Mike Rogers: What will massive spending do to economy?
U.S. Congressman
Published: October 26, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As uncertainty continues in Washington over health care reform, concern about our economy continues to grow across East Alabama.
In times when hard working families are struggling each month to make ends meet, Congress remains focused on passing a massive healthcare reform bill.
After the auto bailouts, the $787 billion stimulus bill, a jobs-threatening cap and trade bill and passage of the largest budget in American history, Congress is borrowing money at the speed of light with no end in sight, and no real plan to curb the increasing national debt.
Alabama’s state unemployment rate is up to 10.4 percent, double what it was this time last year, making it painfully obvious our economy needs help to save and create more jobs.
Many of our new jobs come not from the high-profile major employers, like the auto sector, but instead from our small businesses. That’s why during the health care debate, Congress must remember not to do more harm than good by putting our jobs-creating small businesses in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, that still could happen. With no money, but big plans, the Democratic Congressional Leadership is working to figure out a game plan to pay for what could be, down the road, an enormous government take-over of health care.
Currently, H.R. 3200 helps pays for a “public option” by putting a $544 billion surtax on high income Americans.
With recent news of big Wall Street bonuses, it’s tempting to say “tax ‘em all, they make so much already!” The reality, though, is some of Alabama’s small business owners could be pulled into the health care tax trap. That’s because a lot of these “rich” folks are actually small business owners who file their taxes as individuals.
On top of the tax hikes, there is also talk about mandating employers to offer their employees insurance coverage. If the employer can’t cover their employees, a high penalty fee will be enacted.
Now, almost all of us agree offering health insurance coverage to more workers is a good thing. The question is whether a mandate on employers – in particular our small businesses – will do the trick. Judging by the feedback I get from many of East Alabama’s employers, I am deeply concerned this mandate and higher taxes could dampen our prospects for new job creation.
Would a “public option” help all Americans have access to quality health insurance? That is debatable.
But what isn’t, in my opinion, would be the fiscal cost to our nation of a government-run insurance plan, as the Federal government could kill access to private insurance while racking up more debt.
And what would that massive new Federal spending do to our already weak economy?
That, of course, brings us back to the fundamental question of the proper role of the Federal government in our lives and in our economy.
Mike Rogers is a U.S. Congressman representing Alabama’s Third District. He can be reached at http://www.house.gov/mike-rogers
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
pd3310: Money rules until we vote it doesn’t
Our greatest opportunity as a nation is to develop a process of sharing and understanding different perspectives. A key impediment to active listening is allowing our own “USA” advertizing and marketing skills to generate such strong emotional reactions that we become lost in a sea of fear-> anger-> contempt. This is not a Republican, vs. Democratic phenomenon, its part of basic human nature to generate social fabrics by defining inclusion and exclusion in emotional terms. Emotions trigger the parts of our brain that respond most quickly, rational thought takes much greater effort, therefore, is politically less expedient for both sides, hence, the destructive “discord resolution” approach we have created for ourselves.
For any of us to think we are above accepting that our intellect is a “cork struggling to float in an ocean of emotion” is to separate ourselves from reality. The labels “big government” “big business” “party of no” “socialist agenda” are emotional shorthand for avoiding serious discussions based on many complex issues within a continuum of possible consequences. We get the government, business and healthcare that we, collectively, are willing to demonstrate the effort to understand, by generating a dialogue that results in votes, reflective of our choice in balancing rational and emotional information.
I have cited that Congressman Rogers receives over 80% of his current campaign cycle funds coded as “industry specific”, which means the contributions at or above $200 are either from PAC’s or individuals, both requiring source identity, in the case of individuals, the industry they work in. These numbers are compiled each Sunday by the Federal Election Commission and can be found at http://www.fec.gov or more easily accessed at http://www.opensecrets.org.
It is not logically reasonable, or productive, to demonize an elected official for voting based on what policies best balance campaign contributions with votes, in a system that is currently largely funded by private interests. Attempts to change this approach have been attacked as “anti free speech” from one party and “not respecting that “interest groups represent people” from the other. As long as the voters decide money is a productive measure of how we allocate speech, we will be governed by the interests that money reflects, period. It is equally unproductive to blame corporations for working with elected officials to develop emotional marketing campaigns using fear of being “anti American” and guilt of “silencing the underprivileged”, respectively. Either “declaration”, represents an emotional trigger designed to discourage voters from choosing to vote officials out of office based on financial conflicts of interest between issue specific funding and the broader voter interest.
My goal in communicating within this forum is not about convincing others to share my opinions of value, but is to encourage all, including Congressman Rogers, to choose facts over speculation, reason over fear, and mutual interest over divisive polarization.
Thanks for your interest,
David
Mike Rogers is a typical Republican…no ideas or answers of his own, only criticism of Democrats and their ideas. Although it’s doubtful, perhaps Rep. Rogers could develop some ideas if he actually did his job in Washington instead of spending half his time in Alabama. One question for Rep. Rogers that I’d like him to answer: How much of our tax dollars are you spending to fly home to Alabama every Thursday and fly back on Monday night? I thought being a Congressman was a full-time job. I think it’s time that we elect a Congressman who takes his job seriously, stays in Washington, and comes up with some ideas of his own to help move our country forward.
