceptable.

 

I also disagree with the legislation’s intent to establish health insurance cooperatives (co-ops), which would further burden the American taxpayer and provide no guarantee for success.  The immediate consequence of co-ops blurs the fine line between government involvement and government control.  Government-run co-ops would essentially evolve into a government-run health care system that would prevent the formation of a true co-op and instead, create another large and untenable government program that does not deliver on quality or cost savings. 

 

Preserving access to high-quality private health coverage, focusing on prevention and wellness initiatives, improving the delivery system mechanism, and bending downward the growth curve of spending should be priorities in any comprehensive health care reform legislation.  Fair insurance-market reforms that provide all Americans access to health care are essential to any successful health care system.  

 

Providing quality health care for all citizens is my priority and must remain a priority for this Congress.  Please know that I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to establish a plan that works and truly represents the will of the American people.  

Back to top

 

Cap and Trade/American Clea Energy and Security Act (ACES)

A number of Idahoans contacted me to express opposition to opposition to climate change legislation recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. On June 26, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), by a vote of 219-212.  Currently, there is no mandatory federal greenhouse gas standard, and ACES is comprehensive energy and climate legislation that would set emission standards and institute a nationwide renewable electricity standard (RES).  The bill will now come to the Senate for further consideration.

 

ACES proposes reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent lower than 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent lower than 2005 levels by 2050.  This would be achieved through capping the emissions of entities, such as utilities, refineries and specified industry sources.  Some emission allowances would be distributed to emitting entities for free to assist in compliance and others would be auctioned and bought and sold on the market.  Entities that have additional allowances could sell the allowances on the market to be bought by entities that need additional allowances for compliance with the cap.

 

I share those same concerns about ACES.  It should be understood that the purpose of ACES is to drive up energy costs high enough to force emitting entities to transition to new energy sources.  Supporters of the bill hope that in doing so, pollution levels would be reduced.  The problem is that the economic consequences of ACES will be extremely severe and the reduction in pollution levels almost immeasurable.

 

Because of this, I will not support ACES.  Clearly we have a responsibility to preserve and enhance our natural environment, but doing so in a way that harms the economic viability of the U.S. while providing very little benefit to the environment is not the best way to go about achieving clean energy, reduced emissions, or energy independence. 

 

In the meantime, I will continue to support legislative solutions that promote clean energy solutions and emission reductions.  For example, I support incentives for clean energy technologies and renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal.  Additionally, I support policies that enhance the role of nuclear power.  Nuclear energy is a necessary part of any energy policy intended to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  I am also committed to incentivizing other types of emission-reducing technologies such as hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles.  Additionally, conservation of energy and energy efficiency is as important in reducing emissions as proactive efforts to create new types of clean energy.  In fact, energy efficiency has so much potential, it is commonly called the fifth fuel.      

Again, please know that I share your concerns, and that I will keep your thoughts on this issue in mind as the Senate takes up consideration of cap-and-trade legislation.

Back to top

 

Social Security Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) for 2010

Idaho seniors face daunting financial challenges while living on a fixed income, and several have contacted me regarding Social Security’s Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for 2010. As many already know, the COLA for 2009 is 5.8 percent.  The Department of Labor determines the annual COLA for Social Security based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers from the third quarter of a year to the third quarter of the subsequent year.  A certain amount of cost increases during this time will trigger a Social Security COLA.  If this formula does not reach a certain cost increase, there is no COLA for the upcoming year.  Due to the ongoing financial recession, the economy – for the first time since 1975 – is in a state of deflation, rather than inflation – which would trigger a COLA.  

 

Living costs steadily declined between October 2008 and December 2008, rising just slightly in early 2009.  Because there is no prospect of inflation for 2010, there is no COLA for the upcoming year.  This, unfortunately, results in millions of Social Security beneficiaries receiving a reduced monthly Social Security payment for the upcoming year.  While this reduction will be small, it still affects the many Americans who depend upon this income, as well as Medicare part B premiums. 

 

I understand the negative impact that the absence of a COLA will have on Social Security beneficiaries.  The falling prices in many industries in the past few months unfortunately affect CPI and place a heavy burden on Social Security recipients.  The recession has taken a toll on the lives of almost every American over the past year.  While its effects will continue to burden the country, there are hopeful signs that the economy is on the rebound and is steadily working its way out of this recession. 

 

There is an ongoing debate as to which model or proposal for calculating the CPI is the most accurate.  I support using the CPI model or proposal that most accurately measures the rate of inflation in order to protect Social Security beneficiaries against the harmful effects of inflation.  In the meantime, rest assured that I will continue to work on the larger issue of ensuring that the Social Security program is solvent for current and future beneficiaries.

Back to top

 

Planned Parenthood/Abortion in Health Care Reform Legislation

I have heard from number of Idahoans regarding federal funding for Planned Parenthood and abortion in President Barack Obama’s and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’ (D-Montana) health care reform proposals.  I have serious concerns with this legislation on a number of levels.  Providing effective and affordable health care is one of the greatest challenges facing the health profession, insurers, and local, state, and federal governments.  While we need to reform our current health care system, any successful plan must heed the best interests of Americans.  I have heard similar concerns from numerous Idahoans regarding abortion funding.  Our nation’s families should not be forced to forfeit vital necessities to pay for a health care bill that defies their convictions. 

 

The proposed bill’s language – especially with regard to abortion funding – is vague and does not guarantee that tax dollars will not go toward abortions.  I understand your concern with the federal government funding Planned Parenthood.  Americans work far too hard to watch their tax dollars being used to fund questionable programs.  Each program to which the government provides grants should be assessed on its merits before funds are appropriated.  Please rest assured that I will continue to review government expenditures to determine whether they should be maintained, reduced, or eliminated.

 

I am strongly committed to protecting the rights of the unborn.  My position is guided by the conviction that abortion is wrong and should only be considered in cases of criminal rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in imminent danger.  Life is a precious gift from God.  Our devotion to fostering respect for human life from the moment of conception will benefit generations to come.  As we educate our children about the dangers of abortion, we must also reach out to women who are pregnant and in need of help.  Educating women on adoption and other support options can bring hope at what can seem like a desperate time.

Back to top

 

Single Payer System for Health Care

A number of Idahoans have contacted me to express support for health care reform, specifically, a single-payer, government-run system.  I appreciate hearing those opinions and would like to share my concerns for such a system as well as my suggestions for improving health care.

 

In my weekly travels through Idaho, I have had the opportunity to listen to my fellow Idahoans’ ideas and concerns regarding our nation’s health care system.  In doing so, I have heard overwhelming opposition from Idahoans regarding the prospect of the federal government further encroaching upon their lives.  They continually express their distrust of a government plan, losing their existing coverage, and paying more money for an inadequate health plan.  Instead of giving the government more power over health care, individual patients must have 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.

 

While health care reform is essential, proposals by President Barack Obama and many Congressional Democrats for overhauling the system are problematic.  Quality and affordable health care is understandably one of the highest priorities among Americans.  A successful health care plan would allow Americans the ability to choose plans that fit their specific needs and those of their families.  Thus, any successful reform package must properly address all logistical and personal components of our nation’s health care system. 

 

Many health care proposals disregard this fact by continuing to support a costly and prohibitive government-option health care plan.  I am opposed to such a system as it would certainly lower the quality of care that Americans enjoy and result in delayed or rationed health care.  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, or cost-cutting measures, a government health care monopoly would likely lead to higher prices, which the American taxpayer would incur.  The archaic, confusing, and inaccurate formulas and policies that Medicare uses to determine physician and hospital reimbursement levels serve as an example of the ramifications of adopting a government-run system.

 

Health care spending currently exceeds 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product and continues to increase at an alarming rate.  Unfortunately, the President’s plan does not address this problem and instead includes a $900 billion price tag.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that some of Congressional proposals will add billions of dollars to the national deficit over the next ten years.  The CBO also estimates that the these proposals will cause millions of people to lose their current coverage, which contradicts the President’s repeated promise that those who are content with their current health care coverage will keep it.  The President also targets popular programs such as Medicare Advantage, thereby resulting in even more Americans losing coverage.   This is unacceptable.

 

Preserving access to high-quality private health coverage, focusing on prevention and wellness initiatives, improving the delivery system mechanism, and bending downward the growth curve of spending should be priorities in any comprehensive health care reform legislation.  Fair insurance-market reforms that provide all Americans access to health care are essential to any successful health care system.  

 

While we may disagree on the best model to use to reform health care, we agree that providing quality health care for all citizens is imperative.  This is my priority and must remain a priority for this Congress.  Please know that I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to establish a plan that works and truly represents the will of the American people. 

Back to top