[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S5986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as we consider the best way to reform 
health care, some have argued that a so-called government option would 
not lead to a government takeover of health care. They promise 
safeguards to ensure a level playing field between private plans and a 
government-run plan. But no safeguard could ever create a truly level 
playing field. The reason is simple: Unlike private insurance plans, a 
government-run plan would have unlimited access to taxpayer money and 
could borrow as much money as it wants to subsidize the cost of 
services. The Federal Government is already planning to borrow $1.8 
trillion this year alone. If a company were allowed to borrow that much 
money, it could easily wipe out its competition, set prices, and create 
a monopoly. That is just what a so-called government ``option'' for 
health care will, in all likelihood, lead to.
  A government-run plan would set artificially low prices that private 
insurers would have no way of competing with. Rates for private health 
plans would either skyrocket, leaving companies and individuals unable 
to afford them, or private health plans would simply be forced out of 
business. Either way, the government-run plan would take over the 
health care system, radically changing the way Americans choose and 
receive their care, from routine checkups to lifesaving surgeries. No 
safeguard could prevent this crowdout from happening, and no safeguard 
could, therefore, keep the millions of Americans who currently like the 
health care they have from being forced off of their plans and onto a 
government-run plan instead.
  This isn't some fantasy scenario. We are already seeing in the 
government takeover of the auto industry how government interference in 
business forces firms out of the way by leveraging taxpayer dollars 
against their private competitors. Now that the government runs General 
Motors and has provided billions to its financing arm, GMAC, the 
company is offering interest rates that Ford, which hasn't taken any 
government money, and other companies which haven't taken any 
government money just can't compete with. What this means is that one 
American auto company that actually made the tough decisions so that it 
wouldn't need a government bailout is now at a competitive disadvantage 
to a company that is being propped up by billions of dollars of 
borrowed tax money. This is how the government subsidizes failure at 
taxpayers' expense and can unfairly undercut good companies, and this 
is precisely why so many Americans are worried about the trend of 
increased government involvement in the economy. The government is 
running banks now. It is running insurance companies. As of this week, 
it is running a significant portion of the American automobile 
industry. Now it is thinking seriously about running the entire health 
care industry, and chances are Americans won't like the result any more 
than they like the government takeover of the banks or the auto 
industry.
  Americans who now take for granted the ability to choose their care 
may suddenly find themselves being told by government bureaucrats that 
they are too old to qualify for a certain kind of surgery or that they 
have to go to the back of the line for a procedure they can now get 
right away. As I have said, Americans want health care reform, but this 
isn't what they have in mind. Americans don't want their health care 
denied and they don't want it delayed. But once government health care 
is the only option, bureaucratic hassles, endless hours stuck on hold 
waiting for government service representatives, restrictions on care, 
and, yes, rationing, are sure to follow. Americans don't want some 
remote bureaucrat in Washington deciding whether their mothers and 
fathers or spouses have access to a lifesaving drug. They don't want to 
share the fate of Bruce Hardy.
  Bruce was a British citizen who was suffering from cancer. According 
to press reports, his doctor wanted to prescribe a new drug that was 
proven to delay the spread of his disease. But the government agency 
that runs Britain's health care system denied the treatment. They said 
it was too expensive--that Bruce Hardy's life wasn't worth prolonging, 
based on the cost to the government of the drug he needed to live. In a 
story discussing Bruce's plight, the New York Times noted that if Bruce 
had lived in the United States, he likely would have been able to get 
this treatment.
  But that could change. What happened to Bruce Hardy could happen 
here. Americans who now have the freedom to find the care they need and 
to make their own health care decisions could be stripped of that right 
by a new government agency. This happens every single day in countries 
such as Britain. It happens to people like Bruce Hardy, against their 
will and against the will of their loved ones. As Bruce's wife put it:

       Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they 
     can.

  In America, we are free to make those decisions ourselves. If 
Congress approves a government takeover of health care, that freedom 
could soon be a memory.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________