Published: Friday, Sept. 25 2009 12:05 a.m. MDT
Thank you, Senator Hatch. I watched CSPAN coverage of the committee today, and
was disappointed (to say the least) that Republicans are actually criticized for
having targeted ideas that are not 1000 pages long. I would think such an array
of ideas would make bi-partisan negotiations easier, and would be applauded.I have always used health care sparingly, and had only catastrophic
coverage until a couple of years ago. The more I see in the current debate, the
more I think the government opposes that approach. I could not imagine
graduating from college in a time where such expensive insurance is required by
the government and actually being able to pay off student loans. I suppose I
should be grateful that the country I grew up in allowed me to spend so little
for barebones insurance when I first struck out on my own, but instead I am sad
that future generations will have such a hard time making ends meet. Future
generations of Americans should have a better life than I did.
It would be wonderful if everyone had affordable, quality health care coverage.
Unfortunately, the long term financial consequences of a government run system
will eventually lead to a much, much larger problem.
Corrupt View.Middle class Americans do not make $250,000 a year.We are not Joe the Plumber who is making $250,000 a year.Truth.Those making over $250,000 a year did not want to give back
to the middle class and the poor in the form of a tax on the rich that Obama
recommended!The Greedy Rich who do not thing of others except their
OK Senator Hatch, you continue to bash Obama's health care reform plan, and I'm
not saying I am 100% for it, but you have yet to state what your plan for
healthcare reform would be. You say it is necessary, but you haven't given us
specifics about how to reform it. All I hear from Republicans(and I am a
Republican) is how to "tweak" the current system. Healthcare needs a major
reform in this country. So whining Republican congressman, what is
your plan for reform. Like I said, I don't agree 100% with Obama's plan, but it
has got to be better than what we have now. The World Health Organization has
ranked us #39 globally in overall health care by country, right in between Costa
Rica and Slovenia. Costa Rica and Slovenia? That is pathetic! And we spend more
per capita on healthcare than any other country. I'm not for socialized
medicine, but a major overhaul in the healthcare system is needed? So tell me
your ideas please!!! I am open ears!
Orrin, what type of reform would you support? Have you ever supported any type
of serious healthcare reform? How much do insurance companies pay you/bribe
you/donate to your campaign?
Sen. Hatch, With all due respect, I believe you stopped
participating in the Senate negotiations because you are part of the
establishment, and you have no real interest in changing anything. You talk
about a new tax burden on the middle class, but even if this is true, doesn't
this "burden" pale in comparison to the much larger problem of the millions of
uninsured and the unfathomable runaway costs of health care in America today?
You don't think the current system already punishes the middle class? Shame on
you for ceasing "to participate" in reform. Get off your cushion and do
something about the problems everyone agrees on - runaway costs, to name one.
You have a more Corrupt View.Thinking rich = greed.Thinking taxation will make rich people less greedy. Thinking
that taking other's money because they have more is not greed.
Senator Hatch, The fact that during the eight years your party held the
presidency you did nothing to make health care affordable to middle Americans
leads me to believe that your party really doesn't care about our predicament.
If you are trying to empty a bathtub, you can pull the plug, you can bail and
bail, but the first thing you should probably do is turn off the faucet. Most of
our medical expenses are the results of a few common diseases that might be
cured with enough focus and energy put on them. If we doubled, tripled, our
investment and emphasis on curing these diseases, did whatever it took, the
investment would pay off handsomely. Medical costs would go down, suffering
would go down, productivity would go up. In my opinion, any health plan should
focus first on prevention, second on cure, third on treatment. Pull the plug.
Stop the diseases. (Yes, I know, easier said than done, but worth trying.)
I take it that you all LIKE what is being proposed? Do you really WANT that? I
hear no one disputing the facts that Sen. Hatch put forth, so I assume you are
in favor of the increased taxes and believe that they will be worth it. In my
mind the dems are not going to stop pushing the abomination that they are
working on until it has been killed. First item on the agenda is drive a stake
through the heart of the dem proposal. Then maybe we can have a real
discussion. As it is there are no rep proposals that see the light of day
either in Congress or the state run media.
With wet finger clearly in the air to judge the political winds, Sen. Hatch has
calculated that saying "everyone is for reform, but this isn't it" gets him off
the hook without needing to support anything (and risk angering his base). If
the debate goes on for about another month, the pro change forces will get a
huge boost in the form of "annual enrollment" for employer based health plans.
For at least the last ten years, enrollment has meant substantial increases in
premiums, lower benefits or higher copays, or both. Those sitting on their hands
cannot seem to grasp the concept that the status quo is unsustainable and change
will happen whether or not they help shape it.
Your true colors are scary. Division and opposition is all your about, class
envy is the worst political game in town and you have been duped right into the
middle of it.
Moreover, senator, the Baucus proposal is a crazy quilt because your party won't
do the sensible thing - single payer.
Hatch was correct in saying that Obama is just making things more expensive.On Wednesday, there was the article "Governors oppose $40B
medical-device tax" It layed out how the Federal Government is going to tax
medical device companies at a higher rate. So, if medical devices now cost
more, who pays for it?Next, Congress wants to mandate coverage for
Pre-Existing conditions they also want to remove the possibility of a company
rejecting somebody. Both of these will also increase premiums. Pre-existing
condition mandated coverage will add 20% to 40% to a policy.Lets
begin to lower costs by eliminating many of the unnecessary state mandated
insurance benefits. Currently 25% of the uninsured cannot afford insurance
because of state mandated benefits.Focus on solutions that work.
The free market has made health insurace more affordable with the creation of
the HSAs. 1/3 of HSA holders previously did not have insurance.
Hatch says, “The so-called individual mandate requires everyone to obtain
health-care coverage or pay an extra tax. If you don't, and you are making, say,
$66,000, the tax is $1,900 per year. Some may say this is simply a penalty for
not doing what Uncle Sam wants you to do, but let's face it – it's nothing
more than a new tax.” Ironically, that is EXACTLY what Mitt
Romney championed in Massachusetts, which turned out to be one of the most
successful state-level healthcare reforms in the U.S. Romney was in favor of
this approach because it promotes fairness and lowers costs. Because of this
mandate, more people have insurance, so fewer people show up at hospitals who
can’t pay. This results in the hospitals lowering prices, because the
responsible people with health insurance no longer have to subsidize those
without it.The individual mandate for health insurance is based on
the same principle as the individual mandate that drivers have auto insurance.
It lowers the cost responsible people play because they stop subsidizing the
irresponsible. Criticizing this Republican, free-market idea as "nothing more
than a new tax" is disingenous.
Why not pass a series of small bills that change HC one step at a time?Step 1) Tort reform. We know it works - look at Missouri and TX.Step 2)
Make catastrophic HC insurance the default.Step 3) Allow competition for
plans over state lines.Step 4) Improve health savings plans.And so
forth.@ AnonymousGet off the couch and do something that
contributes to society. Your "I hate the rich", "I want something for nothing",
"I'm lazy and on welfare so give me your money" attitude tells me everything I
need to know about you. You actually covet that which isn't yours. Wow! Talk
Health insurance does not equal auto insurance. Auto insurance is needed to
cover injuries or damage inflicted on another through the use of their vehicle.
Health insurance covers the insured only - one person's policy includes no
reparations to another who may catch their cold or illness. You cannot equate
them as President Obama attempted to do. Take a serious look at the suggestions
@ baby steps - I think there may be common ground to work with there.
To "Anonymous | 8:07 a.m." who are listening to? According to Rassmussen
Reports, only 26% of the people in Massachusetts consider it successful. Since
its implementation, ER visits have increased by 7%.If what Romney
did was so good, why did the Boston Globe report "Bay State health insurance
premiums highest in country" In that article, they said "The increase [in
Massachusetts premiums] is attributed to an increase in charges by physicians
and hospitals" So apparently what Romney did was counterproductive.
You are right. The program in MA is a mess but to be fair, Romney's replacement
is responsible for much of the current disaster. With a very liberal state
congress, Romney had the choice of either getting involved in writing the HC
plan or letting the MA congress make a complete mess of the system. He chose to
try and influence it by including some modicum of personal responsibility. I
suggest that if he were still Governor, it wouldn't be quite the mess as it is
The Republican "plan" consists of: Health Savings Accounts (think:
Help Save the Affluent)Buying health insurance across state lines (think:
more complexity/paperwork for already burdened Drs. and mergers/consolidation of
companies is the rule not the exception).Tort Reform (think: 33 states
already have tort reform and studies done by researchers at Princeton and Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health show malpractice suits do not play a significant
role in healthcare costs). Republicans aren't going to vote for any
plan they haven't controlled. The party of authoritarian followers can't get
used to the fact that they lost the last 2 elections. They've no one to blame
but themselves, yet it appears they've learned nothing.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments