Health-Care Plan Presents Problems

Posted by: Orrin Hatch in Health Care Reform on Print 

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.

Trackback(0)
Comments (8)Add Comment
0
which cost is worse?
written by Jason, September 25, 2009
$1,900 in taxes per year might sound like a lot of money to some people, but considering I paid more than that last month alone in out of pocket healthcare costs, it really sounds quite appealing to me.
0
...
written by jenica jacobsen, September 25, 2009
I would argue that the greatest opportunity posed by healthcare reform is health care for everyone, not how it will affect my personal finances. As a country we need to compassionately care for our own.
0
...
written by Publius, September 25, 2009
The Constitution says promote the general welfare not provide for the general welfare. By forcing everyone to pay for health care the burden falls on a lot of college kids. It seems to me to be more like Social Security. I am not counting on Social Security to pay me anything when I retire, because the money that I am spending is not going into a savings account, it is going to pay the baby boomers who are retiring. My health care money will go to cover the older generation. I have lived under socialized medicine and it is not very good. Rationing does happen whether you want it to or not. Bureaucrats eventually believe they know medicine better than the doctors which leads them to make decisions on cost rather than health.
0
The current proposals are a bad investment...
written by Michael Morgan, September 25, 2009
Based on some of the number I have seen floating around, the average cost for these bills to cover one uninsured person is just under $30,000 per year! That's a very poor way to spend money when private insurance companies can do it for much less. So tell me, how is spending twice as much going to improve health care?! Let's stop focusing on symptoms and start identifying and addressing problems!
0
...
written by Randy Thomas, September 26, 2009
HEY ORRIN. My premium monthly is $550. My wifes is $610. And I get 80% coverage. I have pre-existing so I can't change companies so I must pay these extortion fees. This is broken and all you can do is NOTHING. Where is toyr outrage against insurance companies. We're goig broke and all you do is kick the ball. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!! Mr Hatch, at least ANY CHANGE is good. Maybe the change we beed is to change YOU.
0
...
written by JD, September 26, 2009
"...the greatest opportunity posed by healthcare reform is health care for everyone, not how it will affect my personal finances. As a country we need to compassionately care for our own."

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.
0
What Change Do You Want?
written by Jeremy Robb, October 01, 2009
Everyone is talking like the only change in healthcare that matters is socializing healthcare. Doesn't it make sense to lower the costs of healthcare, so more people can afford it? After reading the initial Senate bill on healthcare, I saw no provision to halt the rampant malpractice suits that increase the costs of healthcare overall.

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?
0
...
written by James Fawcett, October 08, 2009
Mr. Hatch, I'm with you. I supported the Democrats in this past election, because I thought there would be a genuine way to help the rising costs of health insurance. As I watch the debates on C-SPAN I've been compelled to stand with your views, because you are right. If what I'm hearing in the health care debates gets passed, we will all be wondering how our government got this so wrong.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy