Local Politics

Burr: Senate Republicans will work to alter health reform law

Posted January 4, 2011
Updated January 5, 2011

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— On the eve of the start of his second term in office, U.S. Sen. Richard Burr said Tuesday that he and fellow Republicans will "work aggressively" to change the federal health care reform law in the coming weeks.

Republicans won control of the U.S. House in the November election, and the new majority has scheduled a vote for next week on whether to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law last March.

U.S. Sen. Richard Burr Burr: Senate Republicans will work to alter health reform law

Democrats still control the Senate, however, so the measure isn't likely to make it to Obama's desk.

"I don't think it's going to be symbolic because I think that the House is going to come really close to a veto-proof margin (for a repeal)," Burr said. "Even in the Senate, if we can't get that legislation up and passed, I think that sends a loud message about what the American people said via the Nov. 2 elections, and I think the president ought to listen very closely."

Senate Republicans will try to withhold funding for some aspects of the reform law to prevent them from being implemented, he said.

"We're going to try to give assurance to the American people and to employers that there is a predictable future, but they may just have to let us sort through some of the changes first," he said.

Republicans and Democrats alike face challenges as the 112th Congress convenes, Burr said.

"I think we both face an equal challenge, and that's to turn the direction of this country around, to bring fiscal sanity back and to give the American people some hope that we can pull back from the brink of the abyss, which is financially where we are," he said.

He said he hopes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't try to block the efforts of Republicans in the chamber.

"If Sen. Reid will allow the Senate to operate like it historically has, where legislation is amended and debated, we'll see bipartisan products that the American people can be proud of," he said.

25 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • dumbhick Jan 5, 2011

    -joco
    Fairly stated.

  • dlk13ster Jan 5, 2011

    "As far as my slogans, you're right, they are not very thoughtful and probably annoying... my apologies :)"-JoCo Gun Owner

    Thank you. You've shown a level of maturity and ability to disagree agreeably that is unfortunately uncommon on GOLO. I have no problem with disagreements of policy, provided they remain disagreement of POLICY, and not personality, morality, or sexuality (which also happens FAR too frequently).

    And for what it's worth, the link below is a good resource for learning more about the bill's SPECIFIC provisions, summarized without bias or prejudice. And most importantly; all of its assertions are cited and sourced, so that if you have your doubts about bias, you can see where your information is coming from.

    http://tinyurl.com/29chbyb

    I do hope you continue to be active in sharing your ideas and opinions; provided you try to stay open-minded and informed to the best of your ability.

    Happy Reading! ;)

  • dlk13ster Jan 5, 2011

    These are not ALL the provisions, of course, but some of the highlights. And while they are not all things I would benefit from (nor necessarily enjoy paying for), I have been convinced that they are important for many of my fellow Americans and could provide much-needed assistance to those who are struggling to afford health care on their own.

    Am I thrilled about the bill? No. Am I satisfied with it? On the whole. Am I willing to hear viable alternatives? Absolutely!

    And to that end...what's YOUR suggestion?

  • dlk13ster Jan 5, 2011

    "You've stated two things out of the 2400 pg bill that you can get behind. That's VAST?!?"-Lerxst

    No, but those were the two most significant portions of the bill, to me, and are some of the broadest and most expansive provisions covering large portions of the population. The rest of the bill consist of provisions are aimed at populations that I don't fall into.

    Here's a few more for you:

    -Allowing parents to keep their children on their employers' benefits plan until they're 26.

    -Incentives provided to businesses who provide health care benefits

    -Additional support and funding for medical research and the NIH

    -Requiring each state to provide federally-approved health care exchanges (which has appeared in similar REP.-sponsored reforms in the past)

    -Subsidies for insurance premiums for policy holders who qualify for Fed. assistance. And another fav:

    -Provisions that would eliminate waste and REDUCE Federal spending (according to CBO) to the tune of $143B in the first 10 yrs.

  • Lerxst Jan 5, 2011

    "but the VAST majority of the bill are things that I can at least get behind;"

    You've stated two things out of the 2400 pg bill that you can get behind. That's VAST?!?

  • Lerxst Jan 5, 2011

    "AMEN! I agree; there are parts of the legislation (the insurance mandate, for example) that I'm not particularly pleased with, but the VAST majority of the bill are things that I can at least get behind; like closing the prescription drug "donut hole" in Medicare, and eliminating exclusion/dropping coverage simply for "pre-existing conditions," and so on."

    Then why didn't they vote on individual bills addressing those specific items instead the 2400 pp monstrosity. They could have closed the donut hole in 2 pages. They could have added more regulation about what constitutes a pre-existing condition and when it can be used to deny coverage to eliminate the supposed abuse of those clauses. They could have added more regulation about when a person can lose coverage.

    Instead they added clauses requiring businesses to file 1099's if they do more that $600 with a vendor. WTH does that have to do with health care?

    Repeal/Replace with smaller concise bills that directly address costs

  • Lerxst Jan 5, 2011

    The problem with doing away with the insurance mandate and not doing away with the restriction on denying care for preexisting "conditions is that it would allow people to go uninsured until they found out they need care, buying coverage, and only paying a month before getting treatment, then dropping the coverage after treatment. It would not allow insurance companies to stay in business. That's the rub and the reason for the mandate."

    And with the the current plan you can do the same. Just pay the meager "penalty" tax for not having insurance until you really need, and then sign up. Drop it after you're cured and pay the penalty tax until you need it again.

    The health care bill did not solve this problem. And even with the penalty tax it will put a strain on insurance companies to stay in business.

  • Arapaloosa Jan 5, 2011

    I don't know all the details of Obamacare, and I'm no expert on the subject, so I'm not going to pretend to have the answers to healthcare. I have listened to the liberal and conservative sides of the argument over government involvement, and to me, the conservative viewpoint makes more sense. It is a complicated issue, and for all I know, all of us could be wrong. So, to put it simply, my opinion is less government is better. I know that's a broad, sweeping point of view, but that's how I feel. As far as my slogans, you're right, they are not very thoughtful and probably annoying... my apologies :)

  • dlk13ster Jan 5, 2011

    "This is the guy who voted for TARP, No Child Left Behind (expansion on unconstitutional Department of Education), FISA (warrant-less wiretapping), and the Food Safety and Modernization Act (big Ag monopoly act). If he's opposing Obamacare, there's something in it for him."-brentf777

    There is: Tea Party rally supporters and limitless (and anonymous) corporate campaign contributions.

    I'm not saying he's CORRUPT, by any means; he's just playing politics they way its been played since the 1800s--say whatever it takes, and do whatever you want.

    But you're right; while he may wrap himself in the flag and CLAIM to be a conservative (which I could actually respect, even if I disagreed), when it comes to his voting record, Mr. Burr has a host of acronyms with his signature on them that seem say otherwise: i.e. TARP, NCLB, FISA, PATRIOT, and the FSMA, just to name a few.

  • brentf777 Jan 5, 2011

    More empty words from the RINO Richard Burr. If you examine his voting record, Burr has always been a big government, corporatist, not a real Conservative. This is the guy who voted for TARP, No Child Left Behind (expansion on unconstitutional Department of Education), FISA (warrant-less wiretapping), and the Food Safety and Modernization Act (big Ag monopoly act). If he's opposing Obamacare, there's something in it for him.

More...