published Tuesday, February 1st, 2011

Fleischmann vows to fight ‘very, very bad’ health law

U.S. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., vowed tonight that he will work to cut off funding for the health care reform plan adopted by Congress last year.

In a “Tele-Town Hall” meeting with constituents on the telephone, Fleischmann said he was encouraged by a second federal judge ruling this week against the new health law.

Fleischmann, a Chattanooga attorney, said he agrees with the decision of U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson that the law in unconstitutional in mandating individuals buy health insurance.

Calling “ObamaCare” a “very, very bad health bill,” Fleischmann said the measure needs to be totally repealed and a new reform plan adopted that is more business friendly and less controversial.

The Chattanooga congressman said the health care plan adopted by the Democratically controlled Congress last spring will ultimately hurt small businesses forced to add health insurance for their workers if they have more than 50 employees. That could hurt business growth and hiring, Fleischmann said.

“We want a health care bill that people can support,” he said. “The Obama health care bill had so many problems that it has to be repealed and we need to start over. We’ve got to wipe the slate clean and work on a bill that makes more sense.”

Fleischmann said he was encouraged by the tone of President Obama’s State of the Union speech last week.

“This didn’t seem to be the same president who with the liberal leadership in Congress last year spent us into submission,” he said.

Fleischmann said Obama’s call for a spending freeze doesn’t go far enough in cutting deficit spending. Fleischmann voted with Republicans last month to roll back domestic spending to 2008 levels.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
jpo3136 said...

The Republican Party had their chance. They gave Wall Street a pass to do whatever they wanted. They crashed the economy with their mismanagement.

The use of the word "Obamacare" is not only offensive, but inaccurate. It's not the name of the law, a description of what it does, or how it works. The legislation that was passed is health care payment --payment-- reform.

These laws don't change how health care is administered, but how it's paid for by the consumer. That includes providing many new customers to insurance companies.

We're sorry to hear that Representative Fleischman's amateurish move is to try to take customers away from Chattanooga's insurance companies, like Cigna and BlueCross, which will gain from health care payment reform.

It was the Bush Administrations unrealistic, debtor-economy approach to failing to budget which crashed the American economy. We're all aware of that. Representative Fleischman's early and obvious failure to grasp the observable truths of his party's failure to support effective commerce through a true, valid and testable approach to understanding Owner's Equity is disappointing.

Perhaps he should take an Economics class so that he can improve his understanding of the issues at hand. His constituents do. We understand that President Obama's understanding of the issues at hand is correct.

We're sorry to hear that Representative Fleischman has decided to insult a bill he didn't vote for. Perhaps he has lost track of the matters which are before Congress right now which deserve his attention.

We're also sorry to hear that Representative Fleischman has overlooked our understanding of the fact that the Senate will not cooperate with political distractions like the one he is providing to us now. We know the Senate will support the House's current, previous, and standing approval of this health care payment reform legislation.

We hope that in the future he can elevate his discourse to concentrate on matters in which he can have an actual, not hypothetical, effect.

We're heartened to see that Representative Fleischman would like to see more aggressive cuts to deficit spending. That would include an immediate return of the Democratic plan of PAYGO, a repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, and a return of the Defense budget to the budget of the United States.

We understand that this means Representative Fleischman is eager to accept budget balancing legislation, like those proposed by Democratic Senator Clair McCaskill. Her proposals, S.1600 (PAYGO into law), S.RES63 (public disclosure of earmarks) and S.162 (reintroducing McCain-Feingold plan to make it easier to remove earmarks) are all good for the US budget.

With those ideas in mind, we heartily accept Representative Fleischman's endorsements of Democratic budget reform proposals and President Obama's economic policies.

February 1, 2011 at 9:14 p.m.
architect said...

Thank you Jpo3136. you have articulated my thoughts on this very well. Representative Fleischman has used outdated information in his earlier critiques of the costs of the health care plan. My concern, as a resident of his District, is that our new representative is being fed a lot of hogwash and is believing it instead of checking out the facts for himself.

February 1, 2011 at 9:49 p.m.
acerigger said...

Wellll, he also said he had to accept the Gov. subsidized insurance coverage available to members of Congress,their aides,and families so that he "could fit in" and "kinda get with the program". 'course, he don't think the rest of us little people should have it Hope he ain't runnin' with a bad crowd up there in D.C.(HEH!)

February 1, 2011 at 10:21 p.m.
ITguy said...

Chuck Fleischman will make Zack Wamp look like a mental giant.

February 1, 2011 at 10:23 p.m.
hambone said...

Mr. Fleischman, where is your health care plan?

February 1, 2011 at 10:32 p.m.
Facts said...

Wow. My neighbor was a "supporter" of Chuck's. I saw him at the club house this evening. "Sheepishly embarrassed" fits him now.

February 1, 2011 at 11:05 p.m.
signalmtnman said...

I vow to fight pointless, unsolicited and intrusive phone calls at my home from pinhead politicians wanting to waste my time with their irritating drivel, regurgitated rhetoric and pandering. Check your do not call lists next time Chucky.

