[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, there has been a lot of blame-saying 
recently regarding the demise of health care reform legislation. I 
think we need to get the record straight here.
  Republicans are being blamed for killing health care reform this 
year.
  Let me lay out the true scenario with which we were faced: We were 
given the choice to either kill the Clinton-Mitchell bill or kill our 
health care system. Guess which one we chose?
  It is true we stood in firm opposition to the Clinton-Mitchell bill, 
but this was not because we do not want health care reform. It was 
because the Clinton-Mitchell bill was a bad bill. It would have killed 
our health care system. We do not want that to happen, and the American 
people do not want that to happen.
  Those of us on this side of the aisle have been open and honest about 
our concerns with the cost of the bill, the extend to which Government 
would control our health care system under this bill, the negative 
impact the bill would have on the economy, and the massive new taxes it 
proposed.
  Yet, even after all this, there was still no guarantee the bill would 
even work to accomplish its goals.
  We share the same general goals as the proponents of the Clinton-
Mitchell bill. We agree that some changes must be made to curb the 
rising costs of health care and to ensure that health care insurance is 
not easily taken away from individuals who have gotten sick or who have 
a preexisting condition.
  There is also a great deal of support on this side of the aisle for 
other changes that would lower costs and improve access to care. For 
example, there is support for the idea of malpractice reform to curb 
the amount of health care dollars spent on litigation. Malpractice 
liability reform would permit us to spend less on lawyers and more on 
health care.
  The difference between our approach to health care reform and that of 
the proponents of the Clinton-Mitchell bill is that we are confident we 
can accomplish the goals of health reform through the use of 
fundamentally sound market principles. Reform in this manner will not 
threaten to bring down our health care system and the freedom of those 
who use it.
  I would like to continue the constructive dialog we have had 
concerning health care up to this point. I believe we have all learned 
a great deal and that we have arrived at some important conclusions. 
There are areas of agreement, and we are committed to building on this 
foundation next year.
  Our distinguished Republican leader, Senator Dole, has drafted a set 
of priorities for the 104th Congress. Health care reform is right up 
near the top of the list. We want health care reform, but we will not 
settle for health care proposals that destroy our health care system 
and our economy.
  I have heard countless concerns and fears expressed about the 
detrimental effects of the Clinton-Mitchell bill. The American people 
are not fooled by the rhetoric of the bill's promoters. The American 
people have clearly discerned that the negatives of this bill far 
outweigh the positives.
  Dr. Julian Whitaker, founder and director of the Whitaker Wellness 
Institute and a medical doctor for over 20 years, wrote an article to 
dispel any misconception that the Clinton-Mitchell bill is good for the 
health care system. His years of experience in surgery and preventive 
medicine as well as his heritage of being from a family of health care 
providers give him real, firsthand knowledge about the negative effects 
of Government intervention into the health care arena.
  I encourage my colleagues to read this article. I ask unanimous 
consent that the entire text of Dr. Whitaker's article be placed in the 
Record.
  I do not suggest that what Dr. Whitaker recommends is the ultimate 
solution to the health care problem. I do, however, believe that we 
should be looking for innovative ideas, like Dr. Whitaker's, which 
attack the heart of the problem, instead of the symptoms. The Clinton-
Mitchell bill does nothing more than try to treat the symptoms of an 
ailing health care system, while the deeper problems continue to 
fester.
  I am not alone in my opposition to the Clinton-Mitchell-type bills. 
There are millions of Americans who do not believe these types of bills 
are going to improve our health care system and will only make it 
worse. I am certain that if legislation like the Clinton-Mitchell bill 
is ever enacted, overall health care costs will rise. Our economy and 
health care system and the people they serve will be seriously injured.
  I will continue my opposition to bills like the Clinton-Mitchell bill 
which threaten the viability of our health care system as long as my 
colleagues continue proposing them. I will, at the same time, give my 
full support to a health care reform bill that actually attacks the 
problems of our health care system and does something to improve health 
care without Government expansion or control.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From Health & Healing, Sept. 1994]

          Health Care Reform: The Only Approach That Can Work

                       (By Julian Whitaker, M.D.)

