Posts Tagged ‘Health Care’

Criticism Over Dem Health ‘Vision’ Mounts

MacIver News Service | July 22, 2010 [Madison, Wisc...] Controversy is brewing over an expansive health care agenda unveiled in Madison this week by the Doyle administration.

“This plan will not only reach deeper into the pocket books of Wisconsin families and further deteriorate the state’s fiscal situation,” said State Representative Robin Vos, a Republican member of the legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance. “But it will also take away our freedoms by imposing even more government intervention in our everyday lives.”

According to the Department of Health Services, the Healthiest Wisconsin 2020: Everyone Living Better, Longer sets out several major health improvement targets, including smoking prevention, lowering  obesity rates, ensuring access to good nutrition and increasing exercise levels. The plan also emphasizes the need to improve systems that support health, such as research, health literacy, sustainable funding, partnerships and information systems.

But Vos and others note the plan covers far more topics than the popular positions outlined in the press release issued by DHS.

Vos said some of the most egregious parts of the plan include:

  • Placing community health centers that may provide sexual and reproductive services in middle schools
  • Creating universally-mandated early childhood education for children as young as 3 years of age
  • Raising the alcohol tax
  • Implementing dram shop laws to place liability on tavern owners and workers, rather than those who commit alcohol-related offenses
  • Restricting alcohol consumption at public events like Summerfest or the State Fair
  • Reducing the number of businesses that sell alcohol including, bars, liquor stores and grocery stores

“You can be sure that a plan that suggests reducing the temperature of tap water as a measure of injury prevention is only designed to make sure that government is involved in every facet of your life from the cradle to the grave,” said Vos.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker also assailed the wide-ranging plan.

“It’s a surprise no one that Jim Doyle’s last few months in office are riddled with tax increases and ballooning government,” said Walker.

Vos said the Democrat’s plan was a catch-all of liberal, nanny-state policies that Wisconsin couldn’t afford to do even if the intrusive policies had merit.

Vos said the Medicaid program currently has a $600 million deficit due to years of program and eligibility expansions implemented by Doyle. He noted that deficit grew further this week when the Supreme Court ruled that the state must replace $200 million in raided Patient Compensation Fund money.

“Public health would best be served if we could afford the programs we already have,” said Vos. “This administration should get back to work fixing the current deficit, instead of wasting time creating an even larger one under the auspices of public health.”

See our earlier coverage, here.

Wisconsin’s 10-Year Health Plan Includes Government Expansion, New Taxes

MacIver News Service | July 21, 2010 [Madison, Wisc...] State health officials Wednesday released a long-range health vision that proposes increased taxes on alcohol, placing community health centers in middle schools, restricting the sale of alcohol at public events and would begin public schooling for children as young as three years old.

According to the Department of Health Services, the Healthiest Wisconsin 2020: Everyone Living Better, Longer sets out several major health improvement targets, including smoking prevention, lowering  obesity rates, ensuring access to good nutrition and increasing exercise levels. The plan also emphasizes the need to improve systems that support health, such as research, health literacy, sustainable funding, partnerships and information systems.

“Everyone — public health departments, educators, health care providers, advocacy  groups, employers, community coalitions and residents — can use this plan to make progress on at least one of  these important goals,” said State Health Officer Seth Foldy.

The objectives also hit on some hot-button issues that may make the plan politically unpalatable.  A push for universal pre-kindergarten, for example, would stretch currently strained public education budgets even further. Elsewhere in the plan the Department of Health Services states its intent to “promote policies that assure societal norms regarding healthy sexual expression.”

The document also includes several obscure policy goals, including one proposal to “Allocate funding to establish the use of electronic methods of payment at farmers markets.”

Critics assailed the plan as an attempt to grow government and increase taxes.

“It is ironic that the day after the Supreme Court ruled the Doyle administration’s raid of the patient compensation fund was unconstitutional that the Democrats announce they won’t address that issue and instead will tie the next Governor’s hands and force him to deal with it; meanwhile they unveil this expansive new plan to increase the cost, scope and size of government,” said State Representative John Nygren (R-Marinette). “It is hypocrisy at its worst.”

Wisconsin Statute Section 250.07 (1)(a)  requires the Department to produce a public health agenda for the people of Wisconsin at least every 10 years.

