Hugh Hewitt

[Print]  [Email]        

Hugh Hewitt: 10 August recess questions for your congressman

By: Hugh Hewitt
Examiner Columnist
August 3, 2009

Members of the House are back in their districts, and senators will join them in their states after next week.  If they are doing their jobs - a big if - they will be meeting with constituents over the next month, and this is your chance to impact the debate on the radical proposals to restructure American medicine.

These proposals are now making their way towards a final debate and vote in the fall.  Here are 10 questions for any meeting you might have or e-mail you might send. (And 10 answers any honest representative or senator would give you.)
 
1.  Do you guarantee that I get to keep the plan I have and the doctor I have?  ("I know you have heard the president say this repeatedly, but expert after expert has confirmed this is simply not true.  Employers pick health plans, not employees, and if the new law puts forward a cheap 'government option/public plan,' employers will dump employees into it and pocket the savings as smart business people will do when given such a choice.")
 
2.  Will the law require Members of Congress and federal employees to be enrolled in the "government option/public plan," and if not, why not?  ("No, it won't.  Of course not. Because the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) is a gold-plated, great plan that Congress will never give up for the cost-driven, tin-plated "government option/public plan.")
 
3.  Will seniors be guaranteed joint replacements, stents, and the chemotherapy they need, or will they be forced to accept less-costly and less-effective alternatives?  ("Of course they aren't going to get the best, most expensive treatments.  Medicare is already nearly broke and the only way we can pay for it and the massive expansion of it to the uninsured is to ration care and take away the expensive treatment options.")
 
4.  If seniors will be allowed the expensive but most effective treatments, how will costs be controlled? ("Like I said, the days of hip and knee replacements are gone when this plan passes.  Get a cane.")
 
5.  Will seniors have to wait longer for their treatments than they do now? ("Much longer.  Doctors aren't going to want to see any 'government option' patients, and especially not time-consuming geezers.")
 
6.  Will doctors see their payment schedules drop?  ("Yes,dramatically.  Some specialists, like anesthesiologists and pathologists will get creamed if Medicare rates or even slightly-higher-than-Medicare rates get adopted by the 'government option/public plan.'")
 
7.  If their payments fall and they make less money, won't there be fewer doctors practicing medicine? ("Yes, far fewer.  The job is often very hard, and even very caring people can't be expected to work that hard for much less money.  Many will drop out, or open 'boutique' practices.")
 
8.  Doesn't Canada have long lines for important surgeries? ("Yes, that is widely reported.")
 
9.  How will making our system more like Canada's not mean longer lines and longer waits here? ("It will mean longer lines and waits, and shorter visits with the doctor when you do get in.")
 
10.  Have you read the bill well enough to be interviewed about it on the radio by a conservative talk show host?  ("C'mon.  Of course I haven't and of course I won't.  Have you seen even one extended interview with even one Member of Congress about the specifics of the bill with even a moderately skeptical journalist?")
 
Let me know if any of your representatives surprise me and say yes to the interview proposed in question 10, and I'll have them on the next day.  But don't expect any Democrat to agree to extended interviews on the bill, even if it is the most civil of conversations.
The versions of the bill in the House are indefensible when scrutinized, so expect more and more rhetoric and fewer and fewer answers.
 
If and when seniors realize that AARP has sold them out and that they are going to be put in a long, long line to second-class treatments, the real blowback will begin, so sponsors of Obamacare will be doing their best to stay away from questions for the next month.
 
Examiner columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.
 
 



To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Enthusiastic

Aug 3, 2009

The questions above imply that everyone will be covered under the public option which is not true. The public option is available for those who do not have health insurance, i.e. the uninsured who work and the unemployed. Seniors will still have Medicare and employee coverage will remain. Stop trying to scare people.

Secondly, some people are already not eligible for certain types of procedures because they are not consistent with evidence based medicine. This scenario already occurs will pre-authorization for procedures. So, nothing much will change. Stop scaring people.

