In attempts to hopelessly salvage the non-existent momentum from his failed Health Care Press Conference, Cornyn challenger Rick Noriega wrote into the Dallas Morning News in a humorous OP-ED piece.
Noriega blasts Cornyn for voting "against expanding health insurance coverage for Texas kids." He later goes on to admit that Texas needs "real health care security for their families, lowered costs for employers, and more transparency and accountability than our current system provides. "
I find this hysterical on multiple levels: 1) Cornyn worked to lower the cost of insurance coverage for employers, so essentially Noriega praises Cornyn's work. 2) The bills that Cornyn voted against allowed for too much government spending without any level of transparency or accountability which Noriega concedes is a problem that needs to be resolved, but at what cost? Why spend more of the tax payers money on a less than stellar system? Noriega's reckless solutions would only lead to further crippling our health care system while simultaneously hurting both the elderly and children, which is immensely counterproductive.
Cornyn fires back with his own Op-Ed that shows why there is only one candidate in this race qualified (and competent enough) to handle Texans problems in Washington.
Cornyn writes:
Like other issues, hyper-partisanship has trumped common sense. The solution should be rooted in preserving and strengthening the important patient-doctor relationship. The best way to do this is making health insurance more affordable, not increasing the government's role. Increasing government control in health care increases the likelihood that our health care system will be more bureaucratic, less responsive to individual needs, and inevitably result in rationing.
I've been faulted because I "only" supported a 40 percent increase in SCHIP funding for working poor children's health insurance. The problem in Texas is the intolerable fact that 800,000 Texas children eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid have not been enrolled. Shouldn't we register those children before increasing spending by $25 billion?
Cornyn continues:
"I co-sponsored legislation that would allow small businesses to join together to provide lower-cost health insurance plans for their employees---Government should provide incentives to both patient and provider. We should have association health plans, allowing small businesses to pool their buying power giving them the access to insurance rates that CenterPoint Energy and Wal-Mart enjoy."
Kudos to John Cornyn for actually getting something accomplished rather than just talking about irrational solutions that will not help Texas.
Posts
To the Victor Go the Spoils
56 minutes ago
3 comments:
Two problems - among others - about SCHIP. The plan should cover only children born to U.S. CITIZENS and should only be for children now alive from age 0 to 18 years. Parents HAVE to quit cranking out babies they can't afford to raise - so we must quit adding to those covered or the light at the end of the tunnel is going to be a HUGE freight train coming right at us in the way of unfathomable entitlement costs. Texas is a sanctuary state - I would suspect that the vast majority of the children covered by SCHIP now are children of illegals. This must stop or we are going to find ourselves in the same shape at California.
I agree with you...somewhat. The problem lies in the following: tax payers are already putting our tax dollars into things like CHIP, Medicare/Medicade, granted, but when illegal immigrants (children or adults) seek medical treatment with out having health care coverage it is the people WITH health care that end up footing the bill, yet again. Either way, we end up paying double either through big gov. programs or higher rates. Now the alternative is to have a gov. so controling that we end up telling people how many children they can have ::coughs:: China ::coughs::... It's a fine line to walk, but there is some leeway for reasonable solutions that won't cost the tax payers more in the end.
Thanks for the comment!!
NC has the same problem, but some counties (such as the one I live) have so many social programs that the county has proposed increasing taxes to cover most of the costs.
You're absolutely right, a government should never force people to either have or prevent them from reproducing. However, the responsibility lies with the parent and they should be responsible for paying more in premiums or taxes for Medicaid to cover the costs. It is very unfair for a single male (yours truly) to pay high taxes in medical social programs for a family of 6 just because they never heard of contraception.
Another problem that I see is that private insurance agencies are seeing high costs because people no longer ask how much their treatment is. People go to the emergency room for practically anything and increase the amount of the rates.
Post a Comment