“The vision, goals, and mission of this plan are anchored in a set of core values that form the moral and aspirational compass for the plan,’ writes Department of Health Services Secretary Karen Timberlake at the beginning of the proposal. “These include using science and evidence to solve problems, set policy,  and take action; striving for fairness and justice; relying on leadership at all levels; and seeking to prevent rather than treat disease, injury, and disability.”

According to the Department, more than 1,500 people statewide participated in the development of the plan, and implementation is scheduled to begin this fall.  The objectives outlined in the vast document will be integrated into the work of foundations, universities, state and local government agencies, private industries and healthcare organizations.

Links

Healthiest Wisconsin, Everyone Living Better, Longer

Healthiest Wisconsin 2020 Focus Area Profiles

Key Deadline Friday in Wisconsin’s Race to Implement Obamacare

By Bill Osmulski
MacIver News Service

[Madison, Wisc..] The Doyle Administration is moving quickly to have Wisconsin be one of the first states to implement a health insurance exchange, which the recently passed national health care reform requires of all states by 2014. The effort faces a key deadline this Friday.

The national “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” has given all states four years to establish an AHBE (American Health Benefit Exchange), although more than a dozen states have sued to prevent implementation of the law on various Constitutional grounds.

Currently Wisconsin manages it’s various health care services through a computer system called CARES (Client Assistance for Re-employment & Economic Support). CARES handles over a million transactions a day.

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services regularly awards contracts to maintain and enhance that system. Despite no federal or state mandate that it do so, DHS has mandated that the next contract awards will require the vendor to “develop, operate, maintain and enhance an automated system that will support the AHBE.”

The request for proposal was released on May 13, and requires potential vendors to explain how they will comply with federal regulations and provisions for the AHBE.

Yet, the RFP also states “Federal regulations have not been published at the time of the development of the RFP and state business requirements and system requirements have not yet been created.”

However the vendor designs the AHBE, Doyle’s DHS has demanded it “must build upon the existing CARES System architecture or a direct, viable, and sustainable interface with that architecture.”

When the vendors’ proposals are scored, their plans for the AHBE will count towards 10 percent of their total score. The deadline for proposals is this Friday, July 16th. The contract would start on September 1, 2010.

Currently the CARES workload for the state’s vendor is split between 20 percent maintenance and 80 percent development/enhancement. DHS asserts incorporating the construction and maintenance capacity for a health care exchange will not require additional state resources and that the maintenance/development workload ratio will be unchanged despite the addition of the AHBE

The current CARES vendor is Deloitte Consulting L.P. The total fixed monthly price for its services is $110,000. The actual hours invoiced per year are: 146,498 in 2009, 140,808 in 2008, and 121,933 in 2007. DHS allows 25,000 billable hours per month. There are currently 2,000 active CARES workers comprised of state, county and contracted staff.

Other potential vendors who were present at a demonstration on June 2, 2010 include Adobe Systems, Benefit Focus, Ceridian, CGI, Choice Administrators, Compuware, Connecture, ConnnextionsHealth, Dell, IBM, IO Datasphere, Strategem, and Vision IT.

See this video for our previous reporting on this issue.

Doyle Administration Moves to Accelerate Pace of ObamaCare Implementation Here

MacIver News Service – [Madison, Wisc…] Wisconsin is quickly moving ahead with implementation of a key component of the new national health care reform plan, even though there is no requirement it do so for another three years.

Last year, Governor Jim Doyle (D) announced he would not run for re-election, but he is not letting his lame duck status stop him from moving ahead with the creation of a state-run health insurance exchange.

The recently-passed federal “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” requires states to set up insurance exchanges for those who do not have employer-sponsored insurance. The exchanges are not required to be operational until the year 2014, but Wisconsin officials are expending resources and moving ahead with procurement right now and by September will have a vendor in place to design the project.

The exchange implementation is being pursued despite the pending gubernatorial transition, the lack of detailed direction from the federal government, and recent polls indicating a majority of American voters actually favor repealing the controversial new law. In fact, Wisconsin’s Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen wants to join a suit to stop implementation of the Act, permission for which Governor Doyle did not grant.

State officials and policy experts discussed Wisconsin’s efforts at a symposium in the State Capitol Thursday.

MacIver’s Bill Osmulski reports from Madison:

 

First Year Tab for State Employees’ Domestic Partner Benefits Tops $7 Million

MacIver News Service – [Madison, Wisc...] Providing health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of state employees will cost more than $7 million dollars this year.

