Health-Care Plan Presents Problems
Posted by: Orrin Hatch in Health Care Reform on
Sep 25, 2009
The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Deseret News. -Staff
The greatest opportunity offered by real health-care reform is lower costs facing Americans. At the outset of the health-care debate, members of Congress in both parties, as well as President Barack Obama, held out this promise. Unfortunately, after several months of attempted negotiations and a highly partisan prime-time speech by the president, genuine bipartisan reform has thus far failed. When it became apparent that health-care reform was going to raise the burden on American families, not lower it, I ceased participating in the Senate negotiations.
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has now put forth an $856 billion partisan proposal that he continues to hope will attract at least a modicum of Republican support. So far, no takers. Why? It is not surprising, given that even Ron Wyden, a Democratic member of the committee, has acknowledged that its expensive mandate would be "a real hit on middle-class families."
Baucus' bill also includes a panoply of taxes and fees to fund the expansive new programs. These are even more bad news for middle-income earners, with direct taxes and indirect penalties, fees and higher costs.
Let's start with the taxes. The Baucus bill declares war on savings accounts for health care. For example, the bill would limit the amount that employees can set aside of their own money into flexible spending accounts. In addition, over-the-counter medicine would no longer be qualified expenses for those accounts and health savings accounts, unless you have a doctor's note. Lastly, the proposal includes an increase from 10 percent to 20 percent for the penalty for withdrawals that are not used for qualified medical expenses. All together, this means that employees could be facing a 55 percent federal tax on a bottle of aspirin. This year, 35 million employees participate in employer-sponsored, employee-funded flexible spending accounts. They provide relief for the ever-increasing amount of health care that families must pay out of their own pockets. How does cutting back on flexible-spending-account benefits lower the costs of health care?
Even worse are the hidden, indirect levies in the Baucus bill. The most troubling are unprecedented excise taxes hitting broad swaths of the health-care industry -- pharmaceuticals, medical devices and health-insurance providers. While the corporations would send the checks to the IRS, we know that the real pain will be passed to consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums, higher prices, lower pay and even some layoffs. Rather than cost-saving reforms, this plan means higher costs for everything from hospital beds to hearing aids, creating one more unfair burden on middle-income families seeking affordable heath care. Finally, if you decide to either not have health insurance or if you need a more expensive plan than is allowed, the Baucus plan will raise taxes on the affluent and poor alike. 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.
We are all for real health-care reform. But Obama and his party in Congress are asking us to make things harder, not easier, for middle-income taxpayers. At a time when we have trillion-dollar-plus deficits and an unemployment rate reaching double digits, this is a colossal mistake I cannot support.

written by Jason, September 25, 2009
written by jenica jacobsen, September 25, 2009
written by Publius, September 25, 2009
written by Michael Morgan, September 25, 2009
written by Randy Thomas, September 26, 2009
written by JD, September 26, 2009
That's a great idea to have health care for everyone, it sounds great but it is only possible when they are able to deny certain care for everyone too. If you want to preach about the need to compassionately care for our own, then you have the freedom to set an example by giving money to any charity that does help people in need. Too many people act like the only way they can do good with their money is to have the government take it and decide what is best for them. The government is not a mom or a dad that needs to take care of us and tell us how to spend our money. You should figure that out on your own.
written by Jeremy Robb, October 01, 2009
How does it do this? Doctors, in order to afford the costs of going to court whether or not a lawsuit is justified, need to buy malpractice insurance from insurance companies, generally the same insurance companies that offer everyone else healthcare. As more suits are levied, doctors need to pay higher premiums, and any losses (including court fees even if the case is dismissed) gets covered by the insurance company.
Because the insurance is so expensive, doctors raise the cost of treatment for everyone involved. Insurance companies are charged more, which is why they raise premiums for everyone else. It's a vicious cycle, and so far I've only seen a couple bills on the Hill address this issue. Wouldn't that lower the costs of any health insurance, and make healthcare more universally available?
Universal healthcare doesn't have to be socialized healthcare. We don't have to pay 40% plus in income taxes to be sure everyone is covered by health insurance. Universal healthcare can be achieved simply by making healthcare coverage more affordable. Co-ops, true co-ops where those joining in have control of investments and company decisions, are more feasible, because costs for healthcare becomes manageable. Even if arbitration instead of legal action were considered, costs would be far lower.
I don't know... Instead of throwing more money at the problem, let's actually address the problem. Let's have some discussions, publicly broadcasted negotiations with everyone in the Healthcare industry from insurance companies to doctors to patients. Let's get down to where the real complaints are, and actually address them, instead of throwing more money down the hole. That's what President Obama had promised to do in his speech while campaigning in South Carolina. Why hasn't this happened?
written by James Fawcett, October 08, 2009






