CacheGOP Blog

One of the major arguments used by proponents of healthcare overhaul is that even if a new system creates rationing, it is no different than what we have—the current system rations healthcare.  But the bigger picture is that when government rations anything it is within fixed limits.  i.e., there is a budget for health care and then services are allocated within those boundaries. 

Markets allow for much more flexibility, including overall expansion of the boundaries.  And yes, that even allows any one individual to allocate all of their resources to a single budget item (health care). 

Now I understand the repugnance to the notion that bankruptcy can result from health care costs.  But that individual made the decision.  They could have chosen to not purchase health care. 

I agreed, that course unlikely and perhaps even immoral to suggest.  But if it is immoral for a person to chose to deny themselves health care, then why is it not immoral to allow a government bureaucrat(s) to make the choice?  And if your answer is that with government involvement everyone will get what they want, then grab your wallet–the costs will accelerate at an alarming rate. 

Finally, the accusation that conservatives have no solutions is ridiculous.  To begin with, let’s prove proposed savings within the Medicare system.  I don’t know if corruption can be driven out of the system but there ought to at least be an attempt.  Supply of labor and materials needs to be expanded.  Tort reform enacted.  And in the area of outcome based medicine, a lot more discussion needs to be carried on.  It would be nice if outcomes could be deterministic but such is not the case in the very imprecision science of medicine;  platitudes from the Presidential bully pulpit not withstanding. 

And IF the government needs to be involved, then I would prefer a discussion in the realms of catastrophic care/government as a re-insurer….   This story continues to develop.

David James

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch Delivers Weekly Republican Address  August 15, 2009

Hello. I’m Orrin Hatch, from the great state of Utah. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with all of you today to talk about the very important challenge of health care reform.
Ensuring access to affordable and quality health care for every American is not a Republican or Democrat issue — it is an American issue. Our nation expects us to solve this challenge in an open, honest and responsible manner. More spending, more taxes and more government is not the answer.

After the rushed stimulus bill, Americans are rightly concerned about what is being pushed through the Democratic Congress. The rush to pass something that will affect every American life and one-sixth of our economy has raised concerns all around our nation.

So, why are Americans so skeptical of and concerned with the approach of the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress? A big reason for this concern is that nearly 85 percent of Americans have coverage and they are really worried about what reform means for them. Especially our seniors. And these concerns are moving from kitchen table conversations to town hall discussions.

I am disappointed about the attempts to characterize the behavior of Americans expressing their concerns as ‘un-American.’ Although I strongly encourage the use of respectful debate in these town halls, we should not be stifling these discussions. There is nothing ‘un-American’ about disagreements. In fact, our great nation was founded on speaking our minds.

Families are voicing their concerns because they feel like they are not being heard in Washington and I’m here to tell you that your voices are coming through and it is essential for all of you to be involved in this issue.
Republicans in Congress agree with the majority of Americans who believe that just throwing more taxpayer dollars at a problem will not deliver meaningful reform. Telling the American public that the solution for solving a $2.5 trillion health care system is to simply spend another trillion dollars in our current economy, just does not make sense. Especially at a time when spending and debt are multiplying with such alarming speed, like an almost $2 trillion national deficit this year alone, $200 billion in state deficits, a Medicare program on the edge of bankruptcy and a national debt that will triple within the next decade.

There are several areas of consensus that can form the basis for a sustainable, fiscally responsible and bipartisan reform. These include:

1. Reforming the health insurance market for every American by making sure that no American is denied coverage simply based on a pre-existing condition
2. Protecting the coverage for almost 85 percent of Americans who already have coverage — coverage they like — by making it more affordable. This means reducing costs by rewarding quality and coordinated care, giving families more information on the cost and choices of their coverage and treatment options, discouraging junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals and promoting prevention and wellness measures like quitting smoking and living a healthier lifestyle
3. Giving states flexibility to design their own unique approaches to reduce uninsured
4. Empowering small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs — the job-creating engines and lifeblood of our economy — to buy affordable coverage for their employees

Unfortunately, the path we are taking in Washington right now is to simply spend another trillion dollars of taxpayer money to further expand the role of the federal government. The reform proposals being pushed by the Democrats include massive expansions of the Medicaid program and the creation of a new Washington-run plan that will drive millions of Americans from private coverage of their choice into government-run plans. As the federal government’s control of our health care system continues to increase, private coverage will continue to decrease, till we are left with a Washington-run and dictated health care system.
Medicare offers an important lesson. With $38 trillion in future costs, it is facing bankruptcy within the next decade, threatening access to care for millions of Americans. So what is the Democratic approach to fix Medicare for our seniors? Hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts which will be used to expand a financially-strapped Medicaid program and create another government-run plan.

To enact true health care reform, we should work together to write a responsible, bipartisan bill for the American families who are faced with rising unemployment and out of control health care costs.
We have a real need for reform and an opportunity on behalf of the American people to get it done. If we are responsible in our policy approaches and strive for true bipartisanship, we can achieve meaningful reform.