State Senator Glenn Grothman

On Tuesday, the Department of Employee Trust Funds reported 700 employees have switched from single to family coverage to take advantage of the extended benefits. That will cost the state $7.4 million dollars this year. $3.1 million of that will come from general purpose tax revenues and $4.3 million will come from program revenues and segregated funds.

Even though the benefits are currently coming in under projections, some state lawmakers are disappointed the state chose to offer additional benefits while facing a $6.6 billion deficit at the time the budget bill was drafted. For Senator Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) a $7.4 million price tag is no cause for celebration.

“Both numbers struck me as high,” said Grothman. “Both the 700 people and the $7.4 million.”

Grothman pointed out that with 70,000 state employees, 700 people taking advantage of the new benefits amounts to a full one percent of the workforce.

The new domestic partner benefits were adopted as part of the state’s biennial budget last summer. They went into effect on January 1, 2010. The Department of Employee Trust Funds released their cost estimate at a meeting of the Joint Legislative Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules on Tuesday.

Domestic partner state benefits are different from the state’s domestic partner registry. Domestic partner benefits are available to same sex and heterosexual couples who have one partner who receives employee benefits while working for the State.

“Registration on the domestic partner registry under Chapter 770 does not create a domestic partnership for Chapter 40 benefit purposes. The ONLY way to establish a domestic partnership for Chapter 40 benefit purposes is by filing this completed affidavit with ETF,” reads the affidavit for establishing proof of domestic partnership.

That affidavit is the only proof the state requires to sign up for domestic partnership benefits, which leaves the program at risk for abuse. The affidavit outlines the definition of domestic partnership, which includes: both people are over 18, live together, not related by blood but consider themselves to be members of the same immediate family, and are responsible for each other’s basic living expenses.

The initial cost domestic partner benefits  only cost the state more if employees switched from single to family coverage. That is because the first-year costs only account for initial premiums, not losses. 

“However, over time, as the additional medical costs of more enrollees are built into future premium calculations, additional costs would accrue to the state. It is not possible, therefore, to accurately estimate the extent to which these costs would emerge in the 2009-11 biennium,” according to an analysis of the proposal written by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau before it became law upon the passage of the 2009-11 State Budget.

Repeal Obamacare?
Aftermath of Contoversial Vote Not Going As Left Had Planned

The sweeping health care financing overhaul known as Obamacare is proving to be a pivotal moment in American politics and a seminal turning point within the political culture in America, but not in ways its proponents had imagined.

Galen Institute’s Grace-Marie Turner has written a quick summary of the drip, drip, drip of news and information made available to the public AFTER Congress voted on the plan.

Americans consistently said controlling health costs was their top priority for health reform. But Washington didn’t listen, and independent experts now say the new health law actually will drive up the cost of health care and insurance premiums.

Federal and state governments as well as businesses, consumers and taxpayers are finding they cannot afford this massive and unpopular health overhaul law.

The Congressional Budget Office recently issued a revised estimate showing the law will cost $115 billion more than it projected the week before it was enacted. That puts the CBO’s initial price tag at $1 trillion, still a conservative estimate that is based upon unrealistically high assumptions about cuts in Medicare spending and unrealistically low assumptions about the cost of the new law.

Further, the CBO says that preventive care and pilot projects designed to modernize care delivery, while important, are unlikely to reduce costs and may actually increase health spending.

A report by the Obama administration’s own actuary, issued a month after Congress passed the reform legislation, showed it will increase federal health spending by $311 billion over the next decade and likely much more.

The chief actuary for the administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Richard Foster, also predicts higher health insurance premiums for individuals and businesses.

One reason is the billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes the law imposes that Foster says will “generally be passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums.” These include more than $20 billion in taxes on medical devices, $60 billion in taxes on health plans, and $27 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies.

Foster’s report also highlights the shaky financial footing of the new long-term care insurance program – the CLASS Act, which Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., has described as “a Ponzi scheme of the first order.” Foster says the program faces “a significant risk of failure” and finds the program will result “in a net federal cost in the long-term.”

The CBO estimates that individuals and businesses also will face at least $120 billion in fines and penalties for failing to comply with the law’s new health insurance mandates. And it says families purchasing health insurance in the individual market will pay $2,100 a year more for coverage by 2016 than they would had the measure not passed.

