[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 9, 1994

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues two 
editorials regarding health care reform which appeared in the Norfolk 
Daily News on February 22, 1994, and March 2, 1994. While the editorial 
from March 2 suggests that legislative actions on this issue are not 
necessary, this Member would like to state that he believes legislative 
reforms to our health care system are needed. These are indeed 
considerate commentaries as Congress considers this important issue.
  The editoral follows:

       It's worth noting that the cost of health care in the 
     United States grew at the lowest rate in more than a decade 
     in 1993. Total health care costs rose 5.4 percent last year, 
     which was still twice the rate of inflation in 1993, but far 
     less than in some recent years.
       According to the Health Governance Digest, the decline in 
     the rate of health care inflation should not come as a 
     surprise. Health care cost growth has a history of slowing 
     significantly in the face of potential health care reform.
       ``In the late 1970s, health cost growth declined 
     precipitously in response to increasing government calls for 
     cost containment but skyrocketed again once the threat of 
     massive government controls had passed,'' the Digest recently 
     reported. ``Costs grew at a rate of 6.3 percent in the first 
     half of 1993, only at a rate of 4.4 percent for the last half 
     of the year, when health care reform was a clear focus of the 
     Clinton administration and the media.''
       It's also worth noting that the insurance industry in the 
     United States is making moves toward solving the problem of 
     portability of health insurance coverage and also has offered 
     several proposals on how to provide coverage to those 
     Americans currently uninsured.
       The skyrocketing cost of health care, insurance portability 
     and lack of coverage for a small percentage of Americans have 
     been identified as three of the biggest reasons behind the 
     need for health care reform. But as already noted, progress 
     is being made on all three of the issues without any 
     legislation being passed in Congress.
       It's perhaps fair to argue that this progress would not 
     have been achieved--at least not this quickly--if the Clinton 
     administration had not helped to focus the attention of the 
     United States on the topic of health care reform. If that is 
     true, then the administration deserves some credit for at 
     least shining the spotlight on problems needing to be 
     addressed.
       What the administration does not deserve praise for, 
     however, is trying to solve those problems by radically 
     changing the health care system in the United States to one 
     that more closely resembles a socialistic system with major 
     quality and rationing problems, to say nothing of a healthy 
     tax bite to pay for it all.
       It's possible that the ``health care crises''--as the 
     Clintons like to refer to it as--can be adequately resolved 
     without legislation. What may be needed, however, is some 
     federal oversight to ensure that the voluntary measures being 
     considered throughout the health care industry will remain in 
     place after the public attention on this issue fades.
                                  ____


              [From the Norfolk Daily News, Feb. 22, 1994]

       To make the point that there is a health-care crisis, 
     Hillary Rodhan Clinton said she had met living proof of one 
     earlier in a day when she spoke to a gathering in Las Vegas.
       She used the example of Pamala Hinkley, 34, who is pregnant 
     and the mother of four children. She said Mrs. Hinkley is 
     considering going without an anesthetic when she gives birth 
     the next time because that would cost her $1,200. Mrs. 
     Hinkley requires epidural injections because she gives birth 
     to 10-pound babies, and during her last delivery needed two 
     such injections.
       ``I'll tell you,'' Mrs. Clinton told her audience, ``the 
     people in Washington who are saying there is no health-care 
     crisis, their wives don't have to worry about whether they 
     can afford an epidural.''
       It is but one of many examples of extraordinary medical 
     expenses affecting individuals and families. Those expenses 
     can cause severe hardship and even result in bankruptcy, rare 
     as it is to be the result of doctors' and hospital bills 
     alone.
       The federal government has stepped in to help alleviate 
     some such distress, notably in the case of patients requiring 
     the once-experimental dialysis and kidney transplants with a 
     special program to shield victims and their families from the 
     costs. It has been a successful program--and one reason the 
     federal medical bill is higher.
       But that was the sort of special program that found the 
     federal government reacting in a limited and effective way to 
     improve care and help families avoid catastrophic costs.
       That is what the example Mrs. Clinton cited proves: a need 
     for special assistance to help individuals avoid catastrophic 
     expenses.
       A new health-care program requiring more than 1,600 pages 
     to describe in law--with thousands more pages needed for 
     subsequent regulations to carry out the law and demanding the 
     equivalent of a $400 billion tax increase--should not be 
     necessary when there are less complicated and even less 
     expensive ways to assist individuals such as Mrs. Hinkley.
       Such case histories only prove the need to focus on 
     assistance for medical catastrophes, not to dismember today's 
     effective health care system.

                          ____________________