[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 16 (Wednesday, February 23, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    TIMES-UNION EDITORIAL TELLS TRUTH ABOUT CLINTON HEALTH CARE PLAN

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 23, 1994

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, on February 13, the Albany Times-Union, a 
fine Hearst daily newspaper in 22d district of New York, published what 
I consider the finest editorial I've ever read concerning health care.
  The editorial argues what more and more Americans have come to 
realize. The Clinton health care plan not only won't work, it will 
worsen health care, greatly expand the Federal bureaucracy, and 
bankrupt the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I proudly place this outstanding editorial in today's 
Record, and urge all Members to read it.

                        Wrong Rx for health care

       The issue: An examination of the proposed Clinton plan 
     shows it won't do what it claims.
       Our opinion: An alternative to overhauling the whole system 
     is needed.
       The more closely one examines the proposed Clinton health 
     care reform plan, the more it is evident that those 
     responsible for it have learned nothing from the failed 
     efforts of centralized planning.
       For the Clinton reform scheme is nothing if not a blueprint 
     for converting America's largely private health care industry 
     into a single, micromanaged bureaucracy whose head, 
     naturally, would lie in Washington, D.C.
       An outline of the bureaucracy that would be needed to carry 
     this off should by itself be enough to give the game away. 
     One member of Congress whose staff actually bothered to read 
     the full plan has reported that it will require 59 new 
     federal programs or bureaus, expand 20 others, and will 
     impose almost 80 new federal mandates, besides changing the 
     tax code. It would include--as a small sample--an agency for 
     health care policy, a drug pricing committee, the by now 
     notorious health alliances, a bureau to regulate the 
     corporate alliances, another to monitor the performance of 
     regional alliances, yet another monitor health care 
     implementation at the county level, and the list goes on.
       This bureaucracy is needed, presumably, to control costs. 
     Controlling costs would entail the government dictating how 
     much money overall is to be spent on health care. The White 
     House has denied that this is so, saying that only insurance 
     premiums would be controlled. But, clearly, if insurance 
     premiums are annually fixed, it necessarily follows that the 
     amount of money available for health care will also be fixed. 
     Thus it would seem to be true, as some critics contend, that 
     the plan entails dictating, albeit indirectly, how much money 
     doctors can receive for what treatment.
       Naturally, given such a grandiose plan, the proposal must, 
     and does, detail how most persons will be required to enroll 
     in one of the regional alliances, how health care will be 
     limited and rationed, and how doctors will be directed into 
     certain fields of practice.
       The plan requires as much bureaucracy as it does because of 
     the desire to fix beforehand every little aspect of health 
     care--everything from what treatment is available in what 
     amounts to who should be treated (people over 65, for 
     example, would not have access to most new cures).
       Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office has now 
     given the lie to claim the money will be saved, at least in 
     the short run. Instead of trimming $59 billion in the first 
     six years, as the President claimed, it will likely add $74 
     billion to the total cost of health care.
       Central planning, it turns out, cannot even deliver on cost 
     cutting. What reason is here to believe it could deliver 
     health care?
       The proposal itself suggests that for many people health 
     care could be considerably worse. In addition, we would be 
     saddled with a huge, and expensive, new bureaucracy; while 
     the unanticipated added costs, laid on small business for the 
     most part, would very likely depress the economy.
       Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly has stated that the plan 
     would not restrict the patient's choice of doctor. The 
     written plan itself contradicts that. The head of the Office 
     of Management and Budget said the plan will neither set 
     prices nor allocate care. By fixing insurance premiums, it 
     would almost surely do both.
       Of course, it has some good points, not least of which are 
     the guarantee for universal health insurance; the portability 
     of insurance, and the promise of coverage for people with 
     ``pre-existing'' ailments. Any revised plan should include 
     these elements, but should most certainly exclude any 
     reliance on the creation of a new bureaucracy, and all the 
     rules, regulations, employees and pension plans that that 
     entails.

                          ____________________