Good afternoon Congressman Rogers,
I appreciate, relative to your previous press releases concerning healthcare, you now acknowledge a “public option” is debatable. Let’s now take the next step and actually debate the issues based on facts.
Speculating a vision that suggests the opposition party wants to force us to “pay for what could be, down the road, an enormous government take-over of health care” once again reflects another emotional device of ad-homonym flaming devoid of facts as they exist today.
Yes, H.B.3200 would tax the top 1.2% of tax payers nationally, in Alabama .9%. For a couple filing jointly, the surcharge would equal to 1 % of income in excess of $350,000 but less than $500,000 , 1.5% of income between P0,000 and 1 million, and 5.4% of income over 1 million. JCT (Joint Committee on Taxation)
Small business? For 96% of tax payers with business income, this tax will have zero impact. (JCT) Of the effected 4%, of taxpayers, only 23% earn over half there income from an effected business.
Employer mandates, would you prefer individual mandates, or perhaps no mandates? It seems un-American to force employers or individuals to buy insurance they don’t want, however, when one chooses not to purchase insurance and has a serious illness or accident two financial facts occur, the person in all likelihood will be bankrupted and everybody else pays most of the cost. How does this promote personal responsibility?
Continued
The potential impacts of a public option are primarily dependent upon how access to capital, market regulations and legal redress are structured.
As currently being considered, if a tax payer financially seeded public option is 100% financed by premium dollars, limited to the same investment instruments as are available to the private sector, in a negotiated, acuity adjusted pricing market, and each competitor has fair access to the courts to insure fair competition; it will reduce overall healthcare cost by increasing competition. (Key to cost control and quality coverage Jacob S. Hacker, 2009)
The profits of insurance companies are not the problem, it’s the inefficiencies. Yes Medicare has significant waste, fraud, pays fewer claims per beneficiary, and doesn’t include premium and payroll tax collection expense in overhead calculations, however, there are no data that remotely demonstrate the 3% Medicare overhead is anywhere close to the average private insurance cost which ranges from ~7% in large group to ~40% in individual coverage. (Universal Coverage With Private And Public Group Health Insurance,” Health Affairs, Volume 27, No. 3, May/June 2008, 647)
Currently in 36 states, 3 insurance companies control at least 50% of the market (Health Affairs, Volume 23, No. 6, Nov. /Dec. 2004, Exhibit 1.), BCBS of Alabama maintains between 75% of 78% of the market within Alabama. Is this monopsony competitive? If so, how is it functionally different from a public option within the scope of what is actually being discussed?
If you do not favor initially subsidizing a public option, what is your position on the federal government subsidizing private insurance companies 14% over traditional Medicare in the Medicare Advantage program? For the financial benefit for insurance companies and 22% of Medicare beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage, the tax payers currently spend $1.30 for every $1.00 of equivalent services under traditional Medicare (Medpac 2009).
If rates go to current Medicare levels will doctors and hospital go out of business?
Currently, 99.5% of physicians accept Medicare payments, and the number of physicians billing Medicare have increased faster than the beneficiary population, from 7.6 to 8.0 physicians, per thousand, between 2001 and 2006 (Medpac 2008). Medicare beneficiaries were more likely to report better access to physicians than private insurance members (Medpac 2009). Primary care physicians are an exception and should receive additional pay increases (Medpac 2008, 2009).
What about hospitals can they cost shift to private insurance?
It turns out that that hospitals located where private payers pay higher rates tend to be less efficient in controlling cost. These hospitals generally show greater losses in treating Medicare patients as compared to hospitals with lower payment rates from private payers.
Hospitals that earn the highest profits levels, treating Medicare patients, typically are in competitive locations, where private payers incentivize hospitals to become more efficient in the delivery of healthcare for all patients.
Congressmen, in 14 paragraphs you raised three facts, stimulus cost, an unemployment rate and a 10 year sir tax total.
I appreciate the recent call from your staff person in Washington that advises you on healthcare, however, aside from your financial constituently which is currently 85% coded “industry specific”, of which health care only ranks behind defense and insurance, the rest of the voter constituency will appreciate your publicly answering these questions with facts.
Thanks,
David
All Rep. Rogers’ concern about small businesses seems hollow given that obtaining affordable and more portable health insurance is a huge hurdle for people starting their own small business. The entrepreneurship, and I’ll even also use freedom, simmering below the surface as to those perhaps “trapped” in jobs that do provide insurance seems certain to me.
Bonus points for Rep. Rogers using GOP consultant Frank Luntz’s “government takeover” focus group-tested phrase to increase fear of essentially any reform.
I also noted Rep. Rogers’ admission that it is “painfully obvious our economy needs help to save and create more jobs” while he’s rejecting the jobs that would likely flow from moving toward a more green economy.
Given his above statement, would he then support a better stimulus package with more job creating infrastructure programs and the like?
Rep. Rogers offered no ideas or even improvements while talking down ideas geared toward forward looking solutions. Then again, his legislative record over several terms now is hardly demonstrative of such an approach toward leadership.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement