RHETORIC: Hatch Said That Republicans Agree With Democrats That Reform Should  Stop Insurers From Denying Coverage Based On Pre-Existing Conditions. Sen. Orrin Hatch: "There are several areas of consensus that can form the basis for a sustainable, fiscally responsible, and bipartisan reform. These include reforming the health insurance for every American by making sure no American is denied coverage based on a preexisting condition." [Senate Floor, 11/19/09] 

RHETORIC: Hatch Said That Spending $5 Trillion To Reform The Health Care System “Doesn’t Make Sense.” “Republicans in Congress agree with the majority of Americans who believe that throwing more hard-earned taxpayers dollars at a problem will not deliver meaningful reform. Simply telling the American people that the solution for solving a $2 trillion health care system is to simply spend $5 trillion, it just doesn't make sense.” [Senate Floor, 11/19/09] 

REALITY: THE REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE WOULD ALLOW INSURERS TO CONTINUE TO DENY COVERAGE BASED ON PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS AND KICK PEOPLE OFF THEIR COVERAGE WHEN THEY GET SICK 

NYT: “The House Republican Bill Would Not Explicitly Prohibit Insurers From Denying Coverage To People Because Of Pre-Existing Medical Conditions, Even Though Many Republicans Have Said They Agree With Democrats That The Federal Government Should Outlaw Such Denials.” The New York Times reported on the House Republicans’ alternative health legislation: “It is almost surely cheaper than the House Democrats’ bill because, unlike that proposal, it would not expand Medicaid or offer federal subsidies to low- and middle-income people to help them buy insurance. Nor would the Republican bill impose new taxes. The House Republican bill would not explicitly prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of pre-existing medical conditions, even though many Republicans have said they agree with Democrats that the federal government should outlaw such denials.” [New York Times, 11/4/09] 

Roll Call On GOP Alternative: “People With Pre-Existing Medical Conditions Would Pay Up To 50 Percent More Than Average For Insurance Coverage…States Would Face A Massive, Partially Funded Mandate.” Roll Call reported on the GOP alternative health reform legislation: “People with pre-existing medical conditions would pay up to 50 percent more than average for insurance coverage under a draft version of House Republicans’ health care plan…According to the draft, states would face a massive, partially funded mandate to subsidize high-risk insurance pools to cover people denied coverage by insurance companies with ‘a stable funding source.’ Those rates would be capped at 50 percent higher than average premiums for standard-risk insurance in a given state.” [Roll Call,11/3/09] 

GOP Alternative Doesn’t Prohibit Rescissions; Asks Insurers To Notify The Patient They Are Being Dropped, And Offers Third Party Board To Hear Appeals After Being Dropped By Insurer. “If a health insurance issuer determines to nonrenew or not continue in force, including rescind, health insurance coverage for an individual in the individual market on the basis described in section 2742(b)(2) before such nonrenewal, discontinuation, or rescission, may take effect the issuer shall provide the individual with notice of such proposed nonrenewal, discontinuation, or rescission and an opportunity for a review of such determination by an independent, external third party under procedures specified by the Secretary. (b) INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION – If the individual requests such review by an independent, external third party of a nonrenewal, discontinuation, or rescission of health insurance coverage, the coverage shall remain in effect until such third party determines that the coverage may be nonrenewed, discontinued, or rescinded under section 2742(b)(2).” [GOP Reform Alternative, 11/3/09]

REALITY: THE SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL WOULD SLASH THE DEFICIT BY OVER $750 BILLION IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS AND BEND THE COST CURVE OVER THE LONG RUN 

Roll Call: Senate Bill “Slash[es] The Deficit By A Whopping $777 Billion Over The Next 20 Years,” Sen. Kent Conrad Said Sen. Reid Did “An Exceptionally Good Job.” Roll Call reported that, “[a]t first blush, Reid scored a coup with his $849 billion bill, because Democrats said the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would slash the deficit by a whopping $777 billion over the next 20 years while providing insurance for an additional 31 million Americans. The price tag is also less than the $900 billion President Barack Obama had called for and the $1.2 trillion cost of the House-passed version… ‘He was applauded. His staff was applauded,’ said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a deficit hawk who said Reid did ‘an exceptionally good job.’” [Roll Call, 11/18/09] 

Ezra Klein On Senate Bill: CBO Statements Confirm That, “The Curve, As They Say, Is Bent.” The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein wrote of the Senate health reform bill: “One actual surprise is that the Senate bill doesn't just pay for itself. It balances itself out. That is to say, the bill is not deficit neutral because it costs a billion dollars and then the government raises a billion more dollars in taxes. In that scenario, the government is spending more, but paying for it. Rather, ‘CBO expects that, during the decade following the 10-year budget window, the increases and decreases in the federal budgetary commitment to health care stemming from this legislation would roughly balance out, so that there would be no significant change in that commitment.’ In the first 10 years, in other words, the bill improves the deficit a bit, but the government is spending $160 billion more on health care than it otherwise would have. In the second decade, however, that ends: The savings from Medicare and Medicaid, paired with the excise tax (which CBO says ‘is effectively a reduction in the existing tax expenditure for health insurance premiums’) and a handful of other changes, leaves the government spending no more on health care than it otherwise planned to. That's impressive stuff. And it implies, of course, that in the third decade, the federal commitment actually goes down relative to expectation. The curve, as they say, is bent.” [Washington Post – Ezra Klein, 11/19/09]