Hello Friends.  … it is the August recess, and there is much to relate (unfortunately mostly bad).
F-22:  You may recall that last time I mentioned that the Obama Administration has proposed stopping production of the F-22 and capping them at 187 aircraft.  We had a partial victory in the House with my amendment to maintain some funding for additional production down the line.  Well, the battle isn’t over but we have had some setbacks – particularly in the Senate.  I think part of it is due to inaccurate reporting or misinformation.  I made the mistake of reading comment boards and blogs about the F-22.  The spin is that this plane is an expensive Cold War relic unwanted by the military and only kept alive as pork projects.  All of that spin is inaccurate crap, except the expensive part.  The plane is expensive, but if you planned to build 750 planes and only sold 187, the cost per plane would skyrocket.  Here is the bottom line – and I do hope you explain this to everyone you meet who still doesn’t get it.  Obama and Defense Secretary Gates don’t want the plane.  Anti-military liberals in Congress probably don’t want any planes.  The Air Force wants and needs at least 243 F-22s.  Thirty studies over 15 years defended the plane and that number.  The retiring general over Air Combat Command not only defended the plane, but publicly contended the Air Force can’t meet its mission with only 187.  The Air National Guard General wants more F-22s.  Even the Air Force Chief of Staff testified in our committee that 187 planes is what he thought the budget could afford, not what the Air Force needed.  All rational studies and knowledgeable experts agree that 243 is the absolute minimum of F-22s needed, and even that number keeps the U.S. in “Modest Risk” of losing air superiority.  381 planes keep us at air superiority status quo.
To keep the air superiority we gained at the expense of wealth and lives in the Korean War, we must have technological advantage and numerical advantage.  The current fighter jets are great planes, but are over 30 years old.  Third-world countries have caught up to our technology.  The F-22 puts us ahead for decades, but we also need the numbers.  Consider the following scenario.  Russia plans to build a new generation of fighter and plans to build 200-300 more than they will keep.  So they sell those to countries like Iran and Venezuela. At the same time new fighters are in the hands of antagonists on several continents, we halt the production of the F-22 at a level the Air Force Chief of Staff claimed was adequate for only ONE crisis, not multiple fronts.  We also cut 250 current planes from the Air Force with no replacements.  The F-35 (a good plane but designed as a complement to not a replacement for the F-22) will not be available until 2014 at the earliest.  There are rumors the production may be delayed.  Additionally, Secretary Gates has already said he desires to flatline future defense spending while cutting another $60 billion from current defense budgets over the next five years.
Cuts to the Air Force and missile defense  – and promises of more of the same, made this a very depressing session.  Please spread the word of how serious this situation is.  The F-22 is needed by the military and without enough of them we are at risk.  This continuous dismantling of our defense systems puts us at risk.
Health Care: The more one reads the bill, the greater the concerns.  Let me give one simple illustration.  I reviewed a section for a proposed committee amendment.  I found that the proposed Health Commission, created so the federal government can choose which private insurance plans will be allowed to compete with the federal plan, also created the office of Ombudsman.  The Ombudsman was to communicate with individual Americans about health care options in a “linguistically appropriate manner.”  Ok, I give.  What does that mean?  Some faceless bureaucrat in DC decided to write a provision that sounded both politically correct and poetic.  Unfortunately, the language needed to be legally understandable.  Must the Ombudsman speak in technical terms to be accurate or lay term for comprehension.  If I call and only speak Icelandic, can I sue if no one in the office can converse with me in my one and only appropriate linguistic option?  Of course, the term is not defined in the bill and, like much Congress does, simply opens us up to lawsuits or empowers the Health Commissioner to make even more rules to govern us.  The thousand-page bill is riddled with such quaint peculiarities.
I saw some numbers recently to keep in mind.  When Medicare was instituted in the mid-60’s, it was projected to cost $3 billion by 1970 and $12 billion by 1990.  It actually cost just under $7 billion in 1970 and $110 billion in 1990.  The Democrat bill will pay for itself by creating system efficiencies???  The Medicare bill was to not “exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided.”  With the history of Medicare, why would I not trust an all-powerful Health Commission in the Democrat bill?
Cap and Tax:  Kimball Rasmussen of Deseret Power flew back to DC and gave brilliant testimony at a hearing I attended.  He explained how the 6.2 million “green jobs” figure supposedly created by the Cap and Trade bill was calculated.  If someone built a windmill for power this year in Wyoming – that was one green job.  If next year, he built a windmill in Montana – that was a second green job.  If the next year in Colorado…you get the picture.  There are three types of green jobs: direct (about 1/3rd of the total) indirect and induced (about 2/3rd of the total). A direct job touches a green energy product.  A trucker who delivers a part to a solar panel is engaged in a “direct” green job.  A trucker delivering the same part to a coal fired plant is engaged in a gray job.  If someone is working in a cement quarry and the cement is used for a windmill foundation, the cement worker is an “indirect” green job – even if he doesn’t know it and drove a Ford Explorer to work.  If someone who works at a “green job” goes to a restaurant and orders a steak, the chef who prepares the steak is an “induced” green job.  The cow who provided the steak is a green cow and the CO2 used to cook the steak is good green CO2.  There were no offsets for job loss in other industries when computing the 6.2 million green jobs.  The more accurate number for green jobs instituted with the passage of a Cap and Tax bill would be more like 125,000 at any given point in time.
The sloppiness, bad data and poor policy in Washington right now are frightening.  Now you know why I am glad to be home and working in Utah in August.  I obviously love it here in Utah, but the country is probably better off too when Congress isn’t in session!
 
-Rob