CORRECTION: No Party-Line Vote on Healthcare, as Rep. Lipinski (D) Voted NO

OUR APPOLOGIES FOR EARLIER REPORTING CONG LIPINSKI VOTE AYE


(March 21, 2010) Today, Congressman Dan Lipinski (IL-3) released the following statement regarding his decision to vote against the Senate health care bill:

“My decision to vote against the Senate health care bill is the result of months of studying our broken health care system, developing and analyzing various proposals for reform, studying legislation, and listening closely to my constituents. I want to thank each and every one of the thousands of Third District residents who contacted me by phone, fax, email, and in person to share their views for and against the bill.

“As I have said many times, I strongly believe reform is needed to lower soaring health care costs and make insurance coverage more affordable and accessible for individuals and working families. But reform must be done right. The Senate bill does make a number of improvements to our health care system, including expanding access and reforming health insurance by doing such things as immediately banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions for children, prohibiting lifetime coverage limits, and banning rescissions. Unfortunately, the bill also contains a number of serious flaws, and many of the good aspects could have been done without passing this massive bill. The Senate bill does not do enough to lower the skyrocketing cost of health care, cuts more than $400 billion from Medicare, is not fiscally sustainable over the long term, and breaks with the status quo by providing federal funding for abortion and abortion coverage. This bill was also marred by backroom deals that benefit pharmaceutical companies and other special interests. In the final analysis, I cannot support such a deeply flawed bill.

“Last November, after successfully fighting to make numerous improvements to the initial House health care bill, I voted to move the measure forward. I did so because I did not want to give up on reform, and because I believed we might still be able to fix the flaws in the bill before a final vote. However, I made my position very clear at the time, stating: ‘If this bill does not improve when it comes back from the Senate, I will vote against it.’ Unfortunately, the final bill is in many ways worse, not better, than the House legislation.

“To deserve the name of reform, a bill of this magnitude ought to make major progress on reducing health care costs, which continue to increase at unsustainable rates. Since 1980, overall spending on health care has risen on average at almost twice the rate of inflation, and per capita health care spending is nearly double what it was 10 years ago. Unless we address these increases, health care will continue to gobble up more and more of people’s income, and more and more of our tax dollars, until we reach a breaking point. Government subsidies alone cannot solve the problem of the increasing burden that skyrocketing health care costs impose on middle class Americans. We must change payment incentives for providers and this bill does not accomplish that.

“As the Congressional Budget Office has stated, the Senate health care bill would do little to affect the cost of premiums for those who currently get their health care through large employers. Since 70 percent of Americans who are not on Medicare are in this group, this bill fails to sufficiently reduce costs for the majority of working families in the Third District. The Senate bill also does not include several specific measures that were in the House bill that could increase competition. These include the elimination of the health insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption and a provision to begin to require health care providers to disclose their prices.

“I am also concerned that the bill’s more than $400 billion in Medicare cuts could have ramifications for seniors in my district. For instance, the Senate bill reduces Medicare reimbursements to providers – such as hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies – by over $200 billion. The Chief Actuary of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has stated that these cuts would likely result in roughly 20 percent of providers becoming unprofitable; this could lead to providers refusing to take care of seniors on Medicare. And if these cuts are going to be made to Medicare, the money should at least be put in the Medicare Trust Fund instead of being spent elsewhere as this bill does. In addition, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not allow the government to negotiate for lower drug prices, which I have long supported.

“I am also greatly concerned about the impact of this bill on our ballooning deficit. While the Congressional Budget Office has stated that the bill would officially reduce the deficit, close inspection of this analysis reveals serious problems. The CBO counts as deficit reduction over $70 billion in premiums that will be paid into the newly created CLASS Act. This well-intentioned program to provide long-term care for people with disabilities should be keeping this money in a trust fund to pay out future benefits instead of being spent elsewhere. And even if these premiums were kept in a trust fund, CBO states that the CLASS Act is fiscally unsustainable after two decades, when benefit payouts will significantly overwhelm the premiums coming in. Further, $29 billion in increased Social Security receipts are counted towards deficit reduction although they ought to remain in the Social Security Trust Fund.

“The bill also does not address this year’s scheduled 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors; when Congress votes to do this, likely later this year, it will cost over $200 billion over the next 10 years. Also, the CBO score assumes that in later years, the growth in federal subsidies would suddenly be allowed to decline, and that the tax on middle-class insurance plans – which I and many others already oppose – would be expanded. If Congress will not do these things today, why would it do so tomorrow? Taken together, these elements more than wipe out the supposed savings.

“Finally, of great concern to me and to a significant majority of my constituents, this bill changes current federal policy and provides funding for abortion. This is not acceptable. It is in direct contradiction of the Hyde Amendment, which for more than three decades has prohibited federally funded abortion. First, the bill allows federal funds to subsidize health plans in the insurance exchanges that cover abortion. For any insurance plan that receives federal subsidies and provides abortion, all participants would be required to contribute at least $1 per month that would fund abortion services, regardless of whether they want abortion coverage or not. It also opens the door for Community Health Centers receiving federal funding under the bill to use that money to pay for abortion. I do not believe the last minute effort to address these concerns through an Executive Order is sufficient because there is every indication that federal courts would strike down this order, and the order could be repealed at any time in the future.