February 1, 2011 at 11:26 p.m.
ChattGMom said...

I wonder if Mr. Fleischman thinks that mandated auto insurance is "unconstitutional"?? If not, why not? Also, perhaps the policies and laws on taxes that we pay.. perhaps those ought to be voted out as well! The people who raise the fear card by crying that the new health law is unconstituional, or will lead to "socialized medicine" haven't really considered that Medicare and even our VA health care system could be considered in the same light.

What we need is a health care system that is more equitable and more in line with our humanitarian values for which many claim they stand. People fear "rationing" of health care under a more equitable plan, but I can assure you that we already have that. If you can pay, you can have any level of health care available. But, if you cannot pay, you are allowed to manage on your own, or end up in the ER when you can't manage any longer. That is rationing of care. Even those with insurance have to live in fear of having their health benefits cut, or reduced by the big businesses of insurance. They spend literally millions and millions on devising methods of limitations on care for those who might actually use the insurance when they need it most. And for those who have lost their insurance, or haven't been able to afford insurance, the situation is dire.

If you have to decide between feeding your family and taking your child to the doctor for care, perhaps you will wait, and hope the child improves on his/her own. That is rationing, but how logical, and how "fair" is that in a country that is one of the most advanced in the world- in all except health care for our citizens. Perhaps Mr. Fleishman doesn't have to worry about that, but the rest of us do.

February 1, 2011 at 11:36 p.m.
craigdune said...

Let us take an example of Texas. The "Wise Health Insurance" is quite popular in Arizona. It provides so many offers for the low income people.

February 2, 2011 at 1:37 a.m.
WhitesCreek said...

I must have missed Congressman Fleishman's plan to provide basic health care to every American and hold the costs to 12% of the Gross Domestic Product. I'm sure Republicans have that secret plan somewhere. Between Fleishman's efforts to destroy Affordable Health Care and Senator Corker's efforts to destroy Social Security, Americans who work for a living face a bleak future.

February 2, 2011 at 7:22 a.m.
ibshame said...

Don't blame Fleischmann for his ludicrous stands on Health Care, Medicare, Social Security etc., blame the people who put him in office. Any candidate who refuses to engage in a debate during a campaign but still gets elected because he has an R beside his name is not to be blamed for his stands on important issues now. No, the people to blame are the ones that put him in office. Maybe one day the Dems will find a candidate who will offer a REAL, SUBSTANTIVE challenge to the Republican Party in this district. Until then you get what you "pay" for.

February 2, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

ChattGMom, you aren't required to drive to be a citizen, therefore you aren't required to have auto insurance. However, being required to purchase something (health insurance) simply for existing is a different story.

February 2, 2011 at 8:54 a.m.
acerigger said...

musicman, I certainly hope you are able to afford healthcare insurance, 'cause living on a diet of kool-aid and right-wing trope CAN'T be very healthy.

February 2, 2011 at 9:34 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Your logic fails if you cannot understand my statement, ace. You might be the one who interprets the constitution's mentions of providing general welfare as a need to require that we buy health insurance, but I disagree. I'm not against health care reform. There are good things and bad things about the new law, but I don't feel like requiring someone to buy insurance simply for being alive allows us the personal freedoms our constitution guarentees. Sure, I can see how the general welfare clause would require the gov't to make sure health insurance is available for all, but I don't think it should be forced upon someone who may not want it, like Clara. (she mentioned it yesterday in another thread)

I was simply pointing out that there is a very big difference between the auto and health requirements, because there is.

February 2, 2011 at 10:34 a.m.
bret said...

From Chuck Fleischmann's website: "Government run health insurance does not work. It doesn’t work in the countries that have it. It won’t work in America."

Once elected, Chuck couldn't wait to sign up for the excellent government-run health care package that Congress receives.

Can you say "HYPOCRITE?"

February 2, 2011 at 12:38 p.m.
Sailorman said...


Congress does indeed have access to insurance plans far superior to those available to the peasants (us) that pay for it. It is not, however, government run.

Like medicare plans, it is run under contract by our old friends, the insurance companies.

For example:

"The plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month. Taxpayers kick in $700, and employees pay the rest. Seeing a doctor costs $20. Generic prescriptions cost $10. Immunizations are free. There is no coverage limit."

February 2, 2011 at 1:11 p.m.
bret said...

FEHBP is a government run program.

From Wiki: "The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program allows some insurance companies, employee associations, and labor unions to market health insurance plans to governmental employees. The program is administered by the United States Office of Personnel Management."

February 2, 2011 at 2:50 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Sorry bret, but that's not entirely accurate. I work for an insurance company, and I assure you I walk past the Federal Employee Program (FEP) dept. every day. Private carriers administer the benefits. The Federal gov't is the group, but they're not the administrator of the benefits. If you are a federal employee, your medical and dental claims are paid to you or your provider by a private insurance company, not the gov't.

February 2, 2011 at 4:08 p.m.
please login to post a comment

Other National Articles

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.