[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 89 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6576-S6577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the national discussion over health 
care intensifies, one thing is already clear: Both Republicans and 
Democrats agree health care is in serious need of reform. The only 
thing that remains to be seen is what kind of reform we will deliver. 
Americans are increasingly worried about what they are hearing from 
Washington.
  Americans want lower costs, and they want the freedom to choose their 
own doctors and their own care. What they do not want is a Washington 
takeover of health care along the lines of what we have already seen 
with banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry. Americans don't 
want a government-run system that puts bureaucrats between patients and 
doctors. They certainly don't want the kind of government boards that 
exist in places such as New Zealand and Great Britain that deny, delay, 
and ration treatments that are currently available to Americans.
  Americans want change, but they do not want changes that will make 
existing programs worse. That is exactly what a government-run system 
would do.
  Unfortunately, the notion of a government-run plan has been gaining 
steam. Over the past couple weeks, one Democratic leader after another 
has insisted that it be included as a part of any reform. The reaction 
to this should tell us something.
  Among those who have begun to mobilize in opposition to America's 
plans are America's doctors who warn it would limit access to care and 
could lead to nearly 70 percent of Americans being kicked off the 
health plans they currently have.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents about 3 million 
businesses in this country, has warned that the creation of a 
government plan would lead to a government-run health care system. The 
CEO of the renowned Mayo Clinic warned that some of the best providers 
could go out of business. The National Federation of Independent 
Businesses, one of the Nation's leading associations of small 
businesses, has also expressed its concerns about a government-run 
plan.
  Americans don't want the kind of government-run system that some in 
Washington have proposed. They do not want politicians to use the real 
problems we have in our health care system as an excuse to tear down 
the whole thing, take away everything that is good about it, and 
replace it with something worse. They want practical solutions to 
specific problems, and that is what the rest of us are proposing.
  Here are some commonsense proposals: We all agree health care in this 
country is too expensive. Americans don't think basic procedures should 
break the bank, and American families shouldn't have to worry about 
going bankrupt if a family member becomes ill.
  But government-run health care will only make matters worse. If our 
experience with Medicare shows us anything, it is that the government 
health plans are not--I repeat are not--cost effective.
  Over the weekend, the administration proposed making cuts to Medicare 
as a way of defraying the cost of a new government plan. That is 
exactly the wrong approach. America's seniors expect Congress to 
stabilize Medicare so it continues to serve their needs, not drain its 
resources to pay for another, even bigger government plan. Changes to 
Medicare should be used to make Medicare solvent for seniors today and 
for those who are paying into it and who will rely on the system 
tomorrow, not to build a brandnew government plan on top of one that is 
already on an unsustainable course. If we want to cut costs and rein in 
debt, then extending a Medicare-like system to everyone in America is 
exactly the wrong prescription. We need to make Medicare itself solvent 
and find ways to improve the current health care system.
  One way to do that is to implement reforms that we know will save 
money. We could start with illness prevention programs that encourage 
people to quit smoking and to control their weight. It is no mystery 
that smoking and obesity are leading causes of the kinds of chronic 
diseases that are driving up health care costs. And finding ways to 
reduce these illnesses would also reduce costs. We should allow 
employers to create incentives for workers to adopt healthier 
lifestyles.
  We should also encourage the same kind of robust competition in the 
health insurance market that has worked so well in the Medicare 
prescription drug benefit, Part D. We can enact long-overdue reforms to 
our Nation's medical liability laws. For too long, the threat of 
frivolous lawsuits has caused insurance premiums for doctors to 
skyrocket. Doctors then pass these higher costs on to patients, driving 
up the cost of care. Well, most people think health care dollars ought 
to be spent on health care, not insurance premiums. Yet doctors all 
across America are not only passing along the costs of higher and 
higher premiums, they are also ordering expensive and unnecessary tests 
and procedures to protect themselves against lawsuits.
  One study suggests that roughly 9 out of 10 U.S. doctors in high-risk 
specialties practice some form of defensive medicine such as this--and 
the cost to patients is massive. Some doctors simply shut their 
practices or discontinue services as a result of these pressures. 
Patients such as Rashelle Perryman of Crittenden County Hospital are 
the ones who lose out. Rashelle's first two babies were born in 
Crittenden County Hospital, about 10 minutes from her home. But her 
third child had to be delivered about 40 miles away because rising 
malpractice rates caused doctors at Crittenden County Hospital to stop 
delivering babies altogether.
  This isn't an isolated problem, and it is not just obstetricians. 
According to a report by the Kentucky Institute of Medicine, Kentucky 
is nearly 2,300 doctors short of the national average--a shortage that 
could be reduced, in part, by reforming medical malpractice laws.
  Comprehensive health care reforms are long overdue--reforms that 
lower cost and increase access to care. But a government-run plan isn't 
the way to do it. There are other solutions that address our problems 
without undermining our strengths.
  Over the past few weeks, I have warned about the dangers of 
government-run health care by pointing to the problems this kind of 
government-run system has created in places such as Britain, Canada, 
and New Zealand. These countries are living proof that when the 
government is in charge, health care is denied, delayed, and rationed. 
As I have noted, the main culprits in every case are the government 
boards that decide what procedures and medicines patients can and 
cannot have.
  I have discussed how Britain's government board has denied care to 
cancer patients because the treatments were too expensive. In one case, 
bureaucrats in Britain refused to prescribe cancer drugs that were 
proven to extend the lives of patients because they cost too much. The 
government board explained it this way:

       Although these treatments are clinically effective, 
     regrettably the cost . . . is such that they are not a cost 
     effective use of . . . resources.

  I have also discussed how the government-run health care system in 
Canada

[[Page S6577]]

routinely delays care. Today, the average wait for a hip replacement at 
one hospital in Kingston, Ontario, is about 196 days. Knee replacement 
surgery at the same hospital takes an average of 340 days. The American 
people don't want to be told they have to wait 6 months for a hip 
replacement or a year for a knee replacement, but that is what could 
very well happen in a government-run health care system.
  Finally, I have discussed how New Zealand's government board has 
rationed care by deciding which new hospital medicines are cost 
effective. In one case, government bureaucrats in that country denied 
patients access to a drug that was proven to be effective in fighting 
breast cancer because they thought it was too expensive. As one cancer 
doctor in the country put it:

       New Zealand is a good tourist destination, but options for 
     cancer treatment are not so attractive there right now.

  Americans want health care reform, but they don't want the kind of 
reform that denies, delays, and rations care, such as the government-
run systems in New Zealand, Britain, and Canada. They don't want to be 
forced into a government plan that replaces the freedoms and choices 
they now enjoy with bureaucratic hassles, hours spent on hold, and 
politicians in Washington telling them how much care and what kind of 
care they can have. They want health care decisions left to doctors and 
patients, not remote bureaucrats. But if some in Washington get their 
way and enact a government takeover of health care, that is exactly 
what Americans can expect.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kyl pertaining to the introduction of S. 1259 are 
printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________