Congressman Dan Lipinski (IL-3) issued the following statement today on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding the 2010 health care law:
"More than two years have passed since I voted against the health care law because it is unaffordable, cuts Medicare, does not do enough to lower the soaring cost of health care, and would allow federal funding for abortion," Rep. Lipinski said. "The details about the law that have emerged in the meantime have only added to my concerns, and I have continued to work to fix the many problems with it. The Supreme Court's decision does not change my opposition to the law or my dedication to changing the law. As I said at the time of my vote, there can be no doubt that our health care system is in serious need of reform. Today, that remains the case. The soaring cost of health care is a very serious problem, and is among the biggest contributors to the budget deficits our nation faces. Amid the partisan reactions to this news, we should remember the real problems with our health care system and the need to address them in a sensible and fiscally sustainable manner. The court's decision may divide us, but the need for high-quality, affordable medical care unites us all."
Congressman Lipinski was the first Democrat to cosponsor legislation to repeal the CLASS Act, a fatally flawed long-term care insurance program included in the health care law that would have added tens of billions of dollars to the federal deficit, as experts agreed and even Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius eventually conceded before deciding not to implement the program. He also voted to repeal the CLASS Act. In addition, he helped lead the successful effort to eliminate an expensive and burdensome tax-reporting requirement for small businesses that was part of the law. Congressman Lipinski continues to oppose the health care law's requirement that all employers provide insurance coverage for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs. This mandate is an attack on freedom of conscience and violates the long-standing tradition of protection for conscience rights in federal law.