Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Murphy defends ‘No’ vote on health reform bill
By Jamie Larson
Hudson-Catskill Newspapers
SARATOGA SPRINGS — The sweeping healthcare reform bill backed by President Barack Obama was passed Saturday night by just five votes, 220 to 215.
While Democrats were only successful in bringing one Republican across the isle to pass the bill, which includes the government run public option, 39 Democrats voted against the bill.
Columbia and Greene County’s new Democratic congressman, Rep. Scott Murphy, NY-20th District, was one of those no votes against the bill and his party Saturday.
Murphy said that while he agreed with aspects of the bill, including the public option, the cost was just to high to garner his support. He also said that the bill “fails to restrain the monopolistic practices of private insurers, which allow them to continue to increase premiums already weighing on families and small businesses.”
“I firmly believe that health care reform is critical to strengthening our nation,” Murphy said just before 1 a.m. Sunday morning, “However, in order to achieve this goal, we must address the fundamentally flawed system that has led to skyrocketing costs, bankrupt families and extremely profitable insurance companies. For these reasons, I voted no on H.R. 3962 tonight.”
The congressman said along with the public option the bill was filled with a number of reforms that he “wholeheartedly” supports. Murphy agreed with the bill’s elimination of lifetime caps on insurance benefits and pre-existing condition exclusion. He said he also approved of H.R. 3962’s investment in prevention and primary care and the creation by the bill of a health insurance exchange, which he said will “force insurance companies to compete.”
“However,” Murphy said, “I have consistently said that any bill that Congress passes must curb costs and keep health care affordable in the long term. During these difficult economic times, an unacceptably high price tag will stress our already overstretched federal budget and place even more burdens on our hard working individuals, families and small businesses. We need to fix the system now, and not put off the hard choices for another generation.”
Murphy added that he was deeply frustrated with the last minute addition of over $50 billion in taxes on businesses including medical device manufacturers and paper mills, the two largest private employers in the 20th district.
Murphy ran for office on a platform centered around the support and cultivation of small business, and he said Sunday that he feels the new bill makes healthcare too expensive for small business.
While Democrats were only successful in bringing one Republican across the isle to pass the bill, which includes the government run public option, 39 Democrats voted against the bill.
Columbia and Greene County’s new Democratic congressman, Rep. Scott Murphy, NY-20th District, was one of those no votes against the bill and his party Saturday.
Murphy said that while he agreed with aspects of the bill, including the public option, the cost was just to high to garner his support. He also said that the bill “fails to restrain the monopolistic practices of private insurers, which allow them to continue to increase premiums already weighing on families and small businesses.”
“I firmly believe that health care reform is critical to strengthening our nation,” Murphy said just before 1 a.m. Sunday morning, “However, in order to achieve this goal, we must address the fundamentally flawed system that has led to skyrocketing costs, bankrupt families and extremely profitable insurance companies. For these reasons, I voted no on H.R. 3962 tonight.”
The congressman said along with the public option the bill was filled with a number of reforms that he “wholeheartedly” supports. Murphy agreed with the bill’s elimination of lifetime caps on insurance benefits and pre-existing condition exclusion. He said he also approved of H.R. 3962’s investment in prevention and primary care and the creation by the bill of a health insurance exchange, which he said will “force insurance companies to compete.”
“However,” Murphy said, “I have consistently said that any bill that Congress passes must curb costs and keep health care affordable in the long term. During these difficult economic times, an unacceptably high price tag will stress our already overstretched federal budget and place even more burdens on our hard working individuals, families and small businesses. We need to fix the system now, and not put off the hard choices for another generation.”
Murphy added that he was deeply frustrated with the last minute addition of over $50 billion in taxes on businesses including medical device manufacturers and paper mills, the two largest private employers in the 20th district.
Murphy ran for office on a platform centered around the support and cultivation of small business, and he said Sunday that he feels the new bill makes healthcare too expensive for small business.
Share this Article
 |
 |
|
| House passes health reform bill; Murphy votes with opposition | Truck flips, driver escapes with few injuries |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
cocoloco wrote on Nov 9, 2009 10:01 AM:
" Mister Murphy is going to have one tough battle
for re-election "
for re-election "
cocoloco wrote on Nov 9, 2009 10:57 AM:
" Majority? The majority of Americans
want health care reform. "
want health care reform. "
HollyRock wrote on Nov 9, 2009 11:39 AM:
" Sure, we want Health Care reform, but we want one that makes sense. Not this money hungry, socialist reform that was voted in. "
OV Observer wrote on Nov 9, 2009 1:29 PM:
" Holly, please define what you mean by "socialist." Specifically, what exactly about the House bill do you consider to be "socialist." I suspect that you use that label because you heard it on Fox News and have no conception whatsoever as to what the term actually means. Feel free to prove me wrong.
As for Congressman Murphy, his vote reeks of political calculation. Unfortunately, he lacked the political courage to do what his newly-minted colleague from a much more conservative District, NY-23's Bill Owens, had the audacity to do. Fortunately, his vote wasn't needed. "
As for Congressman Murphy, his vote reeks of political calculation. Unfortunately, he lacked the political courage to do what his newly-minted colleague from a much more conservative District, NY-23's Bill Owens, had the audacity to do. Fortunately, his vote wasn't needed. "
workingtired wrote on Nov 9, 2009 2:02 PM:
" Sounds like he did his job. He held town hall meetings, listed to the public and made a decision. He even had a follow up survey before he voted to allow you one more time to express your concern. If you read his response he wants reform, just not this bill.
