BLOGROLL

Senator Hatch invites you to join him and leading economic experts at The Fiscal Future of America forum this Friday at Utah Valley University in Orem.

Senator Hatch explains why he's hosting his forum:

Our nation is at a critical juncture. The runaway spending train enveloping Washington, D. C., is threatening to decimate the future of our children and for all Americans for generations to come. My office has received literally thousands of letters, phone calls, and emails from Utahns who are extremely concerned about America's fiscal future. I envision this Forum as a way for our citizens to have an opportunity to not only listen to some speakers who have been at the forefront of our economy, but to ask questions of the experts and provide feedback to me that I can arm myself with for this fight in Washington.

Comment (1)

Today, Senator Hatch delivered the Republican response to President Barack Obama's weekly address on the issue of health care reform.

Comment (7)

Senator Hatch discusses the perils of government-run health care on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

Comment (0)

Rep. Brad Daw -- from Utah House District 60 -- writes in the Ogden Standard-Examiner . . . "Hatch's Health Care Stand Is Correct":

I want to take a moment and offer a sincere best of luck to Sen. Orrin Hatch as he leads the fight against Washington's idea of health care reform.

As a member of the Utah State Health System reform task force, I can state without reservation that the only hope of genuine, long-term reform lies in less government interference and fewer barriers between patient and doctor. All variations of health care reform I hear coming from the current administration are going in the opposite direction.

Comment (5)

President Obama and Democrats in Congress promise that their health care plan will allow you to keep your current health coverage if you want to, but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that's not true:

Q: How many Americans will lose their current health coverage under the President's health care plan?

A: President Obama's health care plan will cause 22 million Americans to lose their choice of health coverage.

Previous: President's Health Care Bill Hits Major Snag

Comment (1)

Senator Orrin Hatch speaks out against adopting a government-run health care plan through a so-called "public option."

The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.

Comment (1)

President Obama's health care proposal hit a major snag on Monday after the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their first cost first cost estimate of the plan.

The report CBO concluded that the President's plan will:

• Cost at least $1 trillion
• Cause 22 million Americans to lose their current health coverage
• Decrease the number of uninsured by 16 million at a cost of $62,500 per currently uninsured person

Senator Hatch commented on the report:

At a time when the president is working with congressional Democrats to quickly cram an ultra-costly health care plan through the Senate HELP Committee, followed by a similar approach in the Senate Finance Committee, we were all stunned today to learn from the CBO that the bill will cause more than 22 million Americans to lose their current health coverage. This proposal flies in the face of the president's pledge to American families that they could keep the health care coverage of their choice. The CBO estimate shows that the Democratic proposal will decrease the number of uninsured by about 16 million at a cost of 1 trillion dollars over the first 10 years, or $62,500 per uninsured.

It should be noted that the CBO's estimate does not reflect the final cost of the President's bill -- since it does not take into account the cost of a massive expansion of Medicaid, a new government-run plan nor a job-killing employer mandate -- however the costs are only expected to increase!

Comment (2)

Senator Hatch led a group of 8 Senators this week in delivering a message to President Obama opposing a government-run plan in health care reform:

At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice. A recent Milliman study estimated that the cost-shifting from government payers (specifically Medicare and Medicaid) costs families with private insurance nearly $1800 more per year.

Furthermore, actuaries at the Lewin Group have concluded that such a plan open to all, and offering Medicare-level reimbursement rates, would result in 119.1 million Americans losing their private coverage. This would run contrary to your pledge to the American families about allowing them to keep the coverage of their choice.

Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers. Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition. In his March, 2009 testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, testified that it would be "extremely difficult" to create "a system where a public plan could compete on a level playing field" against private coverage. The end result would be a federal government takeover of our healthcare system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in The Washington Times. -Staff

Major policy changes in the United States require the support of the business community.

This is exactly as it should be. After all, entrepreneurs, partnerships, family businesses, public corporations and multinational enterprises are the foundation on which our nation has built the greatest economy in the world -- an economy that has brought unprecedented prosperity to Americans.

This is exactly what is happening right now, as the business community appears poised to get behind health care reform plans proposed by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.

There is nothing wrong with supporting health care reform. Our current system spends too much, covers too few and provides too little for the money we invest in it. We need reforms that transform the delivery system into one that favors high-quality outcomes at lower costs; covers more Americans with quality, portable insurance; and provides better tools to help them navigate the choices and decisions in the health care system.

Responsible, bipartisan reform could greatly benefit the business community by reducing the burden of providing health care, strengthening the private insurance system and reining in the runaway federal costs of Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are headed toward insolvency.

However, reform could carry real costs to the business community as well. Employers might face a play-or-pay soft mandate or an even more costly hard mandate to provide politically determined health benefit packages.

Financing expensive coverage options such as a new public plan could mean price controls and higher marginal taxes on businesses organized as pass-through entities. Recently, some also have floated the idea that eliminating the deferral of taxes on foreign-source income could serve to finance health coverage expansion.

Eliminating deferral is a bad idea, as the evidence shows. As of 2008, three countries still used some sort of worldwide system: Japan, Great Britain and the United States. This year, Japan and Great Britain announced plans to shift to a territorial system. At precisely this moment, then, the Obama administration is proposing a dramatic step in exactly the opposite direction.

We know what will happen as a result. After all, the federal government has taken this ill-considered path before. When taxes were reformed in 1986, the United States eliminated deferral for the shipping industry, and in short order, all of the shipping industry fled this country and established headquarters abroad. The same thing will happen across the board if we repeal deferral.

The reality is simple: If the United States wants to continue to prosper, it has to allow American business to compete. When we tax our businesses more heavily than our competitors tax theirs, our firms have the deck stacked against them in capturing the foreign markets where 95 percent of the world's consumers shop. Our jobs and standard of living will suffer.

So eliminating deferral would be unattractive and even devastating to our business community. The same would be true of raising marginal tax rates, stripping workers of a private ballot in unionization decisions, initiating protectionist trade policies and running roughshod and unconstitutionally over the sanctity of private contracts. The business community, which is so central to the success of policy reforms, rightfully would object to the pursuit of these wrongheaded initiatives.

Why, then, is the business community supporting a blank check on health care reform? It can, should and will be a major player in the reform debate. That role should be to ensure that reform adheres to key principles: First, cost and quality must be top priority; second, there must be a path to greater quality insurance coverage, but any new private sector resources must be devoted to expanding private insurance; and finally, every participant must have greater information and support than at present.

Support for the right kind of health reform will meet the dual goals of improving the health care system and preserving the engine of U.S. economic success.

Comment (3)