One of President Barack Obama’s most repeated promises in health care reform is, “If you like what you have; you can keep it.” He frequently goes on to clarify that if you like the insurance plan you have, you can keep it, but most importantly, if you like your doctor, health care reform won’t make you change that. Unfortunately, after carefully studying the health care reform plan, as I have been for the last few weeks, it is clear that the proposals moving forward in Congress right now won’t make this guarantee a reality for everyone. Millions of Americans won’t be able to keep the insurance they like because of tax penalties and mandated benefits. Additionally, the requirements placed on businesses are expected to force many employers to drop or stop offering employer-sponsored coverage to their employees.

Worst of all, the new government-run insurance option is expected to pay physicians, hospitals and other health care workers at rates far below fair market value for their services. Many Medicare and Medicaid patients have difficulty finding a doctor today, and it is likely patients covered under the government plan will have these same difficulties. In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I drafted and offered an amendment that would give doctors the ability to negotiate their rates with the new government insurance program, as is already the case with private insurance. President Obama has stated several times that the new government insurance plan will compete on an even playing field with the private sector, and my amendment would assure that these intentions match up with their rhetoric. In fact, the bi-partisan amendment is an important part of conservative Blue Dog Democrats’ negotiations in the House. By allowing physicians and hospitals to negotiate realistic, reasonable and fair rates for the treatments, operations, and other vital services they provide, those covered under the government plan would have a fighting chance in keeping their doctors.

The amendment failed by a tied vote of 29-29. We might have won the vote had a key Blue Dog Democrat not gone missing in the middle of the night when the vote was called. I am not sure if this was the result of inattention or a planned event, but this absent member had been a key negotiator and advocate of this policy throughout the debate. I currently cannot support the Democrats’ health care bill, and recognize that millions of Americans are deeply troubled by what they are reading and hearing about this legislation. As a lawmaker and a physician, it is my duty to do all that I can to mitigate the harm this bill will cause. Thousands of North Texans currently like their insurance plan, they like their hospital, and they like their doctors, and I want to help them keep what they like.

I have concerns that the government’s clout will be substituted for the judgment of medical professionals. When I practiced medicine, I did not like private health insurance companies telling me how to best care for my patients, and I did not like the government doing the same with my Medicare and Medicaid patients. The Democrats’ current health care plan would further the disconnect between the doctor and patient with the new government-run insurance option. This is not what the American people have asked for and it is not my definition of meaningful and healthy reforms to our nation’s health care system. When the talk of health care reform began, I was not a default “no” vote. This is very important to me. However, the way health care reform has been handled has become the problem, not the solution, for many, including me and many North Texans I have heard from. My hope is that, because the American people have spoken and slowed down this process, President Obama and Members of Congress will take this charge seriously and get down to work.

Congressman Michael Burgess, M.D., is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and three of its subcommittees: Health, Energy & Environment, and Oversight & Investigations. He is also a member of the bipartisan, bicameral Joint Economic Committee.


To view the original article click here.