 

Less Enthusiastic

Aug 3, 2009

If my Enthusiastic friend above thinks that Medicare and employee coverage will remain the same, they are sadly mistaken. Medicare will soon mirror whatever the norm is.
May I underline the question about congress having the same health care as the rest of us... John Fleming, representative of FL has proposed a bill to that end. If Congress joins us in a public healthcare pool, THEN I will believe it is something that may be worthwhile. Until then, we are being herded back to the 1984 future.

 

animalfarm

Aug 3, 2009

RE: the President, senate and congress having better healthcare... clearly some animals are more equal than others.

 

Doubting the Spin

Aug 3, 2009

Hewitt raises legitimate questions that HAVE NOT been openly addressed by congressional leaders. This promotes distrust about the plan or the true intent leading to gov. control of healthcare.
ADDITIONALLY more & more people feel ALL meda is under gov't. influence. This breeds more distrust....even here.

 

JD

Aug 3, 2009

Enthusiastic=obama shill.

Your credibility suffers when you blurt out liberal talking points to those of us who have read the actual wording of the bill and understand it.

Get a job.

 

SelectedPete

Aug 3, 2009

"Enthusiastic" has obviously been over to the punch bowl for a few too many. "Stop scaring people" is the mantra now. Sure - "stop scaring people and stick your head in the sand with the rest of us" is more like it.

The question is really "preauthorization by whom?" If you honestly believe that "whom" needs to be a government bureaucrat, then you deserve everything you get. I for one refuse to go down without a stiff fight.

I applaud Hugh and others out there right now who are asking the right questions. I hope the deafening silence in the administration and the media scares us all half to death because fright is the proper posture right now facing this foolish course.

 

Mark Reardon

Aug 3, 2009

Enthusiastic, monthly insurance cost to a small businessman for an employee over 50 is the equivalent of a Mercedes payment. Why wouldn't that businessman push you off onto a public plan?

 

Doc in Colorado

Aug 3, 2009

"Enthusiastic" has a minor valid point; "preauthorization" is an issue. So you would solve the problem by having a government bureaucrat make the decision instead of a health insurance bureaucrat. Right problem, wrong solution. How about patients and physicians making the decision? This could be accomplished by expanding health savings accounts, expanding competition and choice (and thus innovation and a need for customer satisfaction) among private insurers.The vast majority of Americans can and want to make their own health care decisions.

 

Walter

Aug 3, 2009

My wife and I have read HR11 and I have scanned SR11.These bills provide total control of our health care system by government and prevent private insurance s from writing new policies. All health care providers will suffer extensive very intrusive regulation and patients will be provided with government regulated cost disciplined norms of care. Cost reduction is almost nonexistent in the plans but funds allocations are gigantic.

 

Dave

Aug 3, 2009

1st question: Have you read the bill?

 

ilovebenefits

Aug 3, 2009

Great post, great questions, let's see if one of the networks can start getting interviews with out Congress. Follow the health care debate and important delivery information. If you read this blog, you will never think of health care the same way again. www.ilovebenefits.wordpress.com

 

JQT

Aug 3, 2009

"So you would solve the problem by having a government bureaucrat make the decision instead of a health insurance bureaucrat."

Wait and see what kind of decisions health plans make after the cap on premiums that the plan pushes goes into effect.

 

Don

Aug 3, 2009

It's Obama and the Dems who are scaring people. People who are paying attention, that is.

 

ic

Aug 3, 2009

Who is going to finance the public option? Right, you and me, the taxpayers.

After paying the taxes for the public option, are we to pay another chunk of our money for private insurance?

Private schools are floating around, why do most parents send their kids to public schools which are serving the teacher union bosses instead of the students? Because after paying thousands of dollars of taxes, parents don't have other thousands to send their kids to private schools.

Public option to health care is giving the same "option" to the taxpayers: pay twice if you can afford to for your "private" insurance.

 

Harry

Aug 3, 2009

Another question: How about pilot programs with sunset provisions and then chose the one that works.
Why is there such a rush to put the "perfect" plan in place?

 

Daniel

Aug 3, 2009

We need a provision in the bill that emerges that requires congressmen who vote for it to accept the government health plan it creates and no other for themselves and family, the penalty for accepting anything else being permanent loss of congressional pension.
Congress persons should be asked whether they will support such a provision.

 

scott in fairfax, va

Aug 3, 2009

Whether socialized medicine passes or not, benefits will necessarily decrease going forward because we are out of money. I predict more offshore medicine. If I were a doctor I'd move to Costa Rica and set-up shop.

 

Belial

Aug 3, 2009

If a "public option" is a bad idea - as I believe it is, and as basic economics teaches us that it would be - why should it become acceptable if Congressmembers and other elected officials would only agree, or be required, to participate in it? Let's not get sidetracked by political theater such as the Florida congressman's proposal to require Congress to participate in whatever health insurance system they come up with. That's all such a proposal is, theater. Keep the debate focused: bad currency will always drive out good; monopolies, especially government monopolies imposed at the point of a gun, will always diminish individual choice and therefore individual freedom; and bureaucratic oversight and management will always result in less efficient allocation of resources. That is the battleground on which we should be attacking our representatives, not whether they will agree to give up their steak for the mystery meat they want to feed us.

 

The Grey Man

Aug 3, 2009

If these people can not even run a used car lot, should we trust them to make life or death decisions about our bodies?

 

ibid

Aug 3, 2009

11. According to the House Healthcare Bill, Section 163 (pages 62, 195, 303, 476, and 820-824) allows the Federal government access to all personal finance records including bank account records. Do you support this violation of an individual's privacy?

 

Hogarth

Aug 3, 2009

Congress will never address the REAL problem which is... Congress.

They will not address tort reform because they're all lawyers. Ask yourself this: where did John Edwards get his millions?

They will not address the high cost of insurance because they caused it in the first place. How? By refusing to address the problem of illegal immigrants placing a drain on the system funded by the rest of us and by mandating coverage of every liberal pet cause under the sun. Do you want your tax dollars paying for abortions and sex change operations? Why not, you're paying for them already.

Why is the only "solution" to government created problems more government? It's either supreme arrogance or self-serving pandering.

Or both.

 

crosspatch

Aug 3, 2009

I would add:

11. Have you ever been successful at anything in life other than running for public office?

12. Have you ever run a business and been responsible for employees?

 

Damon

Aug 3, 2009

My congressman, Gary Ackerman,(DNY) is not holding any town hall meetings this August. His staff could not answer the question has he ever held a town hall meeting.

Ackerman the Honorable runs unopposed in a gerrymandered district. This sinecure is bestowed for life and will be passed on to his heirs.

When asked if he will state his positions on current legislation the answer from his staff was "Congressman Ackerman does not talk about his position before he votes."

When asked if Ackerman read the Cap and Trade bill the staff finally admitted that he did not. The congressman sees nothing wrong with not reading the bills, according to his staff. "Something has to be done", was the answer I received.

 

jpintx

Aug 3, 2009

I keep thinking of the "Maxine" joke I saw somewhere, like many good jokes it is based on a real situation. Remember when the feds took over the Mustang Ranch (a legal Nevada cathouse) for non payment of taxes? As required by law, they tried running it as an ongoing business in order to recover the taxes due. They ran it at a loss for a while and closed down. "Now, says Maxine, if they can't make money operating slot machines, selling whiskey and running whores, what on earth makes you think they can succeed at running anything."

 

BillyBoy

Aug 3, 2009

Enthusiastic doesn't need to guess what will happen when there is a cheap government alternative. Ask seniors who had a great drug plan from their employers. Over 90% of non-union plans were canceled after medicare part D became law. I know - I had one.

If this passes employers will cancel in droves, and why shouldn't they? That is Obama's plan!!

 

24AheadDotCom

Aug 3, 2009

It's good to see Hewitt coming up with some questions, but he might want to go the next step and use his pull to encourage people to form groups to go ask them. He also might want to toughen up the questions since some seem like they could be answered with stock replies.

