|
Tom Cotton on Health Care
|
|
|
Supreme Court got it wrong o ObamaCare individual mandate
Q: There's a lawsuit to overturn Obamacare. Would you hope that a justice appointed by Donald Trump would vote to end to overturn the Affordable Care Act?COTTON: Well, I think the Supreme Court got that case wrong eight years ago,
especially on the so-called individual mandate which fined Americans for not being able to afford health insurance the federal government made unaffordable in the first place.
That's one reason I led the charge in Congress to repeal the individual mandate, which had fined more than 7 million Americans. That case, however, is being argued right after the election.
It's not clear to me yet whether we will have a new justice confirmed, so I can't speculate on how the court is going to rule on that particular case or if this nominee will be seated in time to rule on that case.
Source: Fox News Sunday on 2020 Arkansas Senate race
, Sep 20, 2020
Introduced bill to cut off purchase of China-made drugs
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) & Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) have introduced a bill to end the U.S. being dependent on Chinese drugs. "Our bill would require federal entities like the Department of Defense, VA hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid to cut off
purchases of drugs with Chinese ingredients no later than 2025," they wrote. "This requirement would phase in over a period of years to give drug companies time to adjust, but would put clear pressure on importers to stop doing business with the CCP."
Source: Newsmax, "China's Drugs", on 2020 Arkansas Senate race
, Mar 25, 2020
AdWatch: No, Cotton won't end Medicare guarantee
Voice-over for new Senate Majority PAC ad attacking Rep. Tom Cotton (R), who is challenging Sen. Mark Pryor (D): "Cotton wants to end Medicare's guarantee, giving billions in profits to insurance companies."Senate Majority PAC seems stuck in a time
warp on this talking point, referring back to an older version of the House Republican plan to transform the health-care system for the elderly by offering beneficiaries help in buying private insurance, known as "premium support." The plan was
substantially changed in 2012 to include an option for seniors to keep the traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan if they preferred. So the "guarantee" is now there. (Claiming a federal program has a "guarantee" is also odd because a future Congress
can change the terms of any program.)
The Pinocchio Test: The Medicare claims are so stale--and so repeatedly discredited--we can assume that polling indicates that the language is effective in moving voters, despite its falsity. Four Pinocchios
Source: Washington Post AdWatch on 2014 Arkansas Senate race
, Apr 1, 2014
AdWatch: Cotton supports Medicare "premium support" vouchers
Mark Pryor's TV ad says, "Cotton voted in Congress to change Medicare into a voucher system that will increase out-of-pocket expenses for every senior." PolitiFact's fact checking:- We've previously fact-checked the Pryor campaign on whether or not
Cotton voted to turn Medicare into a "voucher system." We rated that Mostly True. Republicans typically prefer the term "premium support" to "voucher system," but the concept is the same.
- Cotton voted for Paul Ryan's budget proposal in 2013. The plan,
which didn't become law, called for issuing flat payments to seniors. Seniors would then have the choice to either purchase traditional Medicare coverage or private insurance.
- But instituting a voucher system wouldn't have directly changed coverage
for current seniors on Medicare. That's a far cry from the ad's claim that a voucher system would increase costs for "every senior."
- Our ruling: Cotton did vote for a voucher-like system, but we rate the "increases expenses" claim Mostly False.
Source: PolitiFact AdWatch on 2014 Arkansas Senate race
, Feb 5, 2014
Federal shut down to force ObamaCare delay by one year
Pryor blasts Cotton for forcing a government shutdown and hurting the economy in a new ad: "Tom Cotton cost us billions. The government shutdown cost America $24 billion. Cotton and a small group of reckless congressmen took our country to the brink of
default," the ad's narrator says.In response, the Cotton campaign released the following statement: "This ad is a total fabrication and is just the latest example of Sen. Pryor telling Arkansans one thing and doing something completely different in
Washington. Tom Cotton voted five times to fund the government and end the shutdown. Sen. Pryor voted against four separate compromise measures that could have opened the government sooner. Instead, Sen. Pryor chose once again to side with Pres. Obama
and Harry Reid. Among the compromise measures that Pryor opposed, one would simply have delayed the individual mandate in ObamaCare by one year, giving Arkansas families the same grace period the Administration has already given to big businesses.
Source: Arkansas Matters's AdWatch on 2014 Arkansas Senate debate
, Oct 22, 2013
FactCheck: No special subsidies for congressional staff
An ad from Tom Cotton attacks Pryor on ObamaCare. Here's the text:"What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. But not in Washington. Mark Pryor cast the deciding vote to make you live under ObamaCare. But Pryor votes himself and
everyone in Congress special subsidies so they're protected from ObamaCare. Exceptions and special subsidies for Mark Pryor. Higher insurance premiums for you."