States also fear a flood of red ink. Indiana has released a study showing that the health overhaul law could cost the state an additional $3.6 billion over 10 years – money that Hoosiers don’t want to spend for a law that polls show they strongly oppose.

And major companies also face tax hits, fines and huge risks. Large, publicly traded companies have issued reports showing reduced earnings as a result of tax changes.

However, proponents have been quick to argue that there are broad tax cuts and incentives for small businesses that will ease the pain!

Ah, not so much.

As the AP reports:

When the administration unveiled the small business tax credit earlier this week, officials touted its “broad eligibility” for companies with fewer than 25 workers and average annual wages under $50,000 that provide health coverage. Hoffman’s workers earn an average of $35,000 a year, which makes it all the more difficult to understand why his company didn’t qualify.

Lost in the fine print: The credit drops off sharply once a company gets above 10 workers and $25,000 average annual wages.

It’s an example of how the early provisions of the health care law can create winners and losers among groups lawmakers intended to help—people with health problems, families with young adult children and small businesses. Because of the law’s complexity, not everyone in a broadly similar situation will benefit.

(Note: Small business owners can go to the NFIB website and use their online calculator to see just how much ‘help’ they could receive from the government.)

In Wisconsin, Republican congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner discuss a ‘Repeal and Replace” strategy regarding the health care financing overhaul. US Senate Candidate Ron Johnson said Obamacare’s passage was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ that inspired his involvement in both the Tea Party movement and electoral politics. The Left continues to belittle those who push repeal, mocking their efforts as right-wing folly at best, and economically-devastating at worse. However, it is undeniable that the more the public knows about what was really in the health care bill, the less we like it.

It is clear that Sensenbrenner, Ryan, Johnson and others who favor repeal are not alone.

According to Rasmussen Reports:

Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.

Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.

The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.

While opposition to the bill has remained as consistent since its passage as it was beforehand, this marks the first time that support for repeal has climbed into the 60s. It will be interesting to see whether this marks a brief bounce or indicates a trend of growing opposition.

Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters now believe the health care plan will be good for the country, down six points from a week ago and the lowest level of confidence in the plan to date. Fifty-five percent (55%) say it will be bad for the nation. Only three percent (3%) think it will have no impact.

The Political Class continues to be a strong supporter of the plan, however. While 67% of Mainstream voters believe the plan will be bad for America, 77% of the Political Class disagree and think it be good for the country.

The Tea Party movement is a tangible symbol of the chasm between the general public and the political class. Supporters of the behemoth health care plan are siding with the political class. Those who voice support for repeal are siding with the more broad general public.

If I were an elected offiical, or perhaps more significant, a candidate this fall, I know in whose hands I would want to place my fate.

By Brain Fraley
A MacIver Institute Perspective

Kind’s Vote Leads to Higher Co-Pays for Seniors in His District

When President Barack Obama signed the federal health care reform bill last Tuesday, one Democratic Congressman from Wisconsin was notably absent. Rep. Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) was elsewhere. Or as his spokeswoman told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “He’s just not there OK.”

Kind might be forgiven his absence considering candidate Obama’s promise during the presidential campaign to allow the American people five days to review non-emergency legislation prior to signing it. Kind was probably looking forward to attending the ceremony on Saturday.

Of course, until eight days ago there was a chance that Kind would not have been at the bill signing because he voted in opposition. Kind’s Hamlet routine leading up to the vote was well documented by the MacIver Institute. As far as Democrats were concerned when doing their whip counts, Kind was “just not there.”

Prior to the vote, Kind signaled what it would take for the Democrats to get the vote home. Kind wanted changes in the Medicare reimbursement formulas that would benefit Wisconsin. Under the Senate bill, Medicare reimbursement would change in 2013 after recommendations by the Institute of Medicine and approval of Medicare officials.

At the last minute, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a change to the bill to increase Medicare payments by $800 million over the next two years to hospitals and physicians in Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and several other states. Section 1109 provides $400 billion in additional payment to hospitals located in counties in the bottom quartile as ranked “by risk-adjusted spending per Medicare enrollee.” Section 1108 also adds $400 billion.

