Health Care Reform

Floor Speech

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the national discussion over health care intensifies, one thing is already clear: Both Republicans and Democrats agree health care is in serious need of reform. The only thing that remains to be seen is what kind of reform we will deliver. Americans are increasingly worried about what they are hearing from Washington.

Americans want lower costs, and they want the freedom to choose their own doctors and their own care. What they do not want is a Washington takeover of health care along the lines of what we have already seen with banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry. Americans don't want a government-run system that puts bureaucrats between patients and doctors. They certainly don't want the kind of government boards that exist in places such as New Zealand and Great Britain that deny, delay, and ration treatments that are currently available to Americans.

Americans want change, but they do not want changes that will make existing programs worse. That is exactly what a government-run system would do.

Unfortunately, the notion of a government-run plan has been gaining steam. Over the past couple weeks, one Democratic leader after another has insisted that it be included as a part of any reform. The reaction to this should tell us something.

Among those who have begun to mobilize in opposition to America's plans are America's doctors who warn it would limit access to care and could lead to nearly 70 percent of Americans being kicked off the health plans they currently have.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents about 3 million businesses in this country, has warned that the creation of a government plan would lead to a government-run health care system. The CEO of the renowned Mayo Clinic warned that some of the best providers could go out of business. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, one of the Nation's leading associations of small businesses, has also expressed its concerns about a government-run plan.

Americans don't want the kind of government-run system that some in Washington have proposed. They do not want politicians to use the real problems we have in our health care system as an excuse to tear down the whole thing, take away everything that is good about it, and replace it with something worse. They want practical solutions to specific problems, and that is what the rest of us are proposing.

Here are some commonsense proposals: We all agree health care in this country is too expensive. Americans don't think basic procedures should break the bank, and American families shouldn't have to worry about going bankrupt if a family member becomes ill.

But government-run health care will only make matters worse. If our experience with Medicare shows us anything, it is that the government health plans are not--I repeat are not--cost effective.

Over the weekend, the administration proposed making cuts to Medicare as a way of defraying the cost of a new government plan. That is exactly the wrong approach. America's seniors expect Congress to stabilize Medicare so it continues to serve their needs, not drain its resources to pay for another, even bigger government plan. Changes to Medicare should be used to make Medicare solvent for seniors today and for those who are paying into it and who will rely on the system tomorrow, not to build a brandnew government plan on top of one that is already on an unsustainable course. If we want to cut costs and rein in debt, then extending a Medicare-like system to everyone in America is exactly the wrong prescription. We need to make Medicare itself solvent and find ways to improve the current health care system.

One way to do that is to implement reforms that we know will save money. We could start with illness prevention programs that encourage people to quit smoking and to control their weight. It is no mystery that smoking and obesity are leading causes of the kinds of chronic diseases that are driving up health care costs. And finding ways to reduce these illnesses would also reduce costs. We should allow employers to create incentives for workers to adopt healthier lifestyles.

We should also encourage the same kind of robust competition in the health insurance market that has worked so well in the Medicare prescription drug benefit, Part D. We can enact long-overdue reforms to our Nation's medical liability laws. For too long, the threat of frivolous lawsuits has caused insurance premiums for doctors to skyrocket. Doctors then pass these higher costs on to patients, driving up the cost of care. Well, most people think health care dollars ought to be spent on health care, not insurance premiums. Yet doctors all across America are not only passing along the costs of higher and higher premiums, they are also ordering expensive and unnecessary tests and procedures to protect themselves against lawsuits.

One study suggests that roughly 9 out of 10 U.S. doctors in high-risk specialties practice some form of defensive medicine such as this--and the cost to patients is massive. Some doctors simply shut their practices or discontinue services as a result of these pressures. Patients such as Rashelle Perryman of Crittenden County Hospital are the ones who lose out. Rashelle's first two babies were born in Crittenden County Hospital, about 10 minutes from her home. But her third child had to be delivered about 40 miles away because rising malpractice rates caused doctors at Crittenden County Hospital to stop delivering babies altogether.

This isn't an isolated problem, and it is not just obstetricians. According to a report by the Kentucky Institute of Medicine, Kentucky is nearly 2,300 doctors short of the national average--a shortage that could be reduced, in part, by reforming medical malpractice laws.

Comprehensive health care reforms are long overdue--reforms that lower cost and increase access to care. But a government-run plan isn't the way to do it. There are other solutions that address our problems without undermining our strengths.

Over the past few weeks, I have warned about the dangers of government-run health care by pointing to the problems this kind of government-run system has created in places such as Britain, Canada, and New Zealand. These countries are living proof that when the government is in charge, health care is denied, delayed, and rationed. As I have noted, the main culprits in every case are the government boards that decide what procedures and medicines patients can and cannot have.

I have discussed how Britain's government board has denied care to cancer patients because the treatments were too expensive. In one case, bureaucrats in Britain refused to prescribe cancer drugs that were proven to extend the lives of patients because they cost too much. The government board explained it this way:

Although these treatments are clinically effective, regrettably the cost ..... is such that they are not a cost effective use of ..... resources.

I have also discussed how the government-run health care system in Canada routinely delays care. Today, the average wait for a hip replacement at one hospital in Kingston, Ontario, is about 196 days. Knee replacement surgery at the same hospital takes an average of 340 days. The American people don't want to be told they have to wait 6 months for a hip replacement or a year for a knee replacement, but that is what could very well happen in a government-run health care system.

Finally, I have discussed how New Zealand's government board has rationed care by deciding which new hospital medicines are cost effective. In one case, government bureaucrats in that country denied patients access to a drug that was proven to be effective in fighting breast cancer because they thought it was too expensive. As one cancer doctor in the country put it:

New Zealand is a good tourist destination, but options for cancer treatment are not so attractive there right now.

Americans want health care reform, but they don't want the kind of reform that denies, delays, and rations care, such as the government-run systems in New Zealand, Britain, and Canada. They don't want to be forced into a government plan that replaces the freedoms and choices they now enjoy with bureaucratic hassles, hours spent on hold, and politicians in Washington telling them how much care and what kind of care they can have. They want health care decisions left to doctors and patients, not remote bureaucrats. But if some in Washington get their way and enact a government takeover of health care, that is exactly what Americans can expect.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source