       Folks, none of the so-called ``health care reform'' plans 
     proposed so far will work. In fact, they will only make the 
     problem we already have worse, because all of the proposals 
     intend to use the cause of the problem as the solution. In 
     this special supplement, I offer what is probably the only 
     option for controlling the runaway costs of medical care and, 
     at the same time, preserving your freedom to choose the best 
     health care for your needs.
       Besides its emphasis on drugs and surgery, American 
     medicine has another problem: it costs too much. It has been 
     on an inflationary spiral since the early 1960s, with no end 
     in sight. In 1950, health care accounted for less than 5% of 
     GNP; today it's at 13%. A semi-private room in a hospital 
     costs up to $2,000 per day, and that is before they charge 
     you $20 for a couple of aspirins!
       Folks, this is ludicrous.


         The kind of human interaction that drew me to medicine

       My father, William G. Whitaker, Jr., is one of the best 
     surgeons I know. Recently, a chair of surgery was established 
     in his honor at Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. He 
     isn't a ``health care provider,'' he is a doctor. He solves 
     patients' problems.
       Back in the fifties, if he saw a patient with fever and a 
     pain in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen, he would do 
     a careful exam of the abdomen, likely finding sharp 
     tenderness right over the appendix. He would order a few 
     inexpensive tests to corroborate his focused, uncluttered 
     judgment. Then he'd take the patient to surgery and cut out 
     the infected appendix.
       After three days the patient went home, a little sore, with 
     a total bill of $500. Most--if not all of it--would be paid 
     for ``out of pocket,'' yet no bankruptcy notices went up. For 
     the next ten years, the man's grateful family would send my 
     father a Christmas present.
       It was that sort of human interaction that drew me to 
     medicine. It was simple--the family needed medical services. 
     They got what they needed from one of the best. They paid for 
     it. They were grateful.
       Today, that same patient would ``have'' to get a barium 
     enema, CAT scan, sonogram, and MRI, plus all sorts of blood 
     tests. The surgery would be performed and the patient would 
     be hit with a bill for $32,000, of which his part would be 
     over $6,000--unless he had some kind of insurance that 
     covered where his other three policies left off!


              what is driving up the cost of medical care

       This is outrageous! This is not problem-solving, it is 
     common wastefulness! But let's look at what could be driving 
     up the cost of medical care.
       Doctors are greedy and evil. Yes, today many doctors are 
     obsessed with money and some are downright greedy. The more 
     important issue is the source of the money that has enabled 
     doctors to become so avaricious. Who is really paying these 
     outlandish bills? You see, in order to have this kind of 
     inflation, there has to be a big supply of money to fuel it.
       Technology has caused medical costs to skyrocket. This is 
     even more implausible. The technological advancements that 
     have occurred in virtually every sector of society have had 
     the net effect of lowering costs. A hand-held calculator was 
     a $750 marvel only 30 years ago; now, a calculator is 
     virtually free, and everybody owns one. No, technology itself 
     can't be blamed for driving up the cost of medicine, because 
     it has tended to drive prices down in every other sector. 
     Well, then, why are medical costs out of control?


                             the government

       It is because for decades, our government has been force-
     feeding all of us what I call ``Poisonous Political Pablum'' 
     (PPP)--my name for ``entitlements.'' Entitlements are goods 
     and services received by Mr. Jones, for which not he, but the 
     government, pays. For this discussion, I call the money used 
     to pay for PPP or entitlements Free Money (FM)--money that is 
     neither earned nor saved by Mr. Jones, but is spent on his 
     behalf, even though Mr. Jones has no control over how much is 
     spent, or for what it is used. In fact, Mr. Jones never gets 
     his hands on the money at all. Simply put, Free Money is 
     money that the government takes from someone to be spent as 
     it sees fit on someone else.
       Folks, the inflationary spiral is caused specifically by 
     the FM that is used to pay for one of the largest and most 
     popular PPPs, Medicare. Yes, I know that many of you feel you 
     could not survive without Medicare--financially or 
     otherwise--but I am going to try and convince you that it is 
     a form of slavery. The fact is that neither you nor your 
     doctor has any control at all over how Medicare funds are 
     spent for your own health care.
       Before we examine Medicare and specifically demonstrate how 
     it and all government payments for medical care are the 
     problem, certainly not the solution, let's ``create'' an 
     entitlement for college students, and follow it through to 
     its logical conclusion. We'll call it RESTACARE.


