The Libertarian Party adamantly opposes the health care bill passed on Christmas Eve by the US Senate that is currently being considered in the US House of Representatives. The Libertarian Party calls on the US House to vote down this disastrous plan, and instead to pass laws reducing federal involvement in health care.
Libertarian Party Chairman William Redpath commented, "We oppose this horrible federal government expansion into health care, just as we have consistently opposed all the increased government intrusion into health care proposed by Republicans and Democrats over the years. For example, we vocally opposed the huge Medicare expansion pushed through Congress by Republicans in 2003."
Redpath continued, "It is a virtual certainty that the cost estimates of this legislation are drastically understated. When Medicare Part A started in 1965, the projected cost for 1990 was $9 billion. It turned out to be $67 billion. Should this bill become law, when the debt of the United States government is downgraded by ratings agencies shortly thereafter, it will not be a coincidence. That will increase interest rates, and the entire economy will suffer."
The Libertarian Party Platform says the following about health care: "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions."
The words "health care" and "medicine" are not found anywhere in the Constitution. Accordingly, the Libertarian Party asserts that Congress has no authority to regulate or appropriate money for health care. (The Libertarian Party has consistently argued for decades that the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses are not generic authorizations for spending and regulation.)
Redpath concluded, "This is a top-down, Washington-mandated control of health insurance and health care in this nation. It is the antithesis of consumer-driven health care, which is what will ultimately be necessary to control health care costs and to provide the best health care for the greatest number of people."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label oppose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oppose. Show all posts
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Doctor-Led Coalition Has Reservations With New Senate Healthcare Reform Bill
(BUSINESS WIRE)--The doctor-led Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights (Coalition) urged caution to legislators and the public as they consider Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’s healthcare reform proposal, America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, which was released today.
“The devil is in the details,” former president of the American Medical Association and current spokesman of the Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights Dr. Donald Palmisano said. “We have the best medical system in the world, so we want to make sure any reform goes to help fixing the problems – not creating new ones.”
The Coalition, which represents more than 10,000 people – mostly doctors and other healthcare professionals – has been a proponent of health system reform, but is concerned that current legislative options could have a negative impact on patient care. Specifically, the Coalition opposes a government-controlled public option which would lead to long waiting lines to see a doctor, substandard care, and an end to medical innovation. While the new Baucus bill does not include the public option there are other areas of potential worry.
“We will continue to review the bill, but already we have serious reservations with some aspects of the new proposed legislation,” Dr. Palmisano said. “Specifically, any co-op that serves as a Trojan horse for a government-controlled public option would be a non-starter. Additionally, we are very concerned about individual insurance mandates and a tax on health insurance plans. We want to expand patient options – not limit them. And we need to get costs under control – not increase them. And although I’m a doctor, I’m also a consumer and I know that if insurance companies are taxed, that cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.”
The Coalition agrees that more should be done to improve access to care for those who need it. Specifically, the Coalition supports market enhancements that expand access to health care for the uninsured like health savings accounts, tax credits, and vouchers for those who need them. Additionally, the Coalition believes that rising cost of healthcare could be slowed by implementing reforms such as comprehensive medical malpractice reform and the ability for individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. And patients should always have the right to privately contract with their physician, without government interference.
The Coalition, however, opposes cuts to Medicare. Early reports indicate that the new Senate bill would cut more than $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years.
“Already, there are many cases where Medicare is paying less for care than what it actually costs doctors to provide the care. By cutting Medicare even further, we would see senior citizens lose care and lose access to their doctors,” Dr. Palmisano said. “It’s a sad fact of life, but if doctors can’t afford to keep their practice with the patients they have, they’ll either leave the profession or go somewhere where they can.”
“We hope that legislators will work with medical professionals as they craft legislation,” Dr. Palmisano said. “The Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights has had dozens of productive meetings with elected officials and their staffs over the past several months and looks forward to working with Members of Congress in the weeks ahead as we all seek to improve patient care.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
“The devil is in the details,” former president of the American Medical Association and current spokesman of the Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights Dr. Donald Palmisano said. “We have the best medical system in the world, so we want to make sure any reform goes to help fixing the problems – not creating new ones.”
The Coalition, which represents more than 10,000 people – mostly doctors and other healthcare professionals – has been a proponent of health system reform, but is concerned that current legislative options could have a negative impact on patient care. Specifically, the Coalition opposes a government-controlled public option which would lead to long waiting lines to see a doctor, substandard care, and an end to medical innovation. While the new Baucus bill does not include the public option there are other areas of potential worry.
“We will continue to review the bill, but already we have serious reservations with some aspects of the new proposed legislation,” Dr. Palmisano said. “Specifically, any co-op that serves as a Trojan horse for a government-controlled public option would be a non-starter. Additionally, we are very concerned about individual insurance mandates and a tax on health insurance plans. We want to expand patient options – not limit them. And we need to get costs under control – not increase them. And although I’m a doctor, I’m also a consumer and I know that if insurance companies are taxed, that cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.”
