By Chris Verner
Salisbury Post
When the Salisbury Post asked readers what questions they would like to ask Sen. Richard Burr, it’s no surprise that the bulk of the responses concerned health-care reform. That’s been his experience recently as he travels around the state and the country, Burr said. Health-care has overtaken debate about other issues such as the economy, immigration reform and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Burr’s Senate assignments include the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. While he acknowledges the need for reform and increased accessibility to health care, he doesn’t believe the current Democratic proposals on the table are the way to do it. He’s concerned about their longterm costs and impact on the deficit, as well as potential limitations on individual health-care choices. Along with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.), he introduced the Patients’ Choice Act, which he describes as a bill that would promote universal access to quality, affordable health care, without adding new debt or taxes.
Here are his answers to your questions, along with some of ours.
Q. Your proposal to “fix” our broken healthcare system consists mainly of the idea to give tax credits to people who buy health insurance. How can tax credits work for those below the poverty line and the working uninsured who can’t afford to pay out of their pockets? (Agnes Bryan)
A. The tax-credit mechanism that Senator Coburn and I proposed is a refundable credit. It would go to everybody, regardless of income, employment or where anyone lives. We establish the uniformity of the credit so that every American has the same starting point. We believe that the application of taxpayer money constitutionally requires us to apply it fairly. The refundable tax credit would go to each person at the beginning of the year, and it can be used for only two things: direct reimbursement of health expenses, including insurance coverage, and secondly, (to pay for) the tax consequences of an employer-provided health plan. (Burr’s Web site explains that by making the credit refundable, those who don’t owe any taxes would still get the full value of the credit.)
The whole objective is to empower individuals to have more control over how their health dollars are spent.
Tom and I set out to bring uniformity to the federal stipend so that it applied to everybody. When an outside group looked at our bill, they determined it would extend coverage to 34 million who are currently uninsured ó that’s the most increased coverage of any bill proposed so far.
Q. You receive more campaign contributions from the health-care industry than any other member of the N.C. congressional delegation. How can you say this money has nothing to do with your unyielding position against meaningful health-care reform to help the poor and the uninsured? (Michael Burton)
A. Let me just say, that figure (campaign contributions) is derived from across pharmaceutical, biomedical, medical device and insurance areas. Three out of four of those cut a deal with the administration, or are in favor of, the legislation currently going through Congress. I can only say this as it pertains to me: If the claim is that those contributions influence how I vote, I would have to be in favor of what the administration is proposing, not opposed to it, because the same individuals who contributed to me are in favor of the administration’s proposals.
I’d also point out that health care is the largest employer in North Carolina. If I didn’t have overwhelming support from health care financially, I’d be very concerned, given the number of individuals who are included in the calculation of money raised. We’re talking about people employed in the pharmaceutical and health care industry, about doctors and nurses, about those involved in health-care research.
Q. When will you introduce legislation so that the members of congress have the same medical and retirement benefits as the common citizens have now? (Gary Penley)
A. The Patients Choice Act establishes insurance guideless that are equivalent to the coverage offered through the federal employees benefit plan (which applies to members of Congress). It would establish such coverage as the minimum standard for policies available to all Americans .
I’ve also already on record as stating that whatever reform Congress passes should also apply to members of Congress.
Q. Is there any legislation before Congress now that addresses the need for more money for Parkinson’s research and would the senator be open to creating such legislation? (Peggy Wilson)
A. The short answer is that there is currently one bill, S1273, sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), that is targeted at creating a registry of people with neurological disorders. It’s not limited to Parkinson’s but is an effort to inventory all Americans affected by neurological diseases in order to collect and analyze data about those diseases.
I’ve never been a believer that it’s Congress’ role to determine, disease by disease, by much research money should go to one versus another. I think that’s best left to the health professionals at the National Institutes of Health.
(Editor’s note: While in the U.S. House, Burr worked to to streamline the FDA’s drug and medical device approval process. In the Senate, he launched efforts to evaluate the efficacy of the NIH and help bring it funding. He also broke with the White House to support using frozen-embryos from fertility-clinics in stem-cell research.)
Q. You’ve been involved in veterans issues, especially the need for improvements in the Veterans Disability Compensation system. What needs to happen to improve the system there?
A. We’ve had studies into this for the past 50 years, and we’ve made no progress whatsoever. It’s apparent today that this generation of warrior has different expectations and that our system has to change to reflect that. We have soldiers today who lose a leg (in combat) and then return to duty with an artificial limb, and M16 and a backup limb. From a disability standpoint, the loss of limb may not limit what they can do, but it has affected their quality of life. The loss of a limb may be compensated for, but there are other injuries that aren’t compensated, especially regarding quality of life. The system does not allow some things to be taken into consideration. That’s the flaw.
To some degree, we now have two diffferent VA systems. We have a VA that’s trying to take care of those who came before (older veterans), the geriatric portion. Then we have a (newer) generation of veterans that will be in the system for quite a while. The system has to reflect their needs as well.
Q. We’re seeing some signs that the recession may be winding down. What do you think needs to happen to have a sustainable recovery and increase employment?
A. I don’t believe the economic recovery will be sustainable until we have a sustainable recovery in housing prices. Housing is the largest asset held by most Americans, and that will drive their level of confidence as it relates to their consumpion of goods. I’m concerned that what we’re seeing now may be from a temporary purchase of inventory needed by companies, and that may be giving us a false sense of the level of sustainable economic growth. I still believe this administration has underestimated the importance of stabilizing housing prices.
Regarding employment, most businesses that I talk to suggest that we’ve got to maintain 3 percent growth or better for a sustained period of at least six to nine months before it will generate any interest in rehiring.
Q. What about the stimulus packages? Is there anything more that needs to be done legislatively?
If I could do it tomorrow, I would immediately do a recision of all the stimulus package money that is not already obligated, redirecting 50 percent of it to infrastructure projects and 50 percent to pay down the deficit. I think that combination, putting more of it into areas that would create jobs immediately, would be positively received by the American consumer.