[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    CLINTON HEALTH--RATIONED HEALTH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, most Americans believe that the quality of 
care available in today's U.S. health care system is the best in the 
world, and it is. Eight of 10 Americans believe the quality of care 
will suffer significantly in the Clinton, Government-run health care 
system the President desperately wants to impose on all of us tomorrow. 
As details of the drastic health care restructuring advocated by 
President and Mrs. Clinton become clear, Americans are saying ``no'' in 
ever increasing numbers. The more they know, the less they like. In 
looking at one major group of health care consumers--our Nation's 
senior citizens--we find important reasons for the mounting opposition 
to the President's plan. In a recent Reader's Digest article, ``The 
Adverse Impacts of Government-Run Health on Older People Are 
Explored.'' Quoting a civil law professor in Ohio, the article 
emphasizes that, ``Rhetoric to the contrary, the Clintons must know 
this plan will result in rationing.'' Why? Under the Clinton's 
Government-run approach, price controls, global budgets, and heavy 
penalties for people seeking to secure extra health care will mean that 
health services Americans have immediate access to today will not be 
available to them in the Clinton-defined health care system of 
tomorrow. The evidence in support of this prediction is 
incontrovertible. In the Government-run health care systems of Canada 
and Great Britain we see waiting lines for medical services and 
desperate people leaving their country in search of care. The Reader's 
Digest asserts that:

       Canadians who need emergency treatment generally get it. 
     But a large number face harrowing waits of many months for 
     heart surgery and other procedures. Some patients with 
     treatable tumors have seen their cancer progress to the 
     incurable stage while awaiting radiation therapy. Others have 
     died waiting.

  In recent reports of a study of Government-run health care published 
in a journal called ``Health Affairs,'' coauthor Danny Mendelson says:

       A few years down the line you first start to see what we 
     call silent rationing, where the patients don't even know 
     that they're not receiving the beneficial care that they 
     need. Further down the line, I think it would become very 
     clear that we were denying patients some of the latest 
     technology in order to save money.

  Columnist Nat Henhoff, in his recent piece entitled ``Health 
Rationing: `We can't spend this much on you''' notes ``The Clinton 
Health Security Act is not all that universal on its application. 
Millions will be newly covered but they can't get too sick.'' In 
reports from Great Britain, we see just what the acceptable standards 
for Government-run health care are. Waits of longer than 2 years for an 
operation, 18 months for hip or cataract surgery, will not be 
acceptable to the Government. Would 2-year waits for such important, 
quality-of-life surgery ever be acceptable in the United States? Great 
Britain's labour health spokesman, David Blunkett, has said ``Waiting 
lists continue to rise and the number of those waiting for more than a 
year is increasing even faster.'' The Daily Telegraph reported last 
fall that:

       ``In Britain, the health budget needs to be increased by 2 
     percent a year just to keep pace with rising demand and cost. 
     Of course, rationing has already arrived and goes under the 
     heading of hospital waiting times.''

  Recent remarks by our own First Lady suggest rationing in this 
country under her plan may be more serious than long waits--and may 
mean denied access to care. As described in the New York Times last 
fall, Mrs. Clinton used the example of a 92-year-old man in need of a 
quadruple heart bypass operation, suggesting that if the system is 
changed, such surgery will not be performed. Seniors understand the 
serious threat the Clinton approach to Government-run health means for 
them. It is time we changed focus and looked toward real solutions to 
our current health care problems that will not threaten the quality and 
accessibility of care--for seniors and all Americans. The Honorable Mr. 
Gingrich of Georgia has offered an invitation to sit down and write a 
bipartisan plan. I hope the Democrats will accept.

                          ____________________