Thursday, August 13, 2009

Ways and Means FAQ - some clarification, please?

After seeing this on the House Majority Leaders website, I had a few questions about some of these comments. These questions are generally directed towards members of the House Ways and Means Committee; they are merely items in your press release that I would like some clarification on:

First of all, would any of those who voted to pass the bill please explain to me what "Comparative Effectiveness Research" is? I've heard a lot of things, and I'd like to know exactly what a CER-Panel would be looking for (i.e. criteria for judging different methods of treatment).

Secondly, in reference to Point/Question 27: Is 5 hours really enough time to "walk through" a 1000+ page bill? I like to think that I'm a quick reader, but anyone who can read a 200 page book in only an hour (and still comprehend the ideas expressed), well....that's ability.

Third: I noticced that you mention employers would pay insurance on a sliding scale for employees based on hourly labor. As a part-time employee who didn't qualify for food stamps a month ago (because I didn't work enough hours?), forgive my lack of enthusiasm for a program that would treat my medical care in the same way. Which brings me to point 4.

Question 4: According to this document, anyone who makes $10,000+ a year has "a responsibility" to purchase healthcare. Why? I myself made just over the cutoff for exemption from this "responsibility"; thus, I would be required by law to buy insurance that I could barely afford.

Seriously, guys...I'm a politically-minded constituent. I regularly exercise my voting rights. Why do you want to stick it to me and everyone else in my position? Part-time employees are the backbone of most larger businesses. The student age part-timers are already going to be paying for these "reforms" for the rest of our lives. Now you're going to force some of us further into poverty, simply to provide the somehow "less-fortunate" with governmentally-decided-and-run healthcare.

Thanks, but no thanks.

No comments: