Comments about ‘Letter: What Hatch doesn't say about the Prescription Drug Bill’

The GOP and the right are quick to point out all of the spending by the Democrats.
They also scream at the programs the Govt creates that interfere in our lives.

However, just like Hatch, they conveniently ignore their own spending habits.

The prescription drug bill was the largest entitlement expansion since medicare. And it was passed under a GOP controlled congress with a GOP president.

No Child Left Behind was another HUGE Govt intrusion, again championed by the GOP.

Only in hindsight do some condemn those programs. But it is too late.

Sadly, many can only see the ills of the "other" party.

Seniors are the most reliable Republican constituency. Repealing Medicare part D would make them mad. I suspect it would even make the Tea Party seniors mad. They like welfare just fine, as long as they are the ones receiving it.

Never let it be said that Hatch doesn't favor entitlements, so long as they benefit his corporate friends and sponsors, including but not limited to Big Pharma.

And never let it be said that Hatch doesn't want to reduce the deficit, so long as it doesn't impact those same friends and sponsors.

And don't even mention regulating the food supplement industry.

A bill that was unfunded. Also a bill carried out by Utah's own Mike Leavitt, who as the head of HHS, barred the government from negotiating drug prices, unlike the VA. We all get to pay more as taxpayers. This same crowd is advising Romney. I'm sorry, but we cannot afford more unfunded spending from a GOP Administration which jettisoned pay-go when they were in power. The rhetoric does not come close to matching reality.

Orrin Hatch wouldn't know a principle if it socked him in the eye. It is time for Hatch to go.

I think we should do away with all medical programs and entitlements. Survival of the fittest (and richest), just like Somalia, is what we should be advocating. Oh wait, the right-wing already is.

Hatch is trying to play both sides of the street, hoping that we don't notice the split personality. He's claiming to be conservative, while at the same time undermining the limited government that conservatism stands for.

He apparently wants to control any scrutiny of this wide gap between his claimed conservatism and his real-life votes. This manifests itself in his refusal to participate in any televised debates with his Republican opponent, Dan Liljenquist. This is in spite of the fact that Hatch himself insisted in 1976 that his Republican opponent participate in eight televised debates, claiming that they were important for the people. Well, they're still important NOW.

One of Hatch's excuses (for not debating Liljenquist on TV) is that he's "too busy." Obviously that's a phony reason, because Hatch won't even agree to allow the single RADIO debate to be later shown on television! He wants to keep the voters in the dark, as much as he can. These are actions of a calculating politician, not a trusted statesman.

@Roland Keyser

I think you may be referring to the guy with the sign that said "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."

Yeah, I was laughing at him too.

The rest of us want to bring America's spending into line with her revenues, and are willing to do whatever it takes -- even if it means cutting back programs to which people feel entitled.

Actually, medicare drug coverage is not free. One has to pay a monthly premium to be covered. it is optional, and like all Gov. programs it operates in the red.

@ T. Party, I agree we need to "bring America's spending into line with her revenues, and are willing to do whatever it takes...." I'm for cutting unnecessary spending and reforming programs. But I'm also realistic enough to know we can't keep cutting revenue and balance the budget. Who has the guts to do what Bush I and Clinton did by supporting a tax increase? In Clinton's case, the economy thrived, in part because by reducing the demand for credit by the government, more was available to the private sector. The Republican way is one based on short-term greed and should be rejected. It does not work.

Didn't I read that Orrin has some type of association with the pharmaceutical industry? Lobbyists or private contributors that make funds available to his campaign "war chest"?

Fortunately, Dan Liljenquist does NOT have the same political baggage that Hatch carries. Utah needs a Senator who is NOT beholden to lobbyists, PACs, and persons or corporations seeking political favors.

A vote for Dan on June 26 is a vote for a new and brighter future for Utahns and their families. Let's send a new face to Washington, DC to give the next generations the America they deserve, and the one which we older voters inherited from our parents. VOTE DAN!

The premiums charged by Medicare part D only cover 25% of the cost. As there was no funding mechanism to pay for the program, the other 75% goes onto the national credit card.

Another great letter urging us all to vote for Scott Howell!

Yes, hypocrisy seems to be on the list of needed attributes to run for office. A sad fact.

Before you have wisdom you must seek to understand. Medicare part D before Obamacare was hated by liberals and why? Because it changed the dynamic of entitlements. Medicare part D came about because of several problems but the largest of these was the fact that elderly people were strapped into social secuirty and had no way to pay for outragous drug costs. the medicare part d plan takes the path of the free market by providing the incentive for people to be responsible for their own costs and not rely on the government to be a free for all health plan. There is an initial investment in this that has actually come in under previous estimates. The plan is also the gateway for medicare vouchers that Paul Ryan has proposed in his budget. It wasn't perfect but it was necessary and it was better than the previous path which would have seen more and more seniors enrolled in medicaid and more and more of the same old entitlement problem.

FIX IT!

If the main problem is that there is little or no competition among the drug companies, then change the bill so that there is competition.

If the main problem is that Canadian pills are less expensive than United States pills, then buy the pills from Canada.

If the main problem is that the Democrats just want to whine and blame somebody else, just like Mr. Obama has done since taking office, then sit back and complain.

I certainly don't agree with Mr. Hatch, and I won't be voting for him this year. If he wins the primary, I'll write-in Mr. Lilgenquist. I will not vote for someone who wilfully ignores the Constitution, but I certainly won't just sit back and whine when something needs fixing.

To the Hammer: There is no funding source for Medicare Part D. It is the biggest free for all government giveaway of all time. Talking about free market incentives for people to be responsible for their own health is absolute nonsense.

We do need to take care of our senior citizens with high-priced prescriptions. That is a role of government. The democrat version of the RX drug bill was much more expensive.

Medicare Part D eliminated the gov'ts ability with Medicare to negotiate lower drug costs with the industry. It was a massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

And meanwhile, the health insurance industry continues to rake 30% off the top for their "share."