and his Democratic opponent in the Nov. 6 general election, agree on a number of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act upheld Thursday by the United States Supreme Court.
Where Schneider and Dold disagree is with the path they and their respective parties want to take in the future. Dold wants to get rid of parts of the existing law while Schneider wants to consider changes only when the law, which becomes fully effective in 2014, has a chance to season.
Dold will have his first opportunity to make a statement July 9. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has promised a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act that day. Dold has indicated he will vote for in favor.
“,” Dold said referring to his vote in January of last year. “Unlike the current law, which was the product of a very flawed process and unprecedented partisanship, the American people deserve an opportunity to advance sensible solutions that enjoy bipartisan support.”
Schneider distinguishes himself from Dold in part on the fact he would not vote to repeal the bill but would take the time to see how it functioned and what parts need tweaking. “On July 9, I would vote to keep it,” Schneider said.
“When we first passed Medicare it took (some) time to know what parts worked and what parts did not,” Schneider said. “We have to see what works and change what doesn’t.” He acknowledges this will take time.
Schneider, Dold Agree on Pre-existing Conditions
When the Supreme Court affirmed all but one section of the law, it kept provisions that prohibit an insurer from not covering a person because of a pre-existing condition, allowing people 26 and under to remain on their parents health care and allowing people to take existing coverage from one job to another.
Both Dold and Schneider agree these provisions should remain under any circumstances. “Portability is important and I think it is wrong that if you lose your job, you also lose your health insurance,” Dold said.
Another area of agreement between Congressman and challenger is an issue Dold dubs as “tax parity” allowing individuals the same benefits as large corporations when purchasing insurance.
“I would make sure small businesses and individuals have the same tax provisions as large corporations,” Schneider said.
Dold, Schneider Spar on Individual Mandate
Another difference between Dold and Schneider is the individual mandate. This provision requires people without insurance who have the means to purchase it to do so or pay an additional tax. Schneider favors it and Dold is against.
“The individual mandate adds an additional tax on hardworking families and this law increases government spending by massive amounts,” Dold said. “(It) still imposes numerous regulations that will crush small businesses and hurt their workers.”
Schneider has a different view of the individual mandate. He sees it as a vehicle of hope for individuals who have been shut out of purchasing coverage in the past.
“We are going to make it possible for those who can afford insurance to buy it,” Schneider said. “This will take the country to a place where working families can have a roof over their head and hope for quality health care.”
In the end, both Dold and Schneider recognize the need for a bipartisan effort to move the health care issues forward. “We need to put in place some of the provisions we’ve talked about,” Dold said. “The American people deserve an opportunity to advance sensible solutions that enjoy bipartisan support.”