The "special subsidy" refers to a provision, pushed by Republicans, that requires members
of Congress and their staff to buy health coverage through the ObamaCare marketplaces. Federal worker benefits would take the same money that it would have spent on the government's old health insurance and spend it on whatever lawmakers and their staffs
purchased on the ObamaCare marketplaces. In other words, it would do what every other employer does. Continuing that cost-sharing is the "special subsidy" the Cotton ad refers to. The assertion falls wide of the facts, and we rate this claim False.
Source: PolitiFact AdWatch on 2014 Arkansas Senate debate
, Oct 7, 2013
Fight against unconstitutional laws like ObamaCare
I will always fight against unconstitutional laws like ObamaCare. I will keep faith with my oath to defend the Constitution by reviewing proposed laws for constitutional defects.
I will never pass the buck to the courts by voting for a law that I believe is unconstitutional--if a proposed law is unconstitutional in my judgment, then I will vote against it.
Source: 2012 House campaign website, cottonforcongress.com, "Issues"
, Nov 6, 2012
Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market.
Cotton signed the Contract From America
The Contract from America, clause 7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care:
Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling
Source: The Contract From America 10-CFA07 on Jul 8, 2010
Repeal any federal health care takeover.
Cotton signed Club for Growth's "Repeal-It!" Pledge
The Club for Growth's "Repeal-It!" Pledge for candidates states, "I hereby pledge to the people of my district/state upon my election to the U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Senate, to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government."
Source: Club for Growth's "Repeal-It!" Pledge 10-CfG-can on Jul 4, 2010
Supports repealing Affordable Care Act.
Cotton supports the PVS survey question on ObamaCare
Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.
Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Health Care: Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act?'
Source: Project Vote Smart 12-PVS-q5 on Aug 30, 2012
Religious exemption from ObamaCare individual mandate.
Cotton co-sponsored H.R.631 & S.352
Congressional Summary: To provide an additional religious exemption from the individual health coverage mandate. This Act may be cited as the 'Equitable Access to Care and Health Act' or the 'EACH Act'. The 'Religious Conscience Exemption' exempts individuals who are members of a recognized religious sect which relies solely on a religious method of healing, and for whom the acceptance of medical health services would be inconsistent with their religious beliefs.
Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (TheHill.com weblog, April 29, 2013): "We believe the EACH Act balances a respect for religious diversity against the need to prevent fraud and abuse," wrote Reps. Aaron Schock (R-IL) and William Keating (D-MA). "It is imperative we expand the religious conscience exemption now as the Administration is verifying the various exemptions to the individual mandate," they wrote. Religious exemption from ObamaCare has come up before, including contraception.
The EACH Act, however, deals only with exemptions from the insurance mandate.
Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (CHILD, Inc. "Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty", Dec. 2014): The Christian Science church is pushing hard to get another religious exemption through Congress. The EACH Act exempts everyone with "sincerely held religious beliefs" from the mandate to buy health insurance. We are particularly concerned about uninsured children: hundreds of American children have died because of their family's religious objections to medical care. The EACH Act increases the risk to children in faith-healing sects and the cost to the state if the children do get medical care. Some complain that their church members should not have to pay for health care that they won't use. But insurance works on the assumption that many in the pool of policyholders will not draw from it. Most people with fire insurance don't have their homes burn, for example.