         insurance to eat wherever you like, whatever you like

       College students are often poor and eat at inexpensive 
     restaurants. This has been going on for centuries. Now, let's 
     say someone comes up with the notion that college students 
     should be ``entitled'' to eat in any restaurant they choose. 
     After all, nutrition is important for learning, so with 
     better food, college students will learn more, and, 
     ultimately, be more productive, tax-paying citizens.
       Voila: A Poisonous Political Pablum is issued by the 
     government. ``No college students should have to cut corners 
     of food. Since they are in college, they are entitled to the 
     US government's RESTACARE. From now on each college student 
     will be given a RESTACARE credit card, good at any 
     restaurant. All bills will be paid by the US Department of 
     Poisonous Political Pablum.''
       With the passage of the RESTACARE law, suddenly billions of 
     dollars are dumped into the restaurant industry, with the 
     following consequences:
       The eating habits of students change drastically. Since 
     their RESTACARE card is fully backed by free money, students 
     can now dine at Chez Louis for $150, instead of McDonalds for 
     $7.50. Some students with RESTACARE cards run up bills of 
     tens of thousands of dollars, bills that had never been seen 
     in the restaurant industry before. Each week, another 
     ``record'' bill is published until $60,000 dinner bills are 
     commonplace, even accepted.
       The cost of restaurant food skyrockets as restaurant owners 
     begin to display obvious greed, and public perception of them 
     begins to change. All the low-budget places that had once 
     catered to students are forced to close and reopen with a 
     slogan, ``Better food for more money. Students with RESTACARE 
     cards welcomed.''
       Restaurant prices become out of reach for the non-student 
     population. A study discloses that 37 million people do not 
     have a RESTACARE card and cannot afford a bowl of soup, much 
     less the broiled salmon that is now priced at $7,500. They 
     live in terror that some day they might have to go out to 
     eat, knowing that they would be in financial ruin before they 
     finish the salad. Students refuse to graduate for fear that 
     they would lose RESTACARE. Eighty-year-olds enroll in college 
     just to get a RESTACARE card.


             The Government Acts: RESTACARE Cards for All!

       In response to the new super-inflated cost of restaurant 
     dining, those with RESTACARE cards suddenly began to panic, 
     knowing that the government could get rid of RESTACARE the 
     same way they created it--with the stroke of pen. This 
     thought is terrifying because, now, just walking by a 
     restaurant would cause financial destitution. RESTACARE 
     holders for a powerful group for the sole purpose of 
     preserving RESTACARE.
       Finally, things get so bad that the bureaucrats at the US 
     Department of PPP are forced to start a crack-down. They put 
     a few dozen restaurant owners in jail for ``RESTACARE 
     fraud''--some had overcharged for bread sticks, while others 
     had billed millions for desserts that were never served. Of 
     course, this never happened before RESTACARE, since the 
     customers usually looked over the bill before paying, but it 
     had become widespread since passage of the RESTACARE law and 
     the use of FM to pay the bills. With Free Money, nobody looks 
     at the bill or even cares, except the person who is making it 
     out. Yes, Free Money will cause greed.
       A new president is elected. He instructs his wife, Valerie, 
     to work on a restaurant ``reform'' package, which is brought 
     before Congress and states that now all citizens will be 
     issued a RESTACARE card, and that the FM for this PPP will be 
     extracted from employers. Valerie sets up regional rationing 
     quotas for salmon, pasta, vegetarian, and meat dinners. There 
     will be monthly allotments for iced tea and other beverages, 
     and these will be strictly observed to control spiraling 
     costs. Any ``food care provider'' that encourages seconds or 
     provides more than one dessert a week will be investigated 
     and, if found guilty, taken out back and shot.
       Now let us examine what has happened, not just to the 
     students but to society since passage of RESTACARE.


