Hatch: Too Rushed On Health Care

GOP Senator Says Democrats' Proposals Will "Kill a Lot of Jobs"

(CBS)  Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) bemoaned that any health care proposal which taxes wealthy Americans and small businesses will "kill a lot of jobs" on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"I don't follow why we have got to spend another one-and-a-half to two trillion dollars . . . on top of the two trillion we are already spending in this country . . . and then still by one estimate have 33 million people without health insurance," Hatch said.

The senator said that health care legislation in the House and Senate has become "so political."

He called the current House bill a "total partisan bill. The HELP committee in the Senate is a total partisan bill, and our only hope is to have Senator Baucus put something together in the Finance Committee."

Guest moderator Harry Smith asked Hatch if he thinks the race to finish legislating health care reform by Congress' August 8 summer recess is going "too fast."

"I think so," Hatch replied, noting the cost and significance of making changes in an industry he claimed accounts for about one-sixth of the American economy. "You're talking about myriad problems here. You're talking about people who are all over the map as far as what they really want to do. I think there's a really good reason why the president wants to [finish by August 8]. He knows he can't sell it if the debate lasts very long because it is so expensive and costly."

Congressman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) argued that the reason the House and Senate proposals appear partisan is because Republicans have not offered reasonable alternatives.

"We have been dealing with this bill for over six months," Rangel said. "The fact that it is not bipartisan is not because Democrats don't want to have a bipartisan bill; we don't have any Republican answers.

"It's easy to say what you don't like about this bill," Rangel said in response to Hatch's cruiticisms, "but it would be far more constructive if we had something to work on."

The New York Congressman, who is chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, said he is depending on Hatch to see if there is a reasonable Republican bill in the Senate because "There certainly is not one in the House.

"The president has given us a deadline; we're working under it. Our committee has reported out a bill. We're waiting for the Senate to do what? Do anything!"

Hatch responded that Republicans have not been welcomed into the process of drafting either the House or Senate health bills.

"One of the big problems is we really have not been invited very strongly into either bill in the House or the Senate," he said. "There hasn't been a real interchange with Republicans on this issue.

"I blame the leadership and I blame the president for pushing something so hard so that they are deathly afraid of the August recess."

"The president is working around the clock on this issue and I don't want to be negative about the other body," Rangel said later. "Quite frankly they haven't presented anything to the Senate to the House or to the country."

Earlier in the program Harry Smith asked Rangel to respond to the Congressional Budget Office's estimation that the House bill which his committee passed was costly and ineffective.

"I am surprised that the Congressional Budget Office had these views and did not share them with the Ways and Means Committee before we finished our work," Rangel said, offering that the CBO is "working with different assumptions" than are the White House and Congress.

Smith asked Rangel if the health care proposal by the House leadership could be achieved without significantly raising taxes.

"Well, no," he admitted. "It's the question of home much savings we do have."

Rangel said that in the proposal, $500 billion were raised by savings in Medicare and Medicaid and an additional $500 billion were raised through taxes.

[BouvierRenee]

My healthcare insurance provider, Horizon BC BS of New Jersey, contacted my mother, while I was an inpatient in the hospital, to downgrade my Traditional Plan. Every time I entered the hospital as an inpatient this occurred without my knowledge and without my consent as a 35 year old woman, suffering from SLE. To make a long story short, the representatives of Horizon BC BS of NJ had my mother fill out forms to downgrade my insurance, where the anual premium rose to $29,500 with the apparent blessing of appointed and elected officials in the state of New Jersey. I was then forced onto an HMO with the same provider. When I attempted to use my insurance coverage with this HMO policy, the Horizon BC BS of NJ sent one of their representatives to my house to intimidate me into not seeking medical treatment. I am going to sue my now former insurer for millions upon millions of dollars for damages. If this causes my fellow citizens rates to go up -- good! As far as I am concerned, my fellow citizens have been nothing less than collaborators in this health care insurance ponzi scheme. The people in this country are extremely selfish in addition to being extremely complacent. If you don't want your premiums to become prohibitive, then revamp the system and put all of the miscreants profiteering off of your misfortune and demise in prison. Any healthcare executive with blood on his hands (and any doctors, employed by these healthcare insurance companies, denying treatment to patients) should serve long prison terms in a federal, maximum security facility with hardened criminals.

[rkartist]

There is no way they can pull of the health care reform!!! Agencies are already so broken that Constitutional Rights to due process have long been being violated as investigated and reported by CBS last year in the story "Disability Pay Rejections" - http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3713125n I am one of those whose rights were violated and my life destroyed and NO JUSTICE yet almost a year later after it was admitted to by the head of the division of the SSA that was doing it. If they cannot right the wrongs done to us, they cannot possible do health care reform!

