[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S6394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Americans are increasingly frustrated 
with the U.S. health care system as we know it. They expect real 
reform, not just the promise of reform that never seems to come or the 
illusion of reform that ends up destroying what is good about the 
current system and replacing it with something that is actually worse.
  Americans don't think basic medical procedures should break the bank, 
and they don't understand why millions of Americans have to go without 
basic care in a nation as prosperous as our own. Still, many Americans 
are quite happy with the health care they currently have, and they 
don't want to be forced into a government plan they don't like.
  So the need for reform is not in question. The real question is what 
kind of reform--the kind that makes care more affordable and accessible 
or the kind that makes existing problems worse.
  One thing most people like about health care in the U.S. is the 
quality of cancer care that's available here. Far too many Americans 
die from cancer. Yet for all the problems we have, the fact is, America 
boasts some of the highest cancer survival rates in the world. And that 
is not the kind of thing Americans want to see change. But it could 
very well change if the U.S. adopts a government-run health care system 
along the lines of the one some are proposing.
  A recent study comparing U.S. cancer survival rates with other 
countries found that, on average, U.S. women have a 63 percent chance 
of living at least 5 years after a cancer diagnosis compared to a 54 
percent rate for women in Britain. As for men, 66 percent of American 
males survive at least 5 years while 45 percent of British men do.
  Just as important as treatment is early detection. And here again, 
the U.S. routinely out performs countries with government-run health 
care systems. According to one report, 84 percent of women between the 
ages of 50 and 64 get mammograms regularly in the United States--far 
higher than the 63 percent of women in the United Kingdom. Access to 
preventive care is extremely important and, frankly, when it comes to 
breast cancer, preventive care is something we do quite well in the 
U.S.
  These are the kinds of things Americans like about our system, and 
these are the kinds of things that could change under a government 
plan. Americans don't want to be forced off their existing plans, and 
they certainly don't want a government board telling them which 
treatments and medicines they can and cannot have.
  It is no mystery why Americans have higher cancer survival rates than 
their counterparts in a country such as Great Britain. Part of the 
reason is that Americans have greater access to the care and the 
medicines they need. And they don't want that to change. All of us want 
reform but not reform that denies, delays, or rations health care. 
Instead, we need reform that controls costs even as it protects 
patients.
  Some ways to do this would be by discouraging the junk medical 
liability lawsuits that drive up the cost of practicing medicine and 
limit access to care in places such as rural Kentucky; through 
prevention and wellness programs that reduce health care costs, such as 
programs that help people quit smoking, fight obesity, and get early 
diagnoses for disease; and we could control costs and protect patients 
by addressing the needs of small businesses without imposing mandates 
or taxes that kill jobs.
  All of us want reform, but the government-run plan that some are 
proposing for the U.S. isn't the kind of change Americans are looking 
for. We should learn a lesson from Canada. At a time when some in the 
U.S. want government-run health care, Canada is instituting reforms 
that would make their system more like ours.
  According to Canadian-born doctor David Gratzer, the medical 
establishment in Canada is in revolt, with private sector options 
expanding and doctors frustrated by government cutbacks that limit 
access to care. The New York Times reported a few years ago that 
private clinics were opening in Canada at the rate of about one a 
week--private clinics. Dr. Gratzer asked a simple question: Why are 
Americans rushing into a system of government-dominated health care 
when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are 
backing away? Many Americans are beginning to ask themselves the very 
same thing.

                          ____________________