Referring to my guide might be helpful:

http://24ahead.com/how-ask-politicians-tough-questions

 

Annie in CO

Aug 3, 2009

Medicare is a prime example of excessive paperwork, thousands of pgs of regulations that change frequently, why would we want MORE beaurocrats making drs' administrative costs rise; adds to insurance adm costs as well.
Question to add: When did you ever meet a payroll and balance a company's books? Businesses can't just bill the taxpayer as govt does!

 

Annie in CO

Aug 3, 2009

I agree with Daniel and others- any congress person who votes for this "public plan" must be in this public plan and no other

 

TheOldMan

Aug 3, 2009

Why not just open up Medicare to people who do not currently have private medical insurance?

 

ic

Aug 3, 2009

What do the Chinese do to raise healthcare standard, and coverage, and reduce cost? They privatize.

That is why investors like Jim Rogers believe China is rising, we are declining.

China tries to rise to our level, and we descend to theirs. If public finance health care is such a winner, why do the Chinese privatize? Why don't we all go to Cuba to have our health care?

Making Congressmen use our health care system is not theatre. When they are forced to use the same system, they will pay more attention to what they are voting for, and scrap the thousand pages plan to please the president. It's about time for them to do some representing. I still believe we live in a demcratic republic, the Representatives are representing us not kowtowing to his Oneness.

 

Lloyd

Aug 3, 2009

I posted a series of similar questions here (http://www.truthvmachine.com/?p=11251) I'm finding supporters for a single payer system really haven't given this a whole lot of thought.

 

truthvmachine

Aug 3, 2009

24ahead is spot on. Hugh started the ball rolling and using the guide atr 24ahead.com and questions like Hugh's can help.
May I suggest some additional questions here.

http://www.truthvmachine.com/?p=11251

 

Briney Eye

Aug 3, 2009

Not one of our Congress Critters in New Mexico (all Democrats now, Lord help us) has scheduled a public meeting during the August recess. I think that tells you pretty much all you need to know about the merits of this bill.

 

P, Sharpe, NJ

Aug 3, 2009

In 1960 my husband's union, Actors Equity, went on stike in NYC for a Healthcare Ins. package and among other things A/C in the Actor/Dancers dressing rooms.Unfortunately this was 2 days after we had moved into our house in NJ, and the Union had no strike fund. But AEA won and we got Health Care. We moved in with 1 two year old daughter and followed that with 3 sons.Both in NYC and NJ the ob's asked me my husbands profession, and if we had health insurance. And we were billed accordingly. Today at 75 I have Social Security and a retirement health insurance plan provided by last employer. But the doctors no longer ask me my income. They can go on line and get that. And for the most part their charge is covered by my insurance.
And the sermon that goes with these questions is very biased. And not always accurate. Maybe next time pick on the hospitals.

 

SIV

Aug 3, 2009

7. If their payments fall and they make less money, won't there be fewer doctors practicing medicine?

No.The AMA and state boards limit the number of practicing physicians.

 

SIV

Aug 3, 2009

STFU lonewacko!

 

TJoe

Aug 4, 2009

To Enthusiastic...if you really believe "nothing much will change" what's the rush and why does nothing much take 1000 pages. Puh-leese!

 

mtwdo

Aug 4, 2009

Why not just pay the government of Canada to take care of our uninsured? We could run shuttles!!

 

DCThunder

Aug 4, 2009

Living in the Peoples Republic of Montgomery County, Maryland with Chris Van Hollen as my representative and Babs Mikulski and Hack Cardin as my senators, sending these questions to them would be a futile as trying to bail out Chesapeake Bay with a teaspoon.

But good quesitons nevertheless...

 

Michael Smith

Aug 4, 2009

My question: What justifies the notion that some individuals are entitled to free (or reduced cost) goods and services (healthcare, in this case) to be paid for by confiscating the fruits of other individual's labor, against their will, at gun point?

The answer: NOTHING, because no amount of involuntary servitude, in any form, is justified.

 

jason

Aug 4, 2009

How about:

What provision of the US constitution grants you the authority to require that a person purchase health insurance.

 

StepIntoTheLight

Aug 4, 2009

True health care reform should start with a national insurance market, which will help reduce costs and ensure affordable coverage for those that want health care insurance.

