While recent political events has created uncertainty about where health care reform will go in Congress, John Crabtree of the Central for Rural Affairs said allowing current health insurance and cost-shifting trends to continue, unchecked by reform, will severely impact people across America, rural Americans in particular.

He said research by the Center for Rural Affairs, that will be released soon found that by 2019 approximately one in four rural Americans will be uninsured.

Soon to be released Center for Rural Affairs research reveals that by 2019 approximately one in four rural Americans will be uninsured. He said that in rural communities with fewer than 2,500 residents, absent reform, the uninsured will number nearly one in three.

“Shifting costs from the uninsured to those with insurance will more than double, costing the average household, conservatively, $1,206 annually,” Crabtree said.

And the average rural household will absorb nearly $4,700 of their own health care costs annually as well, compared to $2,785 currently, according to the Center for Rural Affairs research.

“America needs health care reform, rural America’s family farmers, ranchers, mainstreet businesses and rural communities need it more than most,” Crabtree said.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said Wednesday that Nebraskans with health insurance face unsustainable increases in their premiums, while 220,000 Nebraskans have no health insurance at all.  He said he still support health reform that addresses those problems.

With uncertainty about how to move forward on health care reform, Nelson want President Obama to “clarify where he stands on the path ahead.”

 “I’ve been asked about whether I’d support using the process known as reconciliation now,” Nelson said. “So, I want to make it clear:  If I support a bill, then I will vote for it regardless of whether it takes 50 votes to pass or 60 votes to pass. My position doesn’t change just because the House or Senate decides to change the process.”

 He said if the bill provides coverage for the 220,000 Nebraskans who don’t have insurance, help for all other Nebraskans who are paying too much for health care, and “doesn’t lead to government-run health care and ensures that public funds aren’t used for abortion, then I’ll at least take a look at it.”

 “I’ve also seen some mention of previous legislation I supported that moved through reconciliation, such as the major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and some other bills.” Nelson said. “I’d like to make it absolutely clear: I supported bills brought forward under reconciliation simply because the underlying bills met my standard for good legislation. I opposed a bill because it didn’t meet my standard of good legislation. Whether it required 50 votes or 60 votes, the process used didn’t change the substance.”

Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., opposes forcing health care legislation through reconciliation.

Last year, Jonanns said he and Sen. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., led a bipartisan letter from 31 other Senators, including eight Democrats, opposing the use of budget reconciliation because “it would have prevented an open, public discussion of the far reaching effects of cap and trade.”

“Health care legislation is no different; impacting 1/6th of our economy, it should not be rammed through, Johanns said. “As I’ve said from the beginning, we must have an open debate and not rush this legislation. Several Senators from both sides of the aisle have spoken out against using reconciliation, and I urge the Administration and Democrats in the Senate to take leadership and do the same thing.”