For all of these reasons, I cannot support the health care bill. I am deeply disappointed that Congress did not develop a better bill. But whatever this bill’s fate, I will not stop fighting against special interests and for improvements to our health care system that will benefit all of the residents of the Third District. And in the days, weeks, and months ahead, I will continue working to create jobs and revive our economy.”

Illinois Congressional Delegation Votes on Healthcare Straight Down Party Lines

The Illinois Congressional delegation which has 19 members in the US House, voted along party lines, with 12 House Democrats voting in favor of the bill. And eight Republican House members all voting against passage.

DEMS VOTING FOR PASSAGE OF HEALTHCARE — Bean,Costello, Davis, Foster, Gutierrez, Halvorson,Hare, Jackson, Lipinski, Quigley,Rush, Schakowsky.

REPUBLICANS VOTING AGAINST PASSAGE OF HEALTHCARE: Biggert, Johnson, Kirk, Manzullo, Roskam, Schock, Shimkus,

Statement by Rep. Tim Johnson (R) on Healthcare Passage

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (R) issued the following statement today in response to the passage of H.R. 3590.

“I voted against this legislation for many reasons. It strikes at the very core of our liberties and is a giant step toward wrecking an already fragile economy,” Rep. Johnson said. “This is a regrettable day in the history of this Congress and I want my constituents to know the dire consequences of this bill.

BY THE NUMBERS:

· $569.2 billion in tax increases

· $523.5 billion in Medicare cuts

· $48 billion more for Medicaid Expansion

“The more we learn about this legislation, the worse it is. Payoffs and favors have been passed out like candy to buy passage of a bill nobody completely understands. Even the President’s own chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services said he could not fully analyze the cost of the legislation before the vote.

“The bill contains no language that would prohibit federal funds from being used to fund elective abortions. For the past 35 years, our government has statutorily blocked the use of Federal funds being used for abortions. That is unacceptable!

“The bill projects $17 billion in tax revenue from people who cannot afford to or choose not to comply with the mandate to obtain health insurance, and $52 billion in new taxes on employers that do not provide so-called acceptable or affordable coverage. Obviously that is going to negatively impact employers and employees, especially those least able to pay.

“This bill also for the first time in history applies Medicare taxes to capital gains, dividends and other investment income. This would increase the capital gains tax from 2.9 to 3.8 percent, pushing the top capital gains rate from 15 to 23.8 percent and the top rate for dividends to 43.4 percent in conjunction with tax cuts expiring at the end of this year

“The cuts in senior health care are among the most distressing. This bill basically uses Medicare as a piggy-bank to pay for these new entitlement programs. The cuts in Medicare are so deep even the White House’s own Medicare actuaries predict that providers might end their participation. Most of these cuts will be in reduced cost-sharing that senior citizens receive through Medicare Advantage.







“Reimbursement rates will also be cut for in-patient and out-patient hospital services, long-term care facilities, psychiatric hospitals, hospice, labs, medical product suppliers and prescription drugs. Citizens in the small towns in the 15th District of Illinois will surely lose many of their doctors.

“Millions of people will be pushed into Medicaid because of this bill, with the expectation that states share in the cost. This is yet another unfunded mandate that states such as Illinois – already $14 billion in debt this year alone and unable to pay its basic obligations – simply cannot afford. The impact on schools, social services, law enforcement, and fiscal soundness is obvious.

“With states already squeezing payments to providers, Medicaid patients will find it harder and harder to find doctors and dentists to treat them. This is already occurring. Nationwide, 28.2 percent of physicians refuse to accept new Medicaid patients, including 9,472 doctors in Illinois. Illinois already has an average wait time of 103 days for Medicaid reimbursement. This will only worsen.

“Veterans too are being penalized in this headlong rush to shove this legislation through. The bill does not protect the health-care programs provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the military’s Tricare system. It does not cover children suffering from spina bifida as a result of a parent’s exposure to Agent Orange, and it does not cover dependents, widows and orphans who are served by the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Our people serving in the military put their trust in the existence of these plans. Now millions of soldiers, veterans, widows and dependents are in jeopardy.

“Yet another flaw is that this bill leaves in place a marriage penalty. The structure of subsidies for health insurance offers more aid to non-married couples than married ones.

“A lesser-known aspect of this bill is that it will cause the IRS to spend an extra $10 billion in new enforcement resources. According to the House Ways and Means Committee Republicans, the IRS may need to hire as many as 16,000 new agents, auditors and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes and penalties.

“The agency will have the authority to fine individuals up to $2,250 or 2 percent or your income – whichever is greater – for failure to prove you have purchased ‘minimum essential coverage.’

“This legislation expands the reach of government into the most private aspects of our lives. It removes your basic right to elect to purchase insurance or not and to choose the kind of insurance you want. The government will choose it for you, dictate coverage, and if it covers too much, you’ll be taxed.

“More than 150 new agencies, commissions and government offices will be created under this monstrosity, bloating the bureaucracy even more, and all to be overseen by 13 more ‘czars’ – unelected, highly paid bureaucrats whose reason for being is to control your health care and your life.

“Health care expansion continues an ongoing theme under this Leadership. They have built a legacy of government intrusion, entitlement and public debt that flies in the face of personal responsibility and constitutional principles of limited government. It is clear that this administration and the majority in Congress have no regard for the will of the American people. The evolution of statism in this nation is truly horrifying. It is also a call to action. Using our right to vote, November cannot come soon enough.”

###