[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 114 (Monday, July 27, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8128-S8129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE POLLS

  Mr. KYL. Madam. President, a spate of new polls reveal that, while 
Americans want health care reform, just as all of us in Congress do, 
most of them oppose the plan put forward by President Obama, disapprove 
of his handling of health care, and have serious concerns about the 
cost of his plan and how it would affect the quality of their own 
health care.
  For example, a Rasmussen poll released July 22 shows a full 53 
percent of voters oppose the health care legislation ``working its way 
through Congress.''
  A July 17 Zogby poll backs up these findings, revealing that a full 
50 percent of Americans disapprove of the health care bill introduced 
in the House of Representatives and endorsed by President Obama.
  A July 20, USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 50 percent of Americans 
disapprove of the President's overall handling of this issue.
  These findings dovetail with polling that indicates Americans are 
very wary of the projected costs of the President's health care plan.
  Zogby's July 17 poll shows that 59 percent of Americans say the 
President's proposals, including health care, call for too much 
government spending.
  And a whopping 78 percent of U.S. voters believe it is at least 
somewhat likely that taxes will be raised on the middle class to cover 
the cost of health care reform, a July 16 Rasmussen poll tells us.
  Nearly half of respondents--44 percent believe ``government-managed 
coverage'' will increase--not decrease--the price of health care, 
according to a July 21 Public Strategies Inc/Politico poll. Only 27 
percent think a government-managed