Politico reported on the eve of the vote Pelosi’s change brought in at least three votes for federal health care reform, including Reps. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, Bruce Braley of Iowa, and Ron Kind of Wisconsin. As many as ten members total may have changed over to the “yes”column as a result of the changed reimbursement rate.

However, some critics are already questioning whether increasing Medicare payments is a step in the right direction since the federal health care reform law is supposed to reduce the federal deficit. The law accomplishes this by reducing Medicare spending by $400 billion over the next ten years. Increasing Medicare reimbursement in the short term is certainly counter to that goal, and sets the precedent for dismantling the future reductions in Medicare called for in the law.

Stephen Zuckerman, a senior fellow and health economist at the Urban Institute, questioned why low cost hospitals in the Midwest were receiving increased reimbursement. Zuckerman, who previously testified before Congress in favor of regional disparity of Medicare reimbursement, said, “The question is whether low-cost hospitals should be rewarded with higher payments or whether high cost hospitals should be penalized with lower payments.”

But of special concern to Wisconsin’s seniors is the change to Medicare part B as a result of Section 1108. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee say the increased reimbursement comes at a steep cost to seniors. Part B premiums will cost seniors $100 million more. Seniors living in the areas of the increased reimbursement, including seniors in Kind’s district, will have to pay a 20% copayment on the higher reimbursement rates.

The price of Kind’s vote for the federal health care law is increased Medicare costs, a precedent in dismantling any possible deficit reduction from the law, a reimbursement policy that does not encourage lower costs, and a nice chunk out of the fixed budgets of the seniors living in Kind’s district.

With his absence from the signing ceremony, Kind’s constituents didn’t even get one of President Obama’s pens.

On the other hand, Kind’s constituents may think he saw enough of the White House before the bill passed.

By James Wigderson
Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute

Wisconsin Attorney General Seeks Approval to Join Federal Suit Against Health Care Act
Doyle Says No, Now up to Legislature

MacIver News Service – Updated 11:40pm  Wisconsin Attorney General JB Van Hollen is seeking authority to join the federal lawsuit to block implementation of some aspects of the recently signed health care reform law.

“Based on my preliminary review of the Act, I have concluded that a sufficient legal basis exists to contest the individual mandate to carry health insurance or pay a penalty under the Act.” Van Hollen (R) wrote in a letter to Governor Jim Doyle (D), Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Wausau), Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan (D-Janesville) and the minority leaders of the legislature.

In Wisconsin, the Attorney General must receive approval from the Governor or one house of the legislature in order to join a suit against the federal government.

He’ll need to get the approval from the legislature, because on Thursday afternoon, Governor Doyle denied Van Hollen’s request.

“As the state’s lawyer, I take very seriously my duty to protect our State’s sovereignty,” Van Hollen wrote. “Although several states have initiated legal action and there are likely to be more challenges to the Act made by other states and individual citizens, I believe that Wisconsin must act to protect its sovereign interests and the interests of its citizens of this State by bringing an action to contest the constitutionality of the Act.”

A bipartisan group of 13 attorneys general filed suit on Tuesday, claiming the sweeping reforms violate state government rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. It was filed electronically with a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, according to the office of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.

States joining the suit include: Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, South Carolina, and South Dakota. That suit contends: “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.”

See more in our exclusive one-on-on video with Wisconsin Attorney General JB Van Hollen:

 

Wisconsin Lawmakers Hope to Authorize/Spur AG to Join Health Care Bill Lawsuit

MacIver News Service - Wisconsin lawmakers are calling on Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to join in efforts to stop the enactment of the sweeping health care reform law signed by President Obama Tuesday. Some of the 34 GOP legislators who wrote a letter to the AG are among those who are working on an official legislative Resolution that would authorize such action. 

In an interview with MacIver News Service, State Representative Robin Vos (R-Caledonia) made his case for legal action.

“We looked and said well, there are a dozen attorney generals around the county who are looking to find a way to say number one, was it Constitutional and the easier question is how much of what they’ve done is legal,” said Vos. “That is what we want to find out.”

In their letter to Van Hollen, the lawmakers urged action on the basis of both the Constitutionality of mandating the purchase of a product and the fact that the bill is a huge unfunded mandate on the states. Vos said those two facets of the plan violate the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Vos understands the Attorney General of Wisconsin can not unilaterally decide to file a lawsuit.