Obama wants to force everyone into the government run option. We have Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc which are all nearly broke already. Government never is the solution, since it created the problem in the first place!

 

SeeNoEvil

Aug 4, 2009

Not only can you keep your employer coverage, you have no choice. You MUST take your employers coverage. Read the section of the house bill that talks about 'grandfathering in' plans. It sounds like to me that you must take your employers coverage. Believe it or not, but some of us like to be independent and buy our own.

 

AynRandLives

Aug 5, 2009

Mark Levin had a staffer call the DNC yesterday and ask one of them to come on his show and talk about health care reform. The answer was: " Which show? Levin? Not likely."

 

Aug 5, 2009

as a retired rn after thirty years of running hospital halls, i can tell you these private ins. co. are not all they should be. i watched cost, and co-pays rise without increase in coverage. and the ins. co. told the dr what they would cover, ct scan,mri's. etc. so i believe a gov. plan will work fine maybe after a few "tweaks". like they did with the drgs in medicare to cut waste. my medicare coverage plus the supplemental i pay for is great! it costs me $3000/yr. total. and yes, it is our responsibility to check all those cms reports each and every time to make sure no one is double dipping.

 

MyGood Babushka

Aug 5, 2009

Health care used to be affordable before hospitals were privatized. People used to complain about prices then, and we were told privatization would lead to better, cheaper services. Private insurers stepped in after that and now prices are completely out of step with reality. Anyone advocating for private markets would have to ignore the evidence of the last thirty years.

 

LetThemEatCake

Aug 5, 2009

I guess it's not politically correct to say we could save a lot of money if we stopped giving freebies to everyone who is in the country illegally. I pay alot for health insurance so that some illegal can get free care. I'd love to save some of that money for my kids education or my retirement.....but I guess i'm selfish! I should be happy living of mac&cheese while someone in DC is eating caviar! Oh that's right nuts & beer now...I certainly don't want some government farthead deciding what my insurance options are.

 

craig

Aug 5, 2009

Aside from thwe many points discussed in your forum there is still one point that eludes me. If private insurers must offer coverage with no consideration for pre-existing conditions...doesn't that remove a healthy person's motivation to buy coverage? If I could defer buying health insurance until there was a likelihood or certainty of an impending claim, I would do so.

I would think that this would result in a terrible adverse selection against the insurer. Why is this not discussed?

 

jee

Aug 5, 2009

To answer Craig --- this already happens in NY and NJ where insurance carriers MUST cover pre-existing conditions after six months maximum of coverage. Moral hazard occurs because people sign up when they need their first checkup etc. and therefore have no preexisting on record. Then, they drop their insurance if tests are ok. This is why insurance is so outrageously expensive in NY and NJ.

 

LibertyGuy

Aug 5, 2009

MyGood Babushka, you are mistaken. Medical care used to be affordable before insurance companies (ICs) were overwhelmed by government mandates. Privatization DOES LEAD to better, cheaper services. But that assumes that the government doesn't force ICs to carry options like routine checkups.

Compare it to auto insurance. You can choose to buy a policy that only covers major accidents. Or you can buy one that covers everything down to tire alignments and lube jobs. These have varying costs and you can choose the policy that fits your priorities and budget.

With gov't mandates, medical insurance today is the equivalent of high-priced, cover everything auto insurance that everyone is FORCED to buy.

If everyone paid for their routine and elective items (maybe via an HSA?) and bought insurance only for catastrophic events, you'd find your medical care more customer-focused and cheaper.

 

jee

Aug 5, 2009

Liberty Guy === not only mandates for medical checkups but in NJ in-vitro fertilization. I am just so excited about paying for a 55 year old woman to have a baby!!!!!!!

 

ruby

Aug 5, 2009

If we are going to add 46 million uninsured where are all the doctors going to come from. There are only so many we can receive from India.

 

MyGoodBabushka

Aug 5, 2009

You are mistaken, LibertyGuy. If it weren't for regulations and mandates, insurance cos. would cover less and less in order to maximize their profits (as we are told, that is what all private cos. exist) Comparing it to auto insurance is absurd. How do I know what sort of illness or accident might befall me? So how would I know what kind of insurance to buy? Also, I have looked up prices for various routine tests and I get a range from $1000 to $10000- how am I to be an educated consumer when there are so many variables I cannot know? Health insurance should be a market driven commodity when people can choose what sort of diseases they want- in short- never.

 

MyGoodBabushka

Aug 5, 2009

I might add- I'm a stay at home mom whose husband lost his job in the financial industry and now we have no insurance. I am a freelance artist and can paint portraits- so send me business! www.mygoodbabushka.etsy.com

 

Mumon

Aug 5, 2009

There the wingers go again. Somehow Canada has longer life expectancy, and all reports show Canadians don't wait for important surgery, but Hewitt has to tell falsehoods and use scare tactics.

His contempt for the intelligence of his audience shows in this one question:

"Do you guarantee that I get to keep the plan I have and the doctor I have?"

My plan (and doctor selection) have changed numerous times from the same employer. And each time with less choice and more cost.

It's a nonsense question, and Hewitt should be ashamed to be such a blatant shill for Big Insurance.

 

dj

Aug 6, 2009

"The public option is available for those who do not have health insurance". That's why this is not about Health Care, it's about Welfare.

 

Miken

Aug 6, 2009

I don't like the Obama health care plan any better than anyone else. Having said that, I would like to hear what the Republican alternative is, and the cost of it. No action is not acceptable. The medical community has killed the golden goose with greed.

 

yankeedoodle2

Aug 6, 2009

Canadians do have to wait. And because they do, there are people making a good living acting as intermediaries to get those who need it,immediate care here. So you get your facts straight.

 

yankeedoodle2

Aug 6, 2009

You will keep your plan only as long as your employer allows. That will end for many as soon as the plan goes in place. Wake up.

 

Virginia Hartlage

Aug 7, 2009

As a 71 year old female who has been diagnosed in the past year with an irregular heart which at present is being controlled by medication, I am concerned if and when I require a pace-maker will I be able to get it. Also, having a mildly retarted son, age 41, will he get medical care, he is working and does pay federal income taxes.

 

Thomas

Aug 7, 2009

This plan, nor any other will work unless the real problems are addressed. Americans are overweight and consume unhealthy foods that spawn previously unheard of diseases requiring expensive treatments. Tort reform is needed, but more importantly we must accept the responsibility that we've dug our own selves into this situation. We've gotten complacent, dare I say lazy. We drive everywhere, eat processed foods, refuse to exercise, and watch too much television. Stop blaming other people for our condition; we're unhealthy and it's killing us and our economy.

 

abritwhoknows

Aug 8, 2009

I am an American brit and can tell you horror stories about National Health. Just in my family and friends. If you get a vote, say no, you'll live a lot longer.

 

Gary - Oregon

Aug 12, 2009

I'd really like to see a national release on NBC, unabridged, uncensored, opinions from random individuals concerning their thoughts about their health care provided. Countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK. Let us as citizens of the United State hear what THEY think. Can’t you do that?

 

Violated

Aug 20, 2009

I think that the government should run health care the same way they run the cash for clunker program.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Sports

Houston Rockets coach Rick Adelman, center, reacts with his staff Jack Sikma, left, and Elston Turner, right, to a called foul against his team as they play the Atlanta Hawks during the third quarter ...

Tracy McGrady says he's ready to play, Rockets believe it's still too soon after knee surgery

Tracy McGrady is eager to play. The Houston Rockets say he'll have to wait. Full story

World

Russian president scolds ruling party over regional elections, says acted undemocratically

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev on Saturday sharply criticized officials in the ruling Kremlin-backed party for using its clout and undermining democracy in recent regional votes, saying it must learn to win fairly. Full story

Entertainment

Pedro Almodovar discusses his childhood, his influences and what he won't put on film

Sex. Drugs. Prostitution. Pedophilia. Rape. Pedro Almodovar has been able to translate some of the most delicate subjects to the big screen with grace and humor. Full story