The discussion of health care reform has been one of the most partisan and heated public debates our country has seen in years. As a freshman lawmaker, it has certainly been an eye-opening experience. What has struck me the most, however, wasn’t the anger and unruliness that grabbed so many headlines during August, but rather the number of people I would encounter who believed that I should commit to voting one way or the other before even knowing what would be included or excluded from the legislation. This was perhaps the only aspect of the health care debate that was truly bipartisan; I heard from many Republicans who demanded that I oppose any health care reform package, regardless of its contents, while some Democrats have told me I had a duty to unquestioningly support the bill simply because it was a priority for my party’s leadership.
It’s unfortunate that this debate – on one of the most important challenges facing our nation today – has been reduced to such a black-or-white oversimplification. The need for reform is clear: Without reform, premiums and out-of-pocket expenses continue to rise rapidly for both middle class families and employers. But the pathway for achieving reform is far more complex. The goals of reform must be two-fold: expanding coverage and reducing long-term costs by significantly slowing the rate of health care inflation. This health care reform debate offers us a historic opportunity, but passing a bill that does not truly achieve these goals would waste this historic moment.
Since the introduction of H.R. 3200 in July, I have voiced a number of concerns about the legislation. Chief among these were the bill’s failure to curb long-term costs, it’s potential to increase the deficit, and its inadequate protections for small employers, which I fear may have an adverse impact on job creation. Following the August recess, I also led a group of my fellow freshman in sending a letter to House Leadership urging them to include additional reform proposals in this bill, such as allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines and promoting policies to reduce medical errors, lawsuits, and medical malpractice rates.
While the revised H.R. 3962 made progress toward these goals, I am not convinced that the final bill is a fiscally sustainable approach to reforming health care. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicates that the bill does not reduce long-term health care costs, and that it drastically increases federal health care spending in the near-term and long-term. Furthermore, while the bill is projected to decrease the deficit over the first 10 years, the CBO said this reduction is largely due to the removal of a $210 billion provision to correct the formula by which doctors are paid under Medicare. That “Doc Fix” language was moved into a companion bill, which Congress will consider later this month. Taken together, these bills will increase the deficit substantially in the years ahead.
To be successful, health care reform must both expand coverage and reduce long-term costs. Unfortunately, this health care reform legislation will significantly increase long-term spending, is unlikely to reduce the deficit, and even costs several hundred billion dollars more than the $900 billion target for which President Obama has advocated. As the debate moves to the Senate, both parties would be well advised to dial back the propaganda, put down the talking points, and focus instead on the substance of legislation before them. I’m hopeful that a better bill is still possible, one that more effectively bends the cost curve while going further to protect small businesses, increase competition, and decrease the deficit. If and when a bill does come back from the Senate, it will be policy, not politics, that will determine my support.
Chris says
Mr. Kratovil:
I grow tired of the current national discourse that prevents problem solving and promotes blind division. I too am in support of reform… but the reform MUST directly relieve the problems with the current system. I take great relief that you share this vision, and have reasonable arguments to justify your actions.
This is precisely why you earned my vote. Maintain this line of rational policy and you will secure my second.
steve goldblatt says
Representative Kratovil:
In the greatest country on earth with the incredible resources and technology at our finger tips, it is mind boggeling that we are so bewildered when it comes to inacting health care reform. Does anyone in congress care about the money we spend on Iraq and Afghanistan? I doubt it. Furthermore, that expense isn’t even paid for, the way health care reform will be. I understand now that we are paying the Taliban in Afghanistan not to shoot at our supply trucks when they arrive. Apparantly the Taliban has agreed to wait until supplies are delivered before shooting at American soldiers That makes a lot of sense, but again who cares! Heaven forbid we should mention the word single payor. Apparantly we are so engrossed and consumed with the great relationships we have with our insurance companies to ever suggest anything that would cause them to suffer a loss. Teddy Roosevelt had the guts to break up monopolies 100 years ago and he was a Rebublican. I am a life long democrat, but my vote would go to anyone from any party who showed that kind of spunk. In fact, I think we have it backwards in this country. I wouldn’t give a hoot about how much money we spend on getting health care reform right. I would question every penny spent toward fighting land wars on foreign soil.
BILL PARKS says
The Chestertown Spy is a welcome addition to the intellectual life in Kent County. Your article, Health Bill Passes, Kratovil Votes No, was well done, providing very useful information about the percentage of people without health insurance in the first district and the eye-opening information about Congressman Kratovil’s campaign funding. When I read your article along with the congressman’s opinion piece, Spy Op-Ed: Health Policy Over Politics by Rep. Frank Kratovil, an unsettling picture emerged.
You reported that 11.1 percent of the people in the 1st Congressional District do not have any health insurance. The 2000 census reported 662,062 people living in the 1st Congressional District, that works out to 73,489 uninsured individuals. Further, a recent report in American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance, indicating that 99 people in the district die prematurely each year, if the death rate is relatively uniform across the United States. Because the highest mortality rates are in infants, young children and the elderly, it is reasonable to assume that some of the premature deaths are of children.
With these facts about our district – 73,489 people were uninsured, 99 premature deaths, some of the 99 deaths were of children — readily available to our Congressman, his concerns were, in his own word, “Chief among these were the bill’s failure to curb long-term costs, it’s potential to increase the deficit, and its inadequate protections for small employers, which I fear may have an adverse impact on job creation.”
I wonder. If his family were unable to afford insurance, and one of his three sons faced a serious or terminal illness, would he have the same concerns?