On the other hand Pelosi celebrated her victory by wearing her bright red suit
what type of statement is she making?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-democrats-pass-sweeping-health-care-reform/story?id=9027367 "
On the other hand Pelosi celebrated her victory by wearing her bright red suit
what type of statement is she making?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-democrats-pass-sweeping-health-care-reform/story?id=9027367 "
stonepound wrote on Nov 9, 2009 4:50 PM:
" these tea baggers are so phony. They could care less about the 9 million dss lost. Who cares if the gop raises the mortage recording fee? Tea baggers just don't want kids to get health coverage. "
BCJ wrote on Nov 12, 2009 1:54 AM:
" The so-called "Teabaggers" don't go around calling you names, so using a derogatory sexual slur to describe them is rude and uncalled for. The Tea party people are calling for smaller government in general and aren't aligned with either party.
As for healthcare, Congress technically has no power under the Constitution to compel a citizen to buy anything, be it health insurance or toilet paper. The Enumerated Powers are very explicit. If you want to pass something with a public option or to define access to healthcare as a right, you need to pass an Amendment to the Constitution.
No one on either side of the debate wants people to go without healthcare. The debate is over how that situation should be corrected. The cost of healthcare needs to be addressed, not just how it's paid for. Interstate competition is a big one, and is something that is actually within Congress's power to legislate (Interstate Commerce being one of the most important powers granted, right after providing for the National Defense). Tort reform and placing caps on mal practice payouts are essential. Don't misread this as Doctors being resolved of liability. It's more like Workers Compensation insurance, where the state lays out how much one gets paid for any given injury and that payment is automatic; no lawyers, no juries. This avoids the two most costly parts of mal practice law suits: jury awards that are at the discretion of a random group of people (which means mal practice insurance companies have a hard time assesing what their risk actually is for a given doctor) and attorney's fees.
There's also a societal problem with managed health care programs in general. Since people go into the doctor's office and just pay their $20 co pay, they really have no idea how much the visit actually costs. This leads to overuse of the system, as many people are likely to go in far more frequently than they would otherwise. That, combined with prevenative (which is, liability covering) medicine means that a single visit may (though of course not always) result in hundreds or even thousands of dollars in tests. If you pay in $350 a month, but every few months you get $1,000 in tests, you're draining the insurance company's fund that they maintain for paying out losses. While there is still a net gain for them, this can be wiped out by a heart attack, cancer, or a slip and fall at home that results in a broken bone.
I also fail to see how collecting 10 years of taxes for 5 years of full benefits and 2 years of partial benefits makes this budget neutral, especially when coupled with the fact that they're likely going to take hundreds of billions from a failing Medicare system (so your parents or grandparents will lose THEIR benefits) is going to help anything in terms of the deficit. There were also plenty of unfunded mandates in the Senate bill, and I imagine a great many will end up in the final version too. States in the red won't be able to pay for it so other states will have to pick up the slack.
Ultimately, I don't want the government to run anything related to health care. They can't run the Post Office, the VA hospitals, Medicare/Medicaid, or Amtrak. How are they supposed to run a standard hospital? "
As for healthcare, Congress technically has no power under the Constitution to compel a citizen to buy anything, be it health insurance or toilet paper. The Enumerated Powers are very explicit. If you want to pass something with a public option or to define access to healthcare as a right, you need to pass an Amendment to the Constitution.
No one on either side of the debate wants people to go without healthcare. The debate is over how that situation should be corrected. The cost of healthcare needs to be addressed, not just how it's paid for. Interstate competition is a big one, and is something that is actually within Congress's power to legislate (Interstate Commerce being one of the most important powers granted, right after providing for the National Defense). Tort reform and placing caps on mal practice payouts are essential. Don't misread this as Doctors being resolved of liability. It's more like Workers Compensation insurance, where the state lays out how much one gets paid for any given injury and that payment is automatic; no lawyers, no juries. This avoids the two most costly parts of mal practice law suits: jury awards that are at the discretion of a random group of people (which means mal practice insurance companies have a hard time assesing what their risk actually is for a given doctor) and attorney's fees.
There's also a societal problem with managed health care programs in general. Since people go into the doctor's office and just pay their $20 co pay, they really have no idea how much the visit actually costs. This leads to overuse of the system, as many people are likely to go in far more frequently than they would otherwise. That, combined with prevenative (which is, liability covering) medicine means that a single visit may (though of course not always) result in hundreds or even thousands of dollars in tests. If you pay in $350 a month, but every few months you get $1,000 in tests, you're draining the insurance company's fund that they maintain for paying out losses. While there is still a net gain for them, this can be wiped out by a heart attack, cancer, or a slip and fall at home that results in a broken bone.
I also fail to see how collecting 10 years of taxes for 5 years of full benefits and 2 years of partial benefits makes this budget neutral, especially when coupled with the fact that they're likely going to take hundreds of billions from a failing Medicare system (so your parents or grandparents will lose THEIR benefits) is going to help anything in terms of the deficit. There were also plenty of unfunded mandates in the Senate bill, and I imagine a great many will end up in the final version too. States in the red won't be able to pay for it so other states will have to pick up the slack.
Ultimately, I don't want the government to run anything related to health care. They can't run the Post Office, the VA hospitals, Medicare/Medicaid, or Amtrak. How are they supposed to run a standard hospital? "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
codesguy wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:42 AM: