« Iraq Briefing - 17 November 2009 - The First Advise and Assist Brigade Reports | Main | See, I Told You So »
November 21, 2009
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) Runs the Numbers on Reidcare
On the Senate floor a few hours ago Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) told us how expensive and flawed the current bill is:
I am going to spend my time before this historic vote to highlight some very important numbers, so every member of this chamber understands what they are voting to advance. Make no mistake, our actions today will not be without consequences. History and our future generations will judge us on this. Here are some numbers:· 0 - the number of provisions prohibiting the rationing of health care.
· 0 - the number of government-run entitlement programs that are financially sound over the long-term.
· 10.2 percent - our national unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years.
· 70 - total number of government programs authorized by the bill.· 1,697 - times the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given authority to determine or define provisions in this bill.
· 2,074 - total pages in this bill.
· 2010 - the year Americans start paying higher taxes to pay for this bill
· 2014 - the year when this bill actually starts most of the major provisions of this bill
· $6.8 million - cost to taxpayers per word
· $8 billion - the total amount of new taxes on Americans who do not buy Washington-defined health care.
· $465 billion - Cuts in Medicare at a time when it faces a $38 trillion unfunded liability to finance more government spending.
· $494 billion - total amount of new taxes in this bill
· $2.5 trillion - the real cost of the bill
· $12 trillion - our total national debt
These numbers are facts. They are undisputable.
Let me finish by reading an excerpt from a letter from one of my fellow Utahans from Provo, who is worried just like me about what this bill will mean for our country:
"I am writing out of deep concern over the increasing expansion of government. I moved here from Germany 20 years ago. I love America because it is free - freer than Germany in that I have the freedom to choose, among other things, how I want to insure my family (we have six children). I'm all for affordable health insurance which requires affordable health care. I am self-employed and have been hit hard by the economy.
There is a good chance that we would actually benefit from [this bill]. Business has been so bad that we would qualify for free school lunches if we asked for it. But I don't want more government handouts.
I don't want the government telling me what kind of insurance I need to have. I don't want the government telling me what services I can receive when I need them. I don't want them taking an ever greater part of my income to help finance government programs such as the 'public option' and the army of government employees it will take to administer such a program. I do not want more government. I want less. A lot less."
Posted by Tom at November 21, 2009 9:30 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1483
Comments
This is incredibly disingenuous of Senator Hatch. Where in the bill does anything call for rationing of health care?
Name any government program that is solvent and this is mostly because our legislators, democrat and republican, are too afraid to ask for more money to pay for the programs.
10.2% unemployment sounds like an excellent reason for a universal health care plan. Are we to make them do without because they're unemployed Senator Hatch? And yes Tom. This is a trap. You can answer this or one of the right leaning posters can if they dare.
Posted by: Truth 101 at November 22, 2009 1:49 PM
Thanks for stopping by, Truth.
Just because a bill doesn't say it won't do something doesn't mean it won't have that effect. We must put on our thinking caps.
It's all supply and demand, and no politician can overturn the basic laws of economics.
Demand always soars once something is "free." So when healthcare is "free," demand will skyrocket, and thus cost goes up too. After all, someone has to pay for it.
In the case of healthcare, the payment comes in the form of taxes. Initially the government will be able to increase taxes, but at some point an upper limit will be reached.
When the public finally balks at additional taxes, the government will find that the money to pay for healthcare has topped out also. Therefore supply, which in this case means the number of doctors, tests, etc, reaches it's upper limit too. Yet because healthcare is "free" to the consumer, demand will continue to climb.
Well, when demand keeps going up but supply stops, you have a problem. And when demand exceeds supply you have people who want something that by definition not everyone will get.
Thus you will have shortages.
So healthcare won't be rationed World War II style, whereby you have a coupon book and all that, but the shortage will have the same effect.
This has already occurred in every country that has a single-payer system. No politician can overturn the laws of economics.
Now, you can say that today we ration healthcare by the ability to pay for it, though this is not exactly true also because no one is denied actual care. I've talked to enough EMS personnel to know this to be true.
But you can say this about any good or service in existence. The first law of economics is that of scarcity, which means that goods and services are not available in infinite quantities.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at November 22, 2009 10:20 PM
People get sick whether or not they have health insurance. And whether you call how it's paid for "taxes" or "premiums" it still will have to be paid for. A payroll tax on everyone has everyone contributing to the system.
I don't want to defend the current bill because I see it as nothing more than an elaborate scheme to make insurance companies loads of money. Just as the Prescription Drug Act of 2003 made drug companies boatloads of money.
Posted by: Truth 101 at November 25, 2009 5:30 PM
Truth: As Sen. Hatch points out there are 1,697 references in the bill authorizing the Sec. of HHS to determine the regulations that will actually be in place under this bill. That's a massive transfer of power AND responsibility from the legislative branch to the executive bureaucracy.
Hatch also points out that Dems have refused every amendment which would specifically ban rationing of care. Why do you suppose that is unless they understand that rationing will be necessary.
Do you suppose all these boards and commissions are going to be set up to just approve every procedure a doctor recommends?
I don't think so.
Posted by: Mike's America at November 26, 2009 1:25 AM