[miss_irene]

All of those lauding the Canadian healthcare system don't take into account the fact that Canada controls strictly its immigration -- we don't. They can afford a lavish public healthcare system because they are not being flooded with 2 million legal and illegal largely poverty-stricken Third Worlders every year -- we are.

And all of those saying that the Obama plan doesn't include illegal immigrants are wrong. The Democracts just killed the Heller amendment that would have required proof of citizenship in order to participate in the plan. This is allowing illegal immigrants into the plan on a de facto basis. So the plan allows illegals to receive free healthcare, period. The "government" will not enforce our immigration laws and this will be just one more magnet for 150 million Mexicans and Central Americans to show up in our backyard and demand their "fair" share of the goodies. Meanwhile, elderly American citizens who have paid into Medicare for 30 or 40 years will see their benefits cut. This is the reality of Obama's plan. I don't want to ration healthcare to American seniors so that foreign lawbreakers who never paid into the plan can benefit. Call your representives today and tell them you cannot support the plan unless it features a foolproof way to filter out illegal immigrants.

[mikeoliphant]

The House Health Care Bill, 1,018-page document, released this week (July 14th, 2009) reveals some concerns as noted by http://www.healthinsurancetexas.biz and http://www.selecthealth.biz Mike Oliphant serves as health care consultant with these two popular websites in Utah. He also is a serving board member with Utah Association of Health Underwriters. A provision within this bill would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
This translates into those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. It is likely that those same people will suffer abnormally high rate increases over time which would force them out of coverage. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
From the beginning, www.benefitsmanager.net and www.dentalinsuranceutah.net warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage. The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law. The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs. With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
SelectHealth.biz states that the public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny. Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

[zerodown]

To the Kings and Queens of America...you'll get yours yet, however big you think are. You'll get yours yet.

[zerodown]

There they go again.

[alanrobisch]

Please note a famous saying hurry to marry and repent at your leisure. It seems to me a major change like this deserves a chance for people to understand and digest not push through. The Rasmussen poll finds that 50% of Americans oppose the public option. If they understood it all we may not get the bill Obama the great wants.

[claydowner]

The cost of President Obama's health care plan is substantial around one trillion dollars over ten years. You have to understand that these are upfront costs that over time we will be able to pay for and afford. First of all the Congressional Budget Office said that the costs were more than a trillion dollars this analysis failed to consider critical new revenue streams that are going to change the money coming into the federal treasury. First, a reality check, in 1980 the top 1% of families earned 9% of the national income, by 2007 that same top 1% of families now earned 21% of national income in America. This is a huge change for signifying that profound erosion of middle class purchasing power in our economy. Secondly, wages and salaries have been flat for a long time in America especially for high school graduates. The outsourcing of over 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2001 has lead to further erosion of positions that pay middle class wages. Health care costs are rising three times faster than the purchasing power of middle class people's wages and salaries. The top 5% of families in America benefited greatly from the Bush tax cuts of nearly one trillion dollars. Professors Linda Bilmes and Joe Stiglitz have said that the long term costs of the Iraq war will hit $3 trillion dollars.

The Republicans have no cost control mechanisms for the wars they have started. We need to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. By rolling back the Bush tax cuts and taxing families that earn $300K or more per year there will be more than enough new revenue to pay for universal health care coverage in this country. There was no call for sacrifice when we decided to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan just borrowing the money from China and let our kids pay the interest. It is well time that the upper class who has benefited so much from Bush's tax cuts now sacrifice something so that hard pressed middle class people can have decent universal health care. Republicans like Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnel are total hypocrites on health care as are most Republicans with the exception of Olympia Snowe. The time to pass President Obama's health care reform will also just be the first step in a major overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs. Any new health insurance reforms should include a non-partisan commission or "Medpac" that is made up of doctors, economists, and other experts on health care to decide what our policies should be. This "Medpac" proposal is championed by Senator Jay Rockefeller and should be embraced by the Obama administration as a cost control measure. We must have non-partisan commission that revue our entitlement programs that make policy recommendations to Congress and the Administration. President Obama's health care reform package passed this year is the first step on a long journey that is going to take up his whole two terms and the term of the next President to follow before the American health care system is put on a sustainable financial trajectory.

[claydowner]

Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia all have national health insurance programs essentially single payer and run by the government. There are private insurance plans in these countries but they are mostly the domain of the well to do. The British health care system is vastly superior to anything in America. All British citizens are covered under the national health system and the British spend between 9% and 10% of their GDP. America spends 16% of GDP on health care and 47 million are uninsured with another 20 million under-insured. An American family goes bankrupt because of medical bills once every 30 seconds. Nearly three-fourths of all bankruptcy filings are because of a medical bill in America. The Canadian, British, and Australian systems all do a better job of regulating and using the purchasing power of the government to control the rise of medical costs by creating a scale of economy and by strict regulation of all aspects of the health care system. Although costs are a concern in all these countries they do not have the double digit increases like we experience in America. Some insurance companies in America like Blue Cross and Blue Shield have virtual monopolies in many states and are asking for 20% to 30% premium increases for their customers, mainly working families and small business owners. Why not anti-trust legislation to break up these huge American monopolies that suck the life out of all working families in America. Senator Jay Rockefeller quoted a GAO report that stated that over 100 million Americans are routinely overcharged by private health insurance companies. Where is the outrage?

The Republicans are in the pockets of the large health insurance companies, the big pharmaceuticals, big HMO's and other large corporate entities that make huge profits from the status quo. There is no substance to what Senator Hatch is saying about the problems of moving too fast on President Obama's health care proposal. The Republican party has been blocking any form of national health insurance since 1946 when President Truman first asked for a national health care plan for all Americans. The dysfunctional American health care system is on a totally unsustainable course that is approaching a financial meltdown. The failure to not pass President Obama's health insurance reform with a strong public option will cause a huge tragedy for families. Tens of millions of Americans who have health insurance will lose their coverage in coming years without reform. Republicans who want to maintain the health insurance status quo are rearranging deck furniture on the Titanic after it has struck the iceberg. Our health care system is going to hell in a hurry. Anyone who opposes President Obama's health care plan had better have a good solution for insuring 50 million people and for controlling costs. The only way is a strong public option or a Canadian or British single payer system. We are facing a national crisis that is turning rapidly into a national emergency on health care. The time for substantive action is now not 50 years from now.

[alanrobisch]

nice to see a substantive post not just a flame but I must disagree with you. Our problem now is an economic crisis which is putting in what may become an unsustainable debt. Rises in taxes during a recession is a bad idea whether from the rich or poor and chances this will further exacerbate the recession because of less job creation because there is less free capital to create businesses that generate jobs. Medicare is in serious financial trouble and has continuously used reduction in reimbursement to control costs yet without increase in income it will be bankrupt. this is the way govt works. willingness to raise taxes is limited yet expenses will continue to go up.

It seems to me we should use any tax increases to reduce our debt or insure the viability of Medicare. Note I have many contacts with people who are unhappy customers of the British and Canadian Health care systems.Rationing is commonplace and significant delay in getting care.

What most people object to is the inability to have the care prescribed by their doctors. With single payer health care we would have the government make decisions on necessary treatment.

Note one reason insurance co have virtual monopolies is that the companies are limited to where they can do business. I work for the government and am given multiple choices from inexpensive to very expensive. Similar availability could be a rational way to lower costs and insure people. We do not need a public option. We could if we could afford it simply subsidize the low income workers to a level that basic insurance is available

[beaumuff]

Something needs to be done but not by Pelosi, Reid, Barney and Kennedy. They have done far to much already.

[pjk12354]

There have been some people who have been pushing for health care reform since the Clinton Administration. Does taking it slow really mean to these clowns doing anything at all?

[babooph]

I do not recall this lowlife needing "more time" to waste the future of the US in 2 stupid,wasting wars-no need "for more "time in tax cuts for the rich-BOTH contributing to the horrible economy-for health care for the public;lets go VEEERRRYYY slowly-the lobby $ is fantastic!!

[justsane-2009]

i'm sorry, did he say this was too rushed? didn't clinton try to get the ball rolling on this 16 years ago? how much more time do you need?

time's up. let's get this thing done--it's way overdue.

[Nikos_Retsos]

I am not going to do a point-by-point rehash of the Orrin Hatch and Charles Rangel tiff here. But I will come straight to the core of the problem - the cost. And I feel that those who grumble about the cost in congress should be ashamed of themselves - including Orrin Hatch.

The reasons:
A) We have spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Republicans never had any problem with the cost. Is money used in unnecessary wars a virtue, and money spend for the the health of our needy citizens a curse?

