Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (Senate - August 03, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, in the ongoing debate on health care reform, it has become clearer and clearer that this is a competition of two very different philosophies of government. On the one hand, there are those who think government ought to be the primary sponsor of almost everything, including our American health care system. These persons basically hope and fervently believe things would be better in this country if only the Federal Government took control of more aspects of our society.

The other approach is one that I have advocated. It is the philosophy held by those of us who look at history and realize that government doesn't run things very well. We believe government can and should set standards, establish goals, and create incentives for the right behavior, but we do not believe the Federal Government should run health care or, for that matter, is capable of running the American health care system.

The debate so far this year has been very instructive for this Congress and for the taxpayers. Here are some things we have already learned as a result of the very thorough process we have gone through.

First, we know instead of saving money for our economy, as we were promised during the 2008 campaign, health care spending will actually go up under the Democrats' proposal. This is true both short term and in the long run.

Second, we have been informed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that both the House and Senate bills would add to the Federal deficit.

Third, according to a CBO letter, dated July 17, ``millions of Americans would lose their private health care coverage if these plans are enacted, and millions more would be forced into a government plan.'' That is not me talking, it is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Fourth, small businesses and other job creators will pay higher taxes, including specifically $163 billion in penalties and $543 billion in other taxes if the Democrats' plans are enacted.

Fifth, the provisions of these risky schemes could reduce job creation. Again quoting the nonpartisan CBO:

The play or pay provision could reduce the hiring of low-wage workers.

One has to wonder, if you are a job applicant out there in our economy looking to earn a living, applying for a job, would you rather see a Federal takeover of the health care system or would you rather have a job? I think most American job seekers, given that choice, would say: I want a job. Don't reduce my chances of getting that job.

Then we learned just a few days ago that the Medicaid provisions of these proposals could amount to a massive cost shift to the States. The outcry against this has been loud and it has been bipartisan.

Here is what two-term Democratic Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen had to say recently. He called the proposal ``the mother of all unfunded mandates.'' Governor Bredesen went on to say:

Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage. It is a 45-year-old system originally designed for women and children. It's not health care reform to dump more money into Medicaid.

The words of Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee.

And Governor Bredesen is not an isolated example. At the National Governors Association meeting in Biloxi, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said the legislation currently making its way through Congress would unfairly burden States. Here is some good advice from Governor Schweitzer:

What we need Congress to do is cost control.

Cost control is something that would actually help in health care reform. I appreciate Governor Schweitzer calling for it. I am grateful to Governor Schweitzer for his honest assessment.

In fact, the American people owe a debt of gratitude to Democratic and Republican Governors for speaking the truth. These Governors may have saved us from a catastrophe by speaking out and telling us what the consequences are, as States struggle to meet their current obligations. Indeed, there is a great deal of bipartisanship emerging on the issue of health care reform, and that bipartisanship is coming in the form of alarm--alarm about what the bill proposes to do to State budgets, to small businesses, to job creation, and to choice in health care.

We are also learning that when it comes to the discussion of the so-called public plan or public option, there is a great amount of bait and switch lurking about. Bait and switch is basically a form of fraud or trickery that, unfortunately, goes on in our economy. It is such a problem that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has issued guidelines warning the public about this practice.

Here is a direct quote from 16 CFR part 238 entitled ``Guides Against Bait Advertising.'' The FTC says this:

Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise in order to sell something else. .....

One thing is advertised and the other is attempted to be sold. I think this is exactly what is going on in the debate over the public option. We are being offered the promise of genuine competition between the public plan and private insurance plans when, in fact, the purpose is to switch Americans to a European-style, single-payer plan down the road.

By now, it is abundantly clear that citizens of the United States do not want to risk putting our country on a path toward a single-payer plan such as the ones in Canada or Great Britain. Americans do not want a single-payer system. The leadership of both parties, House and Senate, understands this fact. The American public does not want a wholesale government takeover of one-sixth of our economy. We do not want waiting lists such as in Canada. We do not want rationing such as in the United Kingdom.

Realizing where public opinion is on this pivotal issue, the advocates of these congressional Democratic plans have gone to great lengths to assure people they do not want a single-payer option either. These reassurances have come from as high as the White House itself. Just last week in North Carolina, President Obama said:

Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care. .....These folks need to stop scaring everybody.

I wish that were true. But with due respect to our Chief Executive, there is a reason people are frightened. They are paying attention, and they see that sponsors of this legislation are, in fact, advocating a government takeover.

I found it interesting that just 1 day after the President's remarks, I turned on the news to see one of the most senior Democratic chairmen in the House of Representatives seem to contradict the President. Here is the exact quote from this leading Member of the House on the consequences of a public option. He said:

I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to a single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer.

I wonder what the Federal Trade Commission would say about that type of advertisement. To me, it says: Let's lure people into going along with a public plan when we know it will eventually lead to a single payer down the road. I don't want to take that risk.

Another leading House advocate of the public option had this to say about a path to a single-payer system:

This is a fight about strategy about getting there----

Meaning the single-payer option----and I believe we will.

I think most folks would call this a classic legislative bait and switch.

I recently ran across a blog from Dr. Michael Swickard of New Mexico, cautioning about this very tactic. Here is what Dr. Swickard said:

Given the track record of our government in bait and switch, all of the promises of national health care are just that--promises to be broken. Maybe there will be a few years before the full impact of the bait and switch is felt by citizens. But given the past actions of our government when implementing programs, our future is clear.

I hope we can avoid that future for our country, but the writer's point is this: It may take a while, but the pattern is there. The future he fears includes a single-payer takeover that very few Americans would vote for today.

I say to my colleagues, there is much to be said about the ill effects of the health care proposals being put forward by the House and Senate committees. But among the most troublesome aspects of this so-called reform is the enactment of a public plan which will inevitably lead to a single-payer system Americans don't want and don't need.

Don't take my word for it on the cost, on the loss of choice, and on the effect on small business job creators. Just read the words of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. On the issue of massive, unsustainable cost shifting to State governments, don't take my word for it. Listen to the experienced Democratic Governors pleading with us not to go down this road. And when it comes to whether the goal of this whole exercise is to move us to a European single-payer plan, it is no longer necessary to heed the warnings of the political conservatives. When you listen closely, the leading advocates of the House and Senate legislation, in their unguarded moments, are willing to admit that a single-payer government takeover is their ultimate dream. I hope we do not go down that road.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source