            Why I'm for Getting Rid of Medicare and Medicaid

       Before RESTACARE, the restaurant system worked. Restaurant 
     owners were pleasant, liked their customers and were 
     appreciated in return. There was a lot of choice and 
     virtually no inflation. And most striking of all, virtually 
     no one in the restaurant industry or society had any reason 
     to interact with government.
       Since RESTACARE, the cost of a restaurant meal is out of 
     sight. Restaurant owners have grown to distrust their 
     customers, and vice versa. Suits against restaurant owners 
     for ``bad food'' have increased dramatically. The public 
     is terrified of having to live without a RESTACARE card, 
     and everyone is demanding one. Those with the cards are 
     terrified that they will be taken away and are determined 
     to keep them. The government is engaged in a big debate on 
     how to ``reform'' the restaurant industry. Rationing of 
     meals is a must because the cost is just too high. The 
     greedy restaurant owners cannot be trusted at all, so a 
     whole army of government bureaucrats dictate to the owners 
     what they can and cannot do. Now virtually everyone in 
     society is not only desperately involved in the 
     machinations of government but is at its mercy.
       Folks, this may not be a popular position, but I hope you 
     can see from the RESTACARE example that the answer to our 
     health care crisis is the same as the answer to the 
     restaurant crisis: to achieve rapid and permanent deflation 
     of medical costs, the government must stop throwing free 
     money into the pot. The first step is to repeal Medicare and 
     Medicaid and develop a plan for phasing it out.


             the poor would be better off without medicaid

       But this terrifies people. A few days ago I was discussing 
     this with some friends. One countered with, ``Okay, Julian, 
     what about a two-year-old girl living in poverty who needs a 
     $100,000 operation? What are you going to do, just let her 
     die?'' In her view, it is incomprehensible that I would 
     recommend repeal of Medicaid because I am concerned that a 
     two-year-old does not have access to a life-saving operation. 
     Incredibly, and in spite of all evidence to the contrary, 
     many believe that only government can take care of the poor. 
     They also believe that those in the private sector sit around 
     profiteering.
       In reality, people in the private sector are usually 
     honest, innovative and productive, and are constantly trying 
     to figure out how to serve their fellow man more efficiently 
     and cheaply. They do this because if they don't, someone else 
     will, and they will be out of a job! You ought to know that 
     because most of you are in the ``private sector.''
       Now, let's go back to that sick baby.
       The reason that the operation costs $100,000 is because of 
     the inflation brought on by all the Free Money used to pay 
     the Medicare bills! Without Medicare, there wouldn't be a 
     $100,000 operation because no one could afford it. That 
     operation would cost $5,000, maybe $7,000, within easy reach 
     of the child's community, church, or even family.
       And without Medicare and all the other sources of FM 
     polluting the medical industry, there would be deflation of 
     medical costs. Almost all essential medical care would be 
     easily affordable as an out-of-pocket expense because there 
     would be no more money to inflate the bills! Not only that, 
     there would be even greater strides in technology, and that 
     technology would be far more available.
       Folks, we can deflate medical costs and preserve your 
     freedom of choice by getting all of the third-party payers 
     who use Free Money out of the system--and fast.
       There are reasonable and rational ways to phase out 
     entitlements, and it can be done. If the Eastern Europeans 
     and Russians can decide that centralized control doesn't work 
     and simply walk away from it, then we can certainly find a 
     way to roll back Medicare and Medicaid.
       There is a little girl out there who needs an operation, 
     but if you think the government is going to come up with a 
     program that will help her, I ask you to think again. When 
     has the government ever gotten any entitlement program right? 
     That little girl could be your granddaughter. She is likely 
     to die while her mother waits in line for the government's 
     newest ``hand-out'' of Poisonous Political Pabulum.

                          ____________________