Republicans want good health care for Americans, just not 'Obama-care'

To the editor:

In the Nov. 27 edition of The Highland County Press, Mr. John P. Hiestand proposed that “...all Republicans at all levels should reject government supported health care (benefits) for themselves and their families...” to avoid becoming hypocrites, since they opposed the recent health care bill.  

Mr. Hiestand also went on to say that “They do not believe that all the citizens of this country deserve excellent heath care coverage even if it is provided by the government.”

As a Republican, I can state with 100-percent confidence that Mr. Hiestand is completely incorrect about his supposition that Republicans don’t want excellent health care for ALL members of this country.

More importantly, Mr. Hiestand’s letter is another example of how the debate over the recent health care bill has completely run off the rails. Mr. Hiestand’s letter, like most articles and editorials on the subject, erroneously mistakes opposition to this particular piece of legislation with opposition to health care reform. That supposition immediately places the debate on the level of rooting at a sporting event - you have to pick one side or the other, leaving no room for debate on the actual content of the bill.

As with all pieces of legislation, the questions that need to be addressed are whether this particular piece of legislation will solve the identified problem(s), whether it does so in the most cost effective manner, and whether it will create more problems than it solves. Opposition to this bill should not be mistaken as opposition to health care reform. Opposition to this bill is simply opposition to this bill, nothing more, nothing less.

Authors of legislation that is worth passing should not be afraid of detailed debate. Rather, they should welcome debate, as it will strengthen their position and increase the likelihood of passage.  he manner in which this particular bill was passed, especially for such an important subject, should be a matter of concern to ALL Americans. Legislation on such an important subject should have undergone detailed debate, appropriate revisions, and compromise (as needed) until the final product could be supported by members of all political parties (and independents). Certainly, this would have taken much longer, perhaps even years. However, the result would have been a bill representative of the best that Congress could draft and likely would have been beneficial to the country. Instead, the bill was written hastily in a clandestine manner, was given insufficient time for review (much less debate), and was so poorly written that it was immediately challenged on constitutional grounds by multiple states.

If this bill, as written, were so beneficial to Americans, why did several congressional members of the sponsoring party have to be “bribed” for their votes with assurances that their states would not have to bear its cost? If this bill, as written, were so meritorious, why did it need to contain a clause overriding normal congressional protections in order to make repeal more difficult?  

Shouldn’t its merits alone be obvious enough to avoid repeal? If this bill were the best that Congress could create, why were there lawsuits immediately filed by numerous states challenging its constitutionality? If sufficient time were provided for review, why were members of the sponsoring party, including President Obama, completely unaware of its actual content?

Finally, if this bill, as written, were the best that Congress could do, why did the sponsors of the bill (not the Republicans) include an exemption for themselves from the bill, preserving their own “Cadillac” health care plan. To avoid hypocrisy, shouldn’t the authors of the bill have included themselves?

Republicans oppose this health care bill because it is a horrible piece of legislation, not because we oppose health care reform. I believe that Congress can do better and expect them to do so.

Sincerely,

Richard Hecker

To the editor:

In the Nov. 27 edition of The Highland County Press, Mr. John P. Hiestand proposed that “...all Republicans at all levels should reject government supported health care (benefits) for themselves and their families...” to avoid becoming hypocrites, since they opposed the recent health care bill.  

Mr. Hiestand also went on to say that “They do not believe that all the citizens of this country deserve excellent heath care coverage even if it is provided by the government.”

As a Republican, I can state with 100-percent confidence that Mr. Hiestand is completely incorrect about his supposition that Republicans don’t want excellent health care for ALL members of this country.

More importantly, Mr. Hiestand’s letter is another example of how the debate over the recent health care bill has completely run off the rails. Mr. Hiestand’s letter, like most articles and editorials on the subject, erroneously mistakes opposition to this particular piece of legislation with opposition to health care reform. That supposition immediately places the debate on the level of rooting at a sporting event - you have to pick one side or the other, leaving no room for debate on the actual content of the bill.

As with all pieces of legislation, the questions that need to be addressed are whether this particular piece of legislation will solve the identified problem(s), whether it does so in the most cost effective manner, and whether it will create more problems than it solves. Opposition to this bill should not be mistaken as opposition to health care reform. Opposition to this bill is simply opposition to this bill, nothing more, nothing less.

Authors of legislation that is worth passing should not be afraid of detailed debate. Rather, they should welcome debate, as it will strengthen their position and increase the likelihood of passage.  he manner in which this particular bill was passed, especially for such an important subject, should be a matter of concern to ALL Americans. Legislation on such an important subject should have undergone detailed debate, appropriate revisions, and compromise (as needed) until the final product could be supported by members of all political parties (and independents). Certainly, this would have taken much longer, perhaps even years. However, the result would have been a bill representative of the best that Congress could draft and likely would have been beneficial to the country. Instead, the bill was written hastily in a clandestine manner, was given insufficient time for review (much less debate), and was so poorly written that it was immediately challenged on constitutional grounds by multiple states.

If this bill, as written, were so beneficial to Americans, why did several congressional members of the sponsoring party have to be “bribed” for their votes with assurances that their states would not have to bear its cost? If this bill, as written, were so meritorious, why did it need to contain a clause overriding normal congressional protections in order to make repeal more difficult?  

Shouldn’t its merits alone be obvious enough to avoid repeal? If this bill were the best that Congress could create, why were there lawsuits immediately filed by numerous states challenging its constitutionality? If sufficient time were provided for review, why were members of the sponsoring party, including President Obama, completely unaware of its actual content?

Finally, if this bill, as written, were the best that Congress could do, why did the sponsors of the bill (not the Republicans) include an exemption for themselves from the bill, preserving their own “Cadillac” health care plan. To avoid hypocrisy, shouldn’t the authors of the bill have included themselves?

Republicans oppose this health care bill because it is a horrible piece of legislation, not because we oppose health care reform. I believe that Congress can do better and expect them to do so.

Sincerely,

Richard Hecker