Ninth District representative answers

questions about health care reform
Q: Congressman Hill, do you agree with Wesley J. Smith, author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America"? In the book he reminds us that the devil's in the implementation and not just the bill. He states that the legislation itself is only part of the problem with Obamacare. If the bill were to pass hundreds of bureaucrats will have years to govern the details of the law. This is where the real assault on American freedoms can be achieved as many regulatory actions are brought about after legislation and under the radar. For example, any end-of-life counseling provision should be specified in the bill to be purely voluntary and that counseling should be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation does not push in a certain direction, refusing treatment for example, the regulations could.

Rick Berry

Madison

A: Because of the complexity of our nation's health care system, I believe the implementation of any reform legislation should be drawn out over several years. That will allow us to see what works, what doesn't, what needs to be addressed immediately and how best to fix problems that arise. In terms of ambiguity on the end-of-life counseling or advanced directives provision, I can assure you that the language is perfectly clear on that issue - the option to receive such counseling or professional services is indeed an option (completely voluntary) and simply makes it a covered service should Medicare beneficiaries seek such services. This is a deeply personal issue and should remain one .



Q: Mr. Hill, do you believe that making health care services more accessible, transparent and open, through standardized insurance claim forms and equal tax breaks for individuals and companies, will help control costs by helping consumers and businesses compare "apples to apples" across the health care spectrum?

Denise Leiske

Madison

A: I appreciate your suggestions and will take them back to Washington with me. I have gotten several excellent legislative ideas from folks all over Southern Indiana during this district work period. That's how democracy should work, and I appreciate you partaking in the process.

As for transparency and a more streamlined system, the House bill does call for a switch to electronic medical records. This will decrease the number of medical errors, allow all of your doctors to see what their colleagues are prescribing, and cut costs by eliminating burdensome, and often repetitive, paperwork.



Q: Congressman Hill, do you think that by infusing personal responsibility into health care reform allows us all to maintain our cherished freedom to live our lives without government intrusion?

Kenny Lock

Madison

A: Personal responsibility is the key to addressing many of the health issues currently facing Americans. I strongly believe that and practice it in my daily life by exercising and eating well. While personal responsibility is a significant factor to our health, many folks have conditions that are beyond their control. One aspect of the health care reform legislation I find essential, critical and very beneficial, is that insurance companies would no longer be able deny folks coverage if they have a preexisting condition.



Q: Congressman Hill, do you agree with the president about the single-payer universal health care plan when he said at an AFL-CIO conference in 2004:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.... A single payer health care plan - universal health care plan - that's what I would like to see."?

Lisa Seng Shadday

Hanover

A: The key aspects I would like to see in health care reform legislation are that it reforms the current system, is deficit neutral, and ensures all Americans will have the ability to purchase effective and affordable coverage even if they have a preexisting condition. As such, I am not committed to one particular plan, like the single-payer option, but instead believe we should keep all ideas on the table. However, I would note that the single-payer plan is not in the present House health care reform bill.



Q: According to HR 3200, Title IV, Subtitle A - Shared Responsibility, Section 59 B on page 167, individuals who do not purchase the health insurance or fail to meet the government required minimum coverage in their plan will be subject to a 2.5 percent tax on their adjusted gross income. But said tax shall not exceed the "applicable national average premium for such taxable year." Congressman, do you believe in the right of individuals to make decisions on their own behalf? I might try to convince a 25-year-old man that in spite of the fact that it does not look like he is going to need insurance, that he should get it anyway just in case. But if he does not want to, I think that is his absolute right...to decide to forego health insurance. It is not the job of any government to force that on him. And is that really what the 2.5 percent tax is about -- trying to create an individual mandate through a tax penalty?

L. Stacey Horine

Madison

A: I can understand your concern about the shared responsibility provisions within H.R. 3200. The mandates are a significant policy shift. I do believe, however, that bringing everyone into the insurance pool - even young, healthy individuals - will allow the insurance risk to be spread among a larger population, thus driving down health care costs for all Americans. On the issue of cost, I'd like to reinforce that uninsured Americans seeking medical treatment in emergency rooms is the most costly treatment available, and an ineffective way to address preventative and chronic conditions.



Q: Mr. Hill, do you believe that the states should eliminate burdensome regulations so insurance companies can compete equally across state lines? Do you believe that the federal government should expedite the states eliminating these regulations?

Helen Cope

Madison

A: The difficulty with this idea - a fair and good suggestion - is that states differ significantly on what minimum benefits they require insurers to provide. The current House health care reform bill calls for a national standard of care, essentially a base minimum plans would have to meet. States have had decades to address health care reform. While some have, most have not, and to just keep kicking this can down the road is irresponsible, in my opinion.



Q: Can the Congressman explain why a health care insurance program modeled after Medicare for all ages of Americans is good when the Medicare for seniors itself is going broke?

Kevin N. Lichlyter

Madison

A: I have heard many misconceptions about the health reform proposals working their way through Congress right now. One of those is that they would establish a "single-payer" or Medicare for all system in this country. This is simply untrue. A "Public Option" would be one option for health care coverage among other private insurance plans. The bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, would require the "Public Option" to adhere to the same rules and regulations as private insurers, and must live on the revenue it generates from its premiums. In no way would individuals be forced into the "Public Option." Private insurance will be available in a healthy and competitive marketplace.



Q: Congressman, shouldn't responsibility for health be placed in the hands of the individual patient (after consulting his doctor of choice) rather than taking government direction for treatment or life style.

Dottie Smith

Madison

A: I wholeheartedly agree that health decisions are between the patient and his or her doctor. I was happy to see that none of the proposals in Congress would set up a system that would have bureaucrats dictating treatments or denying care options for doctors.