[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 83 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6136-S6137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, one thing that unites Democrats and 
Republicans this morning is that all of us want health care reform in 
this country. Americans want reform that addresses the high cost of 
care and gives everyone access to quality care. In America in 2009, 
doing nothing is simply not an option. We must act, and we must act 
decisively. The question is not whether to reform health care; the 
question is how best to reform health care.
  Some are proposing as a reform that the government simply take over 
health care, but Americans have seen the government take over banks, 
they have seen the government take over insurance companies, they have 
seen the government take over auto companies, all of that in recent 
months, and they are concerned about it. So as we discuss health care 
reform, it is understandable that many Americans would be equally if 
not more concerned about a government takeover of health care.
  Some are openly calling for this government takeover of health care, 
making no apologies about it. Others disguise their intentions by 
arguing for a government ``option'' that we all know will really lead 
to government-run health care being the one and only option. But it 
should be perfectly obvious to anyone who has followed government 
takeovers in the financial sector and the auto industry that government 
creates an unfair, not level playing field that puts other companies at 
a disadvantage and only ends up hurting consumers in the end.
  We have seen this with the insurance bailouts. When most companies 
want to raise money, they have to show they are viable and their 
products and services are a worthwhile investment. That is what most 
companies have to go through. Bailed out insurers just have to ask for 
more money, and the government hands it over. Apply this model to 
health care, and the government would be able to create the same kind 
of uneven playing field that would, in all likelihood, eventually wipe 
out competition, thus forcing millions of people off the private health 
plans they already have and which the vast majority of them very much 
like.
  We are also seeing the ill effects of government control in the auto 
industry. The government has already given billions of dollars to the 
financing arms of Chrysler and General Motors, allowing them to offer 
interest rates Ford and other private companies struggle to compete 
with. This means the only major U.S. automaker that actually made the 
tough choices and didn't take bailout money is at a major disadvantage 
as it struggles to compete with government-run auto companies such as 
GM. If Ford needs money, it has to raise it at an 8-percent rate of 
interest. If GM wants money, all it has to do is to call up the 
Treasury and ask for it. No company can compete with that.
  This is how the government subsidizes failure and undercuts private 
companies, and this is how a government plan would undercut private 
health care plans, forcing people off the health plans they like and 
replacing those plans with plans they like less.
  No safeguard could prevent this from happening. Eventually, Americans 
would be stuck with government-run health care whether they like it or 
not. That is when the worst scenario would take shape, with Americans 
subjected to bureaucratic hassles, hours spent on hold waiting for a 
government service representative to take a call, restrictions on care, 
and, yes, lifesaving treatment and lifesaving surgeries denied or 
delayed. Medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients, but 
once the government is in control, politicians and bureaucrats would be 
the ones telling people what kind of care they can have. Americans 
could find themselves being told they are too old to qualify for a 
procedure or that a treatment that could extend or improve their lives 
is too expensive.
  If anybody doubts this can happen, they should consider what happened 
to Bruce Hardy.
  Bruce was a British citizen suffering from cancer. His doctor wanted 
to prescribe a drug that was proven to delay the spread of the cancer 
and may well have extended his life. But the government bureaucrats who 
run Britain's health care system denied treatment, saying the drug was 
too expensive. The British Government told Bruce his life wasn't worth 
prolonging because of what it would cost the government to buy the 
drugs he needed. The government decided that Bruce Hardy's life wasn't 
worth it.
  Or take the case of Shona Holmes, a Canadian citizen who was told by 
the bureaucrats running the health care system in that country she 
would have to wait 6 months--6 months--to see a specialist to treat her 
brain tumor. Here is how Shona described her plight:

       If I had relied on my government, I would be dead.

  Shona's life was eventually saved, fortunately, because she came to 
the United States for the care she needed. With her vision 
deteriorating, she went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, and the doctors 
there told her immediate surgery would be needed to prevent permanent 
vision loss and maybe even death. Meanwhile, the government-run system 
in Canada would have required more appointments and more delays. Ms. 
Holmes got the treatment she needed, when she needed it, in the United 
States.
  The American people want health care reform, but creating a 
government

[[Page S6137]]

bureaucracy that denies, delays, and rations health care is not the 
reform they want. They don't want the people who brought us the 
Department of Motor Vehicles making life-and-death decisions for them, 
their children, their spouses, and their parents. They don't want to 
end up like Bruce Hardy or Shona Holmes.

                          ____________________