The Coalition agrees that more should be done to improve access to care for those who need it. Specifically, the Coalition supports market enhancements that expand access to health care for the uninsured like health savings accounts, tax credits, and vouchers for those who need them. Additionally, the Coalition believes that rising cost of healthcare could be slowed by implementing reforms such as comprehensive medical malpractice reform and the ability for individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. And patients should always have the right to privately contract with their physician, without government interference.
The Coalition, however, opposes cuts to Medicare. Early reports indicate that the new Senate bill would cut more than $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years.
“Already, there are many cases where Medicare is paying less for care than what it actually costs doctors to provide the care. By cutting Medicare even further, we would see senior citizens lose care and lose access to their doctors,” Dr. Palmisano said. “It’s a sad fact of life, but if doctors can’t afford to keep their practice with the patients they have, they’ll either leave the profession or go somewhere where they can.”
“We hope that legislators will work with medical professionals as they craft legislation,” Dr. Palmisano said. “The Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights has had dozens of productive meetings with elected officials and their staffs over the past several months and looks forward to working with Members of Congress in the weeks ahead as we all seek to improve patient care.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, January 26, 2009
Senator Collins to Oppose Treasury Secretary Nominee's Confirmation
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- U.S. Senator Susan Collins today announced that she will oppose the confirmation of Timothy Geithner, who was nominated to be U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. The Senate is expected to vote on the confirmation tonight circa 6:00 p.m.
Senator Collins placed this statement in the Senate Record:
Mr. President, I rise today to state my opposition to the confirmation of Timothy Geithner to be Treasury Secretary.
Our current economic crisis is, in part, a crisis of confidence. If we are to return to prosperity, the American people must have confidence in those who would chart our course. Mr. Gauthier's professional background and experience should inspire that confidence. They are overshadowed, however, by the personal issues regarding his own tax returns.
When these issues first arose, they were cited as examples of the baffling complexity of our tax code and of the need for reform. They were described by the nominee himself as "careless mistakes." As more details have emerged, it has become clear to me that this is not merely a matter of complexity leading to mistakes, but of inexcusable negligence.
Mr. Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. He failed to make these tax payments despite the fact that the IMF repeatedly reminded him of this obligation. He signed paperwork acknowledging this obligation. He received extra compensation that he acknowledged at the time was for the purpose of paying this obligation. Yet when he filed tax returns for the years he was employed at the IMF, he did not pay self-employment taxes.
After working for the IMF for three years, Mr. Geithner was audited by the Internal Revenue Service in 2006, which discovered that he had failed to pay his self employment taxes. Mr. Geithner was ordered to correct his tax returns for 2003 and 2004, and he paid the amount that he owed for those years.
But Mr. Geithner had made the same omission in 2001 and 2002, years that were outside the scope of the audit. Yet having been informed by the IRS of his omission for 2003 and 2004, Mr. Geithner took no action to correct the deficiency from 2001 and 2002 -- years for which the statute of limitations had already run. In fact, Mr. Geithner chose not to make the payments until he was being considered for this position at the end of 2008.
A similar failure to correct omissions when informed of them occurred when the accountant who prepared Mr. Geithner's tax returns in 2006 informed him that certain deductions Mr. Geithner had taken for three earlier years were not allowed. These deductions involved writing-off overnight camps as child care expenses. Mr. Geithner did not attempt to claim the deduction for 2006, but did not correct his returns for the previous years. And again, this deficiency was not addressed until late last year, when Mr. Geithner was being considered for this Cabinet position.
Mr. President, throughout the State of Maine and indeed throughout the nation, millions of hard-working Americans pay their taxes on time and in full. Our taxation system is essentially an honor system that depends on self-assessment and honesty. When taxpayers make mistakes, they are expected to correct them promptly and completely. How can we tell the taxpayers that they are expected to comply fully with our tax laws, when these laws have been treated so cavalierly by the person who would lead the Treasury Department and, ultimately, the Internal Revenue Service, when he was applying them to himself?
Therefore, Mr. President, I must oppose this nomination.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Senator Collins placed this statement in the Senate Record:
Mr. President, I rise today to state my opposition to the confirmation of Timothy Geithner to be Treasury Secretary.
Our current economic crisis is, in part, a crisis of confidence. If we are to return to prosperity, the American people must have confidence in those who would chart our course. Mr. Gauthier's professional background and experience should inspire that confidence. They are overshadowed, however, by the personal issues regarding his own tax returns.
When these issues first arose, they were cited as examples of the baffling complexity of our tax code and of the need for reform. They were described by the nominee himself as "careless mistakes." As more details have emerged, it has become clear to me that this is not merely a matter of complexity leading to mistakes, but of inexcusable negligence.
Mr. Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. He failed to make these tax payments despite the fact that the IMF repeatedly reminded him of this obligation. He signed paperwork acknowledging this obligation. He received extra compensation that he acknowledged at the time was for the purpose of paying this obligation. Yet when he filed tax returns for the years he was employed at the IMF, he did not pay self-employment taxes.
After working for the IMF for three years, Mr. Geithner was audited by the Internal Revenue Service in 2006, which discovered that he had failed to pay his self employment taxes. Mr. Geithner was ordered to correct his tax returns for 2003 and 2004, and he paid the amount that he owed for those years.
But Mr. Geithner had made the same omission in 2001 and 2002, years that were outside the scope of the audit. Yet having been informed by the IRS of his omission for 2003 and 2004, Mr. Geithner took no action to correct the deficiency from 2001 and 2002 -- years for which the statute of limitations had already run. In fact, Mr. Geithner chose not to make the payments until he was being considered for this position at the end of 2008.
A similar failure to correct omissions when informed of them occurred when the accountant who prepared Mr. Geithner's tax returns in 2006 informed him that certain deductions Mr. Geithner had taken for three earlier years were not allowed. These deductions involved writing-off overnight camps as child care expenses. Mr. Geithner did not attempt to claim the deduction for 2006, but did not correct his returns for the previous years. And again, this deficiency was not addressed until late last year, when Mr. Geithner was being considered for this Cabinet position.
Mr. President, throughout the State of Maine and indeed throughout the nation, millions of hard-working Americans pay their taxes on time and in full. Our taxation system is essentially an honor system that depends on self-assessment and honesty. When taxpayers make mistakes, they are expected to correct them promptly and completely. How can we tell the taxpayers that they are expected to comply fully with our tax laws, when these laws have been treated so cavalierly by the person who would lead the Treasury Department and, ultimately, the Internal Revenue Service, when he was applying them to himself?
Therefore, Mr. President, I must oppose this nomination.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Coalition for a Democratic Workplace Calls on 111th Congress to Oppose Anti-Worker Employee Free Choice Act
/PRNewswire/ -- The 500-member Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) today (January 7) released a letter it delivered to every member of the 111th Congress. In the letter, CDW urged members of the Senate and House "to oppose all efforts to pass any provision included in the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA H.R. 800/S. 1041 in the 110th Congress)."
"We wanted to take the opportunity to remind members of Congress of the overwhelming opposition from the business community, their constituents and union households to this anti-worker legislation," said Brian Worth with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. "This bill is a job-killer and fundamentally undemocratic."
The letter also stated:
"This legislation poses not only an assault on an individual's
right to privacy, but a direct threat to economic growth and job
creation. Particularly at a time of economic uncertainty, Congress
should not enact measures that threaten our economic
competitiveness, including the Employee Free Choice Act.
Furthermore, this legislation would have a particularly
devastating impact on small employers who are the primary source
for new jobs in our economy."
President-elect Obama's Administration and the new Congress will face its first true test early next year in the form of the anti-worker Employee Free Choice Act -- that allows unionization without secret ballots for workers. This Act, more aptly titled the Employee "Forced" Choice Act, is nothing short of a full-frontal assault on American democracy and worker privacy. Backed by union special interests and their Congressional allies, the anti-worker bill would effectively strip employees of the right to vote in private when deciding whether or not to join a union.
"It's ironic that members of Congress, all of whom were just elected by secret ballot, would even consider legislation that would remove that right for millions of American workers," added Worth.
CDW survey data indicates that support for maintaining private ballots in union organizing cuts across party lines. By a significant majority, Democrats, Republicans and Independents support maintaining a worker's right to cast their vote in private. Even among union households, a significant majority (69%) oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. And 76% of union voters say having a federally supervised secret ballot election is the best way to protect workers' rights when organizing a union.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"We wanted to take the opportunity to remind members of Congress of the overwhelming opposition from the business community, their constituents and union households to this anti-worker legislation," said Brian Worth with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. "This bill is a job-killer and fundamentally undemocratic."
The letter also stated:
"This legislation poses not only an assault on an individual's
right to privacy, but a direct threat to economic growth and job
creation. Particularly at a time of economic uncertainty, Congress
should not enact measures that threaten our economic
competitiveness, including the Employee Free Choice Act.
Furthermore, this legislation would have a particularly
devastating impact on small employers who are the primary source
for new jobs in our economy."
President-elect Obama's Administration and the new Congress will face its first true test early next year in the form of the anti-worker Employee Free Choice Act -- that allows unionization without secret ballots for workers. This Act, more aptly titled the Employee "Forced" Choice Act, is nothing short of a full-frontal assault on American democracy and worker privacy. Backed by union special interests and their Congressional allies, the anti-worker bill would effectively strip employees of the right to vote in private when deciding whether or not to join a union.
"It's ironic that members of Congress, all of whom were just elected by secret ballot, would even consider legislation that would remove that right for millions of American workers," added Worth.
CDW survey data indicates that support for maintaining private ballots in union organizing cuts across party lines. By a significant majority, Democrats, Republicans and Independents support maintaining a worker's right to cast their vote in private. Even among union households, a significant majority (69%) oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. And 76% of union voters say having a federally supervised secret ballot election is the best way to protect workers' rights when organizing a union.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)