CNS News has this interview with Congressman Stupak. I listened to the interview and it didn't sound as positive. This interview sounds like a good reason for an open conference between the House and Senate.
An overview of some of the new proposed rules in the health care bill can be seen here. For example,
Is this serious? Is a fine of even $750 or 2 percent of one's income going to make it financially worthwhile for people to get insurance when there is no penalty for pre-existing conditions?
“If they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it’s going to go down in flames,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview.
CNSNews.com asked Stupak: “Are you prepared to vote for a bill that looks more like the Senate bill – and Senator Nelson’s language on abortion – than the House bill, with your language?”
“No, absolutely not,” said the Democratic congressman, whose district encompasses all of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and roughly one-quarter of the territory in the remainder of Michigan.
“The Senate bill will not receive support in the House,” Stupak said. “If they tell us we have to take that bill without changes, it will not survive the House. Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many objectionable items in there that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing.”
Stupak, like many in Congress, takes strong exception to the fact that, under the Senate plan, certain states would receive special “carve outs” for increased funding for Medicare/Medicaid.
“That’s not what it’s all about,” he said. “This is about health care, this is providing health care for all Americans – it’s not to see who can strike the best deal for their state. This is the wrong piece of legislation to try to do carve outs, or get an exception for your state and the rest of the country is supposed to pick up the tab. That’s not what health care is all about. That’s not the policy, that’s not the principle behind the bill. . . .
Stupak was incensed at the special deals.
“All the rest of us that live in states that did not receive that exception, why would we [be] inclined to give Nebraska or Florida or Louisiana a special break underneath the bill and expect the rest of us to pay for it?”
Beyond the carve-outs, Stupak pointed out that seniors “take some cuts in the Senate bill that are not found in the House bill [that] members are not going to accept” -- and that the bill would tax people who have “decent” health insurance programs.
“Aren’t you really going to force more people off health insurance?” Stupak said.
He added: “If you just take a look at my three main constituencies – Right to Life, labor unions, and senior citizens – the Senate bill is contrary to all their interests,” Stupak said. . . .
An overview of some of the new proposed rules in the health care bill can be seen here. For example,
Q: What if I refuse [getting health care]?
A: You’d face a fine. It would start at $95 a year in 2014 and rise to $750 a year by 2016, or as much as 2% of your income, capped at the value of a basic insurance plan.
Is this serious? Is a fine of even $750 or 2 percent of one's income going to make it financially worthwhile for people to get insurance when there is no penalty for pre-existing conditions?
Stupak predicts problems for the Health Care Bill
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