“This shouldn’t be a partisan issue and my hope is that if [Attorney General Van Hollen] can help rally independents, Democrats and Republicans around the state–join with legislators, that we can convince a few of those independent Democrats to side with us once again,” said Vos of prospects that the Assembly Resolution authorizing a lawsuit could pass the Democrat-controlled house. “We know there was bipartisan opposition to health care at the Congress. I hope that not everybody in Madison represents the people only in Madison, which I think in Wisconsin is one of the only places this bill is actually popular.”

A bipartisan group of 13 attorneys general filed suit on Tuesday, claiming the sweeping reforms violate state government rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. It was filed electronically with a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, according to the office of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.

States joining the suit include: Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, South Carolina, and South Dakota. That suit contends: “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.”

We have more in this video report by MacIver’s Bill Osmulski, below.

 

Wisconsin’s Congressional Delegation Reacts to Health Care Vote

MacIver News Service - When the final vote tallies came in Sunday night on health care reform, every Wisconsin Democrat voted for the bills and every Wisconsin Republican voted against them.

The House of Representative voted 219-212 for the passage of the Senate version of the bill, and then 220-211 for the passage of the reconciliation bill which made significant changes to the Senate Bill they had just passed. 

Most Wisconsin representatives made their positions clear long before the final roll call. However, Representatives Ron Kind (D-3rd) and Steve Kagen (D-8th) said they were both undecided throughout last week. They both had voted for the house bill in November, and, in the end, choose to vote for the Senate bill too.

“Americans may now have peace of mind,” said Kagen. “With tonight’s vote, no longer will a child’s accident or illness cause their family to go broke and lose their home. Senior citizens will see a stronger and better Medicare and the prescription drug program’s donut hole begin to close. Small business owners will soon be able to buy health care coverage for themselves and their employees at the same discounts as big corporations.”

Congressman Kind echoed those sentiments.

“People across the district have shared with me their concerns with our current health care system,” said Kind. “Our economy continues to suffer as Wisconsin families fall further into debt due to rising health care costs. Comprehensive health care reform could not wait.”

“Health care reform offers stability and security to families who are satisfied with their health insurance and provides choices for those who aren’t. It provides increased access to stable care that is affordable for individuals, families, and businesses and ensures we reward the providers who are delivering the highest quality of care. Reform ensures the sustainability of our health care system and guarantees we do not leave a legacy of debt to our children.”

Rep. Tammy Baldwin was an early and avid supporter of President Obama’s efforts.

“I have worked my entire career to achieve health care for all,” said Baldwin.

”As I looked across the well of the House, I saw so many of my colleagues tearing up because, like me, they sensed the moment and the history of this vote. I was also remembering the faces of people who have come up to me, often also in tears, and confided in me about their own experiences in our broken health care system …I thought about all those faces and that tonight, with this vote, we have finally stepped forward and responded to these pleas for help.”

Milwaukee Congresswoman Gwen Moore also had praise for the bill.

“Today’

s vote caps off more than a year of debate and makes good on our promise to deliver health insurance reform for the American people,” said Moore. “Every day people are denied coverage or kicked off insurance. This means life and death; this means bankruptcy; this means higher costs for everyone. This bill changes that.”

Wisconsin’s Republicans in Congress do not agree.

“I am saddened that our children and grandchildren will be strapped with the burden of paying for this law,” said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-5th). ”I question how this law will cost our nation in the long run. I fear what another government entitlement program will do to our nation. We can only have more people riding in the cart than pulling the cart for so long.”

Janesville Republican Paul Ryan had one of the more passionate speeches and managed part of the floor debate for the GOP.  

“The government-knows-best philosophy advanced on the floor by the Majority today is paternalistic, arrogant, and at odds with our nation’s unique character,” said Ryan “We are fast approaching a tipping point in which more Americans depend on the government than on themselves for their livelihoods –

a point where, we, the American people trade in our commitment and concern for our individual liberties in exchange for government benefits.”

President Obama is expected to sign the measure on Tuesday. Ryan said that this does not put the issue to rest, however.

“This fight will continue,” said Ryan. “Despite what happened here tonight, the fight to reapply our founding principles is not finished; it’s just a steeper climb. And it’s a climb we will make.”

See this video report for more:

  • Print
  • Email This Post Email This Post
  • Share

Recent Posts


MacIver on facebook @MacIverWisc on twitter MacIver Youtube channel subscribe