Members of Congress Divided on House Bill’s Implications for California

Members of Congress Divided on House Bill’s Implications for California

A number of California Democrats trumpeted the approval of the House bill and immediately started listing what the bill would do for their constituents back home. Republican lawmakers saw things differently, warning that the bill would force California to change its medical malpractice laws.

The House on Nov. 7 voted 220-215 to pass its version of health reform legislation (HR 3962), which would create a public option with rates negotiated directly with providers. However, California’s representatives are split in their support of the legislation.

Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo, Doris Matsui and Diane Watson all voted for the bill and celebrated its passage.

Eshoo noted that under the legislation, 84,000 families in her district would receive subsidies to help them purchase health coverage. In addition, Eshoo touted an amendment she wrote along with the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would allow generic versions of biotechnology drugs to come to market, which she said would reduce government drug spending by $6 billion over 10 years.

Matsui said the bill would help 2,000 families in her district avoid declaring bankruptcy because of health insurance costs, among other benefits. Watson estimated that the legislation would allow 138,000 uninsured residents in her district to obtain coverage.

Across the aisle, Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Dan Lundgren (R-Calif.) and Ed Royce (R-Calif.) all voted against the legislation and characterized it as a government takeover of health care. Calvert said the bill represents the “first steps toward the creation of a single-payer system.” In addition, Calvert said that the bill would force California to repeal laws that cap fees for trial lawyers and limit punitive damages in medical malpractice cases, forcing the state to choose between receiving federal funding for health care services or maintaining “effective liability reforms.” Furthermore, Calvert said that there is “no requirement for identification documentation whatsoever” in a provision in the House bill that seeks to prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving care under the new law.

Lundgren said the bill would eliminate jobs and cut $440 billion from Medicare.

Royce said the bill would give “bureaucrats an unprecedented and expansive role in our health care sector.”

Lawmakers are not the only ones who have differing opinions on the House reform legislation.

A group of a dozen economists, including Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution and Len Nichols of the New American Foundation, in a letter urged members of Congress to support the House bill. According to the economists, the legislation would reduce the federal deficit by more than $100 billion in its first 10 years and includes “initial steps to ‘bend the cost curve'” in health care.

However, America’s Health Insurance Plans President and CEO Karen Ignagni in a statement said the legislation “fails to bend the health care cost curve and breaks the promise that those who like their current coverage can keep it.” 

More news on the reform debate is provided below.

Administration Message

House

Senate

Debate Over Abortion Coverage

What’s in the Bills

Shaping the Debate

Poll

Exit mobile version