B) The Pentagon wants to kill the F-22 Raptor because its $150 million a piece is obscene, and it is a waste equal to flushing the millions down the sewer. But Congress objects strongly. Why is Congress not growling about the F-22 Raptor cost? Because of the millions congressmen receive as political contributions from the
defense contractors, and defense jobs in their states. Is it better to waste money on gold plated weapons just to spread the billions to political supporters, and then growl that there is no money for basic health care across America. Brazil, Canada and Singapore, for example, do not have our GNP, but they all have full
free medical care for 100% of their citizens!

c) A few years back, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dropped the Persuader, another $ 150 million a piece junky cannon, and Congress again was up in arms - especially the republicans. And that tells us that the republicans are always ready to spend out Gross National Product tax receipts on wars and gold plated weapons that enrich their political contributors -without any worry about excess spending or the national deficit- but when some money is to be spend on basic medical care, then they become tightwads.

Senator Harry Reid told the National Public Radio a few years back that "100.000 Halliburton contractors became 'instant millionaires' in Iraq." Did any republican complain then about spending and the war's deficit? Of course not. The "instant millionaires" were all republican, and Dick Cheney's buddies." Did Orrin Hatch complain about those wasted millions in an unnecessary war? Of course not. They were his political buddies as well.

It shall be a shame on all congressmen who try to sabotage a national health care plan, but spend freely trillions on wars and mayhem around the globe, while 40 million Americans live with Sub-Sahara Africa health care standards. It is the epitome of insanity that has accorded our militarism and warmongering the ire of the world, and, on the darker side, wasted trillions of dollars and lives for nothing! If we had spend all that money internally, we would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have had fewer enemies around the world, and we would have had a healthier society in both finance and human health as well. Therefore, the health care issue would certainly show each American now of what moral fabric their senator and their congressman are made of. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

[pphhiill]

One question: how old was he?

80ish, but does it matter? 50 or 80 the fact is that in Windsor you'd better cross your fingers that the surgeon(s) are not tied up when you really need them. And everybody knows it.

BTW, interesting read below

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/world/windsor-journal-doctors-eying-the-us-canada-is-sick-about-it.html

[insureu2]

Too rushed??? They have had over 20 years to think about this problem and come up with a solution!

[jokr8790]

Hey Chuckem, you are 1 medical crisis away from bankruptcy. Nobody opposes "free choice." Its not a real choice. Canada, England, Sweden, France and many other countries have proven that you can have quality medical care and free health coverage for all at the same time.

[Chuckem]

$5/hour over a career yields 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS at retirement. My latest

employer offers a choice of medical insurance or $5 per hour in my paycheck and I

chose the cash. Who opposes free choice? My wife and I raised 4 kids with never a

penny from insurance. The real cause of overchargeing in medical costs is the 3rd

party payment scheme which attempts to suspend responsibility, free choice, and

the common law of supply and demand. Why is free choice opposed?

[ubrew12]

Yeah. Our healthcare system leaves 50 million people uninsured, and is hemorrhaging the nations wealth every day its in place, but 'whats the rush'? Lets just leave sleeping dogs lie, shall we? (of course, they may be dead, but who cares?)

[skyk-2009]

So because YOU have been extremely lucky or extremely stupid, the rest of us should do without? That's insane!

[rbstrcklnd]

Hey Obama, slow down. Or do you want to pass this like the other bills before anyone has a chance to read the bill. How has the stimulus worked. What about Tarp. Bush was responsible for half of tarp, he left the rest to you.

[skyk-2009]

If I were you I'd hold back judgment on the Stimulus my friend. It has not began to fully work, that is true, but when it does you may find yourself, yet again, trying to find someone to blame or an excuse. Why is it Neocon's are ALWAYS looking for someone to Blame or some Excuse? NEVER provided any success OR responsibility for anything.

[pphhiill]

As a Canadian who has seen and been through the HealthCanada system, let me sum it up in like this: IT STINKS and DON"T DO IT. Two short but not uncommon examples I have are (1) my brother almost lost his leg to infection after waiting for 10 hours on a gurney after breaking it. There were no surgeons available.(2) My Mothers neighbor died after a heart attack after 4 hours of searching for a heart surgeon. By the time he was brought over the border to Detroit he was dead. Everybody I know has a horror story. Entire communities without a Doctor.The best and brightest medical students go to States because the can't make any money.They cap their pay. To all those "Canadians" who "love" their care. Please stop the propaganda. You know it's a bunch of bs.

[ubrew12]

These horror stories 'never' happen in the states (LOL).
Canada's healthcare is rated superior to the United States, but I'm sure it has its disadvantages. You mother's neighbor's story doesn't sound plausible, sorry. One question: how old was he?

"Entire communities without a Doctor": rural communities have the same problem in the States.

[ubrew12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVJ3gr7qjnE&feature=channel
is the refutation to your post, although its kinda dry.