Source: EACH Act 15_S352 on Feb 3, 2015
|
|
|
Other candidates on Health Care: |
Tom Cotton on other issues: |
AR Gubernatorial:
Asa Hutchinson
Frank Gilbert
Jared Henderson
Mark West
Mike Beebe
Mike Huckabee
Mike Ross
Tim Griffin
AR Senatorial:
Conner Eldridge
Curtis Coleman
Dan Whitfield
Frank Gilbert
John Boozman
Josh Mahony
Mike Beebe
Ricky Dale Harrington
AR politicians
AR Archives
|
Senate races 2019-20:
AK:
 Sullivan(R,incumbent)
vs.Gross(I)
vs.Blatchford(D)
AL:
Jones(D,incumbent)
vs.Tuberville(R)
vs.Sessions(R)
vs.Moore(R)
vs.Rogers(D)
vs.Merrill(R)
AR:
Cotton(R,incumbent)
vs.Harrington(L)
vs.Whitfield(I)
vs.Mahony(D)
AZ:
McSally(R,incumbent)
vs.Kelly(D)
CO:
Gardner(R,incumbent)
vs.Hickenlooper(D)
vs.Madden(D)
vs.Baer(D)
vs.Walsh(D)
vs.Johnston(D)
vs.Romanoff(D)
vs.Burnes(D)
vs.Williams(D)
DE:
Coons(D,incumbent)
vs.Scarane(D)
vs.Witzke(R)
vs.DeMartino(R)
GA-2:
Isakson(R,resigned)
Loeffler(R,appointed)
vs.Warnock(D)
vs.Collins(R)
vs.Tarver(D)
vs.Carter(D)
vs.Lieberman(D)
vs.Grayson(R)
vs.Stovall(I)
vs.Buckley(L)
GA-6:
Perdue(R,incumbent)
vs.Ossoff(D)
vs.Hazel(L)
vs.Tomlinson(D)
vs.Terry(D)
IA:
Ernst(R,incumbent)
vs.Greenfield(D)
vs.Graham(D)
vs.Mauro(D)
vs.Franken(D)
ID:
Risch(R,incumbent)
vs.Jordan(D)
vs.Harris(D)
IL:
Durbin(D,incumbent)
vs.Curran(R)
vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS:
Roberts(R,retiring)
vs.Marshall(R)
vs.Bollier(D)
vs.LaTurner(R)
vs.Wagle(R)
vs.Kobach(R)
vs.Lindstrom(R)
vs.Grissom(D)
KY:
McConnell(R,incumbent)
vs.McGrath(D)
vs.Morgan(R)
vs.Cox(D)
vs.Tobin(D)
vs.Booker(D)
LA:
Cassidy(R,incumbent)
vs.Perkins(D)
vs.Pierce(D)
|
MA:
Markey(D,incumbent)
vs.O`Connor(R)
vs.Ayyadurai(R)
vs.Kennedy(D)
vs.Liss-Riordan(D)
ME:
Collins(R,incumbent)
vs.Gideon(D)
vs.Sweet(D)
vs.Rice(D)
MI:
Peters(D,incumbent)
vs.James(R)
vs.Squier(G)
MN:
Smith(D,incumbent)
vs.Lewis(R)
vs.Overby(G)
vs.Carlson(D)
MS:
Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent)
vs.Espy(D)
vs.Bohren(D)
MT:
Daines(R,incumbent)
vs.Bullock(D)
vs.Collins(D)
vs.Driscoll(R)
vs.Mues(D)
vs.Geise(L)
NC:
Tillis(R,incumbent)
vs.Cunningham(D)
vs.E.Smith(D)
vs.S.Smith(R)
vs.Tucker(R)
vs.Mansfield(D)
NE:
Sasse(R,incumbent)
vs.Janicek(R)
NH:
Shaheen(D,incumbent)
vs.Messner(R)
vs.Martin(D)
vs.Bolduc(R)
vs.O'Brien(R)
NJ:
Booker(D,incumbent)
vs.Mehta(R)
vs.Singh(R)
vs.Meissner(R)
NM:
Udall(D,retiring)
vs.Lujan(D)
vs.Ronchetti(R)
vs.Walsh(L)
vs.Clarkson(R)
vs.Oliver(D)
vs.Rich(R)
OK:
Inhofe(R,incumbent)
vs.Broyles(D)
vs.Workman(D)
OR:
Merkley(D,incumbent)
vs.Perkins(R)
vs.Romero(R)
RI:
Reed(D,incumbent)
vs.Waters(R)
SC:
Graham(R,incumbent)
vs.Harrison(D)
vs.Tinubu(D)
SD:
Rounds(R,incumbent)
vs.Ahlers(D)
vs.Borglum(R)
TN:
Alexander(R,retiring)
vs.Hagerty(R)
vs.Bradshaw(D)
vs.Sethi(R)
vs.Mackler(D)
vs.Crim(R)
TX:
Cornyn(R,incumbent)
vs.Hegar(D)
vs.Hernandez(D)
vs.Bell(D)
vs.Ramirez(D)
vs.West(D)
VA:
Warner(D,incumbent)
vs.Taylor(R)
vs.Gade(R)
WV:
Capito(R,incumbent)
vs.Swearengin(D)
vs.Ojeda(D)
WY:
Enzi(R,retiring)
vs.Lummis(R)
vs.Ben-David(D)
vs.Ludwig(D)
|
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare
Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings
|
|
|
Page last updated: Nov 29, 2020