As a physician in private practice, 3rd District Congressional candidate Dr. Mary Headrick said she has years of first-hand knowledge about the inequities of the country’s healthcare system. She said, “Chuck Fleischmann voted to end Medicare as we know it. He is in favor of turning Medicare over to private, for-profit insurance companies with a ‘voucher’ that would not cover the premiums for that insurance.
He supports allowing a private insurance company to tell patients what doctor they can see and what services are covered.”
She said, “I will defend Medicare as we know it—a set of benefits efficiently administered so that Medicare patients can go to the doctor of his or her choice.”Acknowledging that funding for Medicare must be examined to preserve it for future generations, she said: “It will be important that the new Independent Payment Advisory Board examine what does and does not help patients. However the IPAB should not be making the final decision on the benefit package or fees. Advisory should mean just that, ‘advisory’”.
Turning to the Affordable Care Act, Dr. Headrick said, “Chuck Fleischmann voted more than 30 times to repeal ‘ObamaCare.’ He has stated publicly on multiple occasions that he will continue to work in Congress to repeal what is now the law of the land, so that insurance companies can continue to deny policies or coverage to people with an illness labeled as a‘pre-existing condition’. By this determination to repeal the ACA, he is supporting the policies of insurance companies to charge any premiums to any patient with any profit margin.
“I will defend the rule of ‘no exclusion and no premium penalty for a pre-existing condition’ while I work to improve the ACA. I will also defend the rule that insurance companies must spend 80-85 percent of premiums on patient care, instead of on profit and overhead.”
She promised to defend funding for the elderly and disabled. “My opponent voted to decrease funding for nursing home assistance for the disabled or elderly who can no longer live alone, but have exhausted their savings. His vote would have moved those funds to increase the defense budget—against the wishes of the leaders in the defense department. This is unconscionable.”