MARVIN ROGERS OP-ED: That Don’t Taste Good: My Response to “Health Care Reform.”
By HHR | March 22nd, 2010 | Category: Featured, General, Heathcare, HHR Contributors, Opinion/Reviews, Politics | 4 comments
By Marvin Rogers
I’ve seen a few comments floating around on the Internet that infer that by disagreeing with the narrowly-partisan Democratic Health Care Reform Act, that by default I must not want uninsured Americans to be covered. I cannot let an untrue assertion of such gravity go un-rebuffed.
Many of you know that when I’m not politicking– I’m a bilingual interpreter by trade. I’ve therefore been privileged to be present in the medical rooms with patients and their doctors on many occasions. This has afforded me a vivid and firsthand account of the health care needs of the under-served. I have never met a member of congress, R, D, or I, who opposes people being able to see a doctor when they are sick. The motive behind the opposition to this bill rests in the details of the legislation.
1. An alarming number of members of the House reported that they did not have time to read this legislation that was crafted and pushed at the 11th hour. So how could they know that it does what the President says it’s supposed to do?
2.The lack of cost controls reinforces the imperative notion that we can’t keep swiping a debit card that is attached to an account (a.k.a. The Federal Government) that has a negative balance.
3. The cuts to Medicare Advantage and the imposed tax increases are severely problematic.
4. The plan reportedly raises premiums on people who don’t have their insurance provided by their employer.
5. Poll after poll indicates that a large majority of the American people oppose this legislation and that jobs and the economy are what the American people wake up thinking about in the morning. So instead of lowering the quality of health care so that everyone is universally covered, how about we as a nation focus on the economy and apply ourselves to working to raise the standard of living of the American people so that all have an opportunity to be able to afford quality health care?
I’m for the promotion of Health Savings Accounts, interstate competition to lower private insurance premiums, expansion of sliding-scale-based federally qualified health care centers (for low-income citizens), and an unrelenting laser focus on jobs which will, in turn, allow our hardworking citizens to be able to take pride in funding their health care needs.
In conclusion, the fact that I don’t like the Democrats’ recipe for health care reform does not automatically infer that I don’t like the dish. In this great country, every American in need should be able to see a doctor. And I don’t question the patriotism of my fellow Americans who support this Act.
However, I firmly believe that we can bring reform in a way that is more palatable to the American people and deferent to the American tradition of quality health care. It is my strong desire and the desire of many to see this Act repealed so that we can begin working toward that end.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Marvin D. Rogers graduated from the University of South Carolina Upstate with a Bachelor of Science in Interdisciplinary Studies (Political Science and Spanish). He has been involved in public service internationally through his humanitarian missions leadership in Latin America. Locally, he has served as an aide to U.S. Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC) and is currently serving as a community advocate and mentor to at-risk youth in Rock Hill, SC. With the odds stacked against him and facing the uphill battle of running as a Republican in a minority district in the year of Barack Obama, Rogers managed to garner 32 percent of the vote for the South Carolina State House in 2008. Although he did not win the election, he won the respect of the community in which he serves freely as a volunteer for youth and an advocate for the homeless.
http://marvinrogers.com / – Personal Website
http://twitter.com/marvindrogers - Twitter
on 
on 
So instead of following the rest of the sheep. Support the bill and work on ways to amend it. You had 8 years of Bush doing nothing. If Mc Cain won. We would have had another 4 years of Non-Action.
Obama did exactly what he said he was going to do. Like it or not. He followed through.
Stop being the party of No. Come up with realistic ideas that actually help people and not the lobbyist. Then you will see people warm up to Republicans. If you continue to be zombie idealist. Then you should not be surprised at the outcome 4 years from now.
Co-sign to the fullest w/ Joe Clyde…
When the country started having a conversation about health care reform, the loudest voices in the GOP used terms like armagedon, deaths panels, socialist, and kill grandma. Now that healthcare has passed the loudest voicest only have one word, repeal. Your party has a problem using rhetoric to garner support over its ideals as you have laid out in your post. And it will continue to cost you.
And Newt was right this bill might be as unpopular as the civil rights bill. I would not have made that comparison before he did but with your side calling it “reparations” and “afirmative action” on steroids I am inclined to see it now. Scaring the hell out of this country can only get you so far .
Let me refresh your memory, the biggest opposition to your “Takeover” came from within your party. With super majorities in both Houses how can you stand there and even say that the administration compromised on anything! Where is tort reform? Where is competition? Where is the unions’ pound of flesh?
All I heard was elections have consequences except for Virginia, New Jersey, and MASSACHUSETTS.
Let’s recap, Massachusetts changed its law to prevent a Republican Governor from appointing a Republican Senator if Kerry won in 2004, (backfire) Then they changed the law again to seat a senator in the interim (Democratic Governor in power) so he could vote for the Health Care takeover (and student loan program). And the rest is history.
Can someone answer this for me, what will keep the insurance companies from charging outrageous rates for clients with pre-existing conditions? And if you can’t afford it, isn’t it the same as being rejected? And if you can afford it why do we have to legislate responsibility?