Wolf Column: The essentials for reform

Central to any discussion about health-care reform is choice, affordability and portability. Another imperative: controlling costs.

There is no doubting that health-care costs have been on the rise for far too long and that something must be done to stem the tide of those without health insurance. Action on this complex issue is
critical, but legitimate questions have been raised about the speed with which health-care reform legislation is being rushed through Congress and its staggering trillion dollar price tag.

President Obama has promised that health-care reform will reduce costs, allow people to keep a health-care plan that they like, and that no family will pay higher taxes than in the 1990s. The plan being
fast-tracked through the House, in my opinion, doesn’t come close to meeting these goals. The fact that the world-renowned Mayo Clinic in Minnesota has expressed reservations about the plan speaks
volumes.

I am opposed to the bill working its way through the House. It features a government-run option to compete with private plans and a mandate that employers provide health insurance to workers and that
individuals enroll in an employer-based, private or government health insurance plan, or face penalties. For employers, under the proposed plan, businesses with a payroll above $500,000 that do not offer
coverage to their employees would pay a payroll tax of up to 8 percent. For individuals with income below 400 percent of the poverty level (about $88,000 for a family of four and $43,000 for individuals),
subsidies would be offered to help cover insurance costs.

To pay for the plan, the legislation includes a surtax for individuals reporting income above $280,000 and married couples above $350,000. The rate would take effect in 2011 and double in 2013 unless the
rest of the health-care bill saves the government more money than currently projected. Because this new tax is based on adjusted gross income rather than taxable income, deductions for state and local
taxes, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions would not be allowed for purposes of calculating the surtax. I am very concerned, however, that new taxes as proposed in the draft bill could place
significant burdens on small business owners, more than half of whom fall into the top tax brackets because of business income, and could result in significant job losses in an already struggling
economy.

A preliminary report released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed bill would cost over $1 trillion during the next 10 years and leave at least 17 million of the
nation’s estimated 47 million uninsured people still lacking health-care coverage.

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing on July 16, the director of the CBO testified that the draft legislation he has reviewed would raise health-care costs, not lower them. That is an extremely troubling
analysis, especially for an economy reeling from recession and spiking unemployment.

Congress must carefully study the implications of a costly new government spending program at a time when the country already owes more than $56 trillion in promised entitlement obligations through
Medicare and Social Security. Concern also must be raised about the national debt, which has doubled since 2000, topping $11 trillion for the first time in our history, and the unprecedented federal
deficits which could result in increased interest rates for consumers if we continue to finance government by borrowing from foreign lenders.

I am the co-author of the leading bill in the House to establish a bipartisan blue ribbon panel — called the SAFE Commission — to review entitlement spending with tax policy on the table to ensure that
Congress addresses these spending issues, which if left unchecked, will be disastrous for future generations.

Congress needs to get this legislation right and not rush through a plan under some artificial timetable. This is a critical national issue that deserves thoughtful and thorough consideration, including the
implications of a costly government program that could force private health plans to stop offering coverage and instead rely on government spending.

I believe that any plan put forward must control costs, not add billions of dollars to an already ballooning deficit; ensure competition and choice, and provide that patients and their doctors make the
decisions on medical care rather than a government-run agency.

We must be committed to offering affordable, accessible, and portable health-care choices with the goal of fixing what’s broken and keeping what works.

Republican Frank Wolf is a member of the United States House of Representatives from Virginia’s 10th District.