A tale of two plans

On Saturday November 7, 2009, the House of Representatives engaged in a historic debate over two distinct health care proposals. Those hours were the end result of months of town hall meetings, congressional hearings, and conversations with constituents.

Millions of Americans have written, called, and e-mailed to express their feelings about H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I, personally, have met with Nebraskans throughout the Third District and received thousands of calls, e-mails and letters -- on both sides of the issue.

It has been an emotional debate, as there are for issues as important as health care.

On this Saturday, though, Congress had two distinct options in front of them -- the Democrat majority's version and the Republican alternative.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose to introduce legislation which imposes heavy taxes and fees on both individuals and businesses, including a burdensome "play-or-pay" tax on businesses which cannot obtain affordable employee coverage. The bill costs $1.5 trillion dollars and creates more than 118 offices, bureaus, commissions, programs and bureaucracies charged with such obligations as "establishing waiting lists" and determining "categories of covered treatments." In effect, the legislation creates a new level of bureaucracy -- the super bureaucrat.

The taxes and fees included in Pelosi's bill will cost our economy 5.5 million jobs while imposing $729.5 billion in news taxes on small businesses -- at a time when these same small businesses are our best bet to rebuild our economy.

This misguided attempt at health care reform disqualifies Health Savings Accounts, which provide more than eight million people with access to low-cost health coverage, and would cause 10 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage to lose their coverage.

By contrast, the alternative I supported takes an incremental approach to restructuring the health care system. It uses market-based principles and would trim costs through strict limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, expanding health savings accounts, allowing consumers to buy insurance from out-of-state companies, and providing tax breaks for insurance purchases.

The Republican alternative would reduce health care premiums up to 10 percent and lower federal budget deficits by $68 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The contrast couldn't be clearer -- the version I supported would lower health care costs without launching more spending, higher taxes, and increased federal mandates.

Unfortunately, this option was defeated along party lines by a vote of 258 to 176.

Yet, the House Majority ignored Americans' concerns and pushed through a bill which would implement a government takeover of health care which actually increases costs and adds billions to our ever-growing federal debt.

The Speaker's version -- which passed along party lines by a vote of 220 to 215 with 39 Democrats joining nearly every Republican -- represents a new level of federal bureaucracy designed to centralize health care decision making in Washington D.C. at the expense of patient-centered care. It will invariably lead to more expensive, less responsive health care.

It is regrettable Congress did not work in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation which would make health care affordable and accessible at a price tag our nation could actually afford. Instead Congress took another path -- a path which costs $1.5 trillion, puts bureaucrats between patients and their doctors, and creates untold new layers of federal bureaucracy.

The silver lining is this was but the first of many steps for this bill. The Senate has yet to act on its version -- after which the two chambers must combine their respective bills. This process is expected to extend into early next year.

Unfortunately for now, Democrats in Congress have decided to take a path which overspends, under delivers, and fails to fix what is broken.