As socialized healthcare continues to be the hot issue around the country, Congressman John Spratt (SC- 5^th) continues to dodge the voters here in the district. He appears to have no intention of directly engaging his constitutes in any kind of forum. Personally, I would be eager to defend my position if I were advocating a piece of legislation that would have a profound impact on the lives of all Americans. 

The Obama Administration needs to take a long look in the mirror and decide what they believe. For example, President Obama campaigned on a platform of change and transparency; recent dealings between the pharmaceutical industry and the Administration raise serious questions as to whether the drug lobby is helping to bankroll a multimillion dollar severance package for one of the President's senior advisors.   This is just another issue entangled in the web of healthcare reform. Below are some of the facts.

• Several weeks ago, the President announced an agreement with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) to achieve $80 billion in savings as part of health care "reform."  The Congressional Budget Office has previously found that eliminating the Part D "doughnut hole"- one element of the PhRMA "deal"-would cause Medicare premiums to rise by 50 percent.

• As a result of the White House agreement with the drug lobby, press reports indicate that a coalition of interest groups led by PhRMA has committed up to $150 million to generate publicity in support of the President's health "reform."

• On Saturday, Bloomberg News reported that one of the firms hired to spearhead the PhRMA-led advertising campaign is AKPD-the firm that Senior Advisor to the President David Axelrod founded, and where his son continues to work.

• The same news story reported that Axelrod will be paid $2 million from AKPD as part of his severance package-payments which will come due beginning in December.

 
Even the Obama friendly press is beginning to ask questions. I never thought I would see that happen in any way, shape or form. Things can change when the AARP loses 60,000 members in only a few weeks.

We can document that the pharmaceutical industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars supporting a government takeover of health care! A healthcare system which drug companies believe they can, and will increase, profits as they raise Medicare premiums for seniors. Some may wonder whether White House senior advisors, earning millions of dollars, paid for in part by the pharmaceutical industry is ethical. None of the legislation pushed by the democratic leadership can be described as reform under anyone’s definition. It appears that nothing has changed other than the party in control.

We deserve to hear from our Congressional representatives in a town hall format. I ask Congressman Spratt to join us tonight.

EVENT:  4017 Laurel Creek Drive
                Rock Hill, South Carolina
                6:30 pm

Meeting Format:

• Welcome
• Introduction of Panelist
• Panelist given 2-3 minutes to share their views on HR-3200 Bill and potential impact on Health Care in    America
• Listen to attendees concerns and take questions
• Meeting end no later than 8:15 PM
  
  Below is a copy of Congressman Spratt’s most recent Press Release

News from US Rep. John Spratt (D-SC)
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
Senior Member, Committee on Armed Services
US House of Representatives, Washington, DC
spratt.house.gov | budget.house.gov

Thursday, August 13, 2009 – For Immediate Release
Contact: Chuck Fant, 202-226-2651

 Spratt Statement on Health Care Reform, Update on Foot Surgery

 I understand the sentiment of those who are calling us to say that they do not want their medical care delivered from Washington. But I also understand that 50% of all health care in this country is either paid for or provided through the federal government. That includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Tricare Standard, Tricare for Life, Veterans Health Care, Military Health Care, Indian Health Care, the Public Health Service, and the Federal Employees Benefit Program.

 “Our health care system is in need of reform, but we need to be wary of the cost and complexity, and we should choose among the best proposals in the House, Senate, and White House. Over the last several weeks, I have supported a slow-down, because I think we need a longer period to search for better, more affordable solutions.

 “We have the best health care in the world, bar none, but it is also the most costly, and access is not assured to the 46 million who lack insurance coverage. I believe we should close that gap, but I recognize the cost and complexity. That’s why I supported not voting until after the August recess. I want to see reform done right.

 “Because of the complexity, neither the House nor the Senate has come forth with a final draft, and major differences separate the two. For instance, the House draft contains an employer mandate, requiring the employer either to pay a percentage of the employee’s premium cost or pay 8% of an employee’s wage into a health insurance fund. In the Senate bill, employer contributions are much smaller. I lean toward a lower-cost alternative.

 “Both bills call for an insurance exchange, where individuals and smaller businesses have the advantage of competition. But the House bill contains a public insurance plan as one option in the insurance exchange. The purpose of the public option is to offer an alternative to private insurance and to have a yardstick to compare cost and coverage. Insurance companies oppose the public plan. They claim that it will be impossible to compete if the government subsidizes the public insurance policy. Sponsors say subsidies will be excluded. A public policy enacted as a backup, which is triggered into being only if the cost of private coverage escalates beyond certain benchmarks, may be a compromise.

 “The Office of Management and Budget has proposed a Super-MedPac with rate-making and regulatory authority over Medicare and Medicaid. One of its purposes is to save money in these programs to pay for coverage of the uninsured. I understand the need for strong administration, and one empowered to hold costs in line when Congress will not, but I think the Super-MedPac may be a bit too powerful.

 “When we wrote the budget resolution for fiscal year 2010, we required that the cost be deficit-neutral, so that every dollar spent is offset by a dollar saved. A little more than half of the House proposal would be offset---paid for by savings in the existing health care program. I want to see more of the cost offset by savings elsewhere in the health care system.

 “Three House committees have jurisdiction over health care, and they have converged on a health care reform bill, but the tri-committee draft could not muster enough votes to be reported to the House floor, until concessions were made. In the Senate, two committees have jurisdiction, and they have yet to reach consensus. So, health care reform is very much a work in progress.

 “At a time like this, nothing is worse than to be on the sidelines, but four months ago, I scheduled surgery for repair of what turned out to be an Achilles tendon, shredded by a big bone spur on my right heel. I could not have the surgery until the August recess because of the weeks required for healing. During this time, I have been directed to stay off my feet as much as possible, and to put no weight on my right foot. I had a town hall meeting, sponsored by the AARP, in July, and over the months, I have met with numerous constituents, the South Carolina Hospital Association, with SC Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and with a wide assortment of physician groups to hear their concerns about a public policy. I need to set up other meetings, especially with individual constituents, and we will do so, as soon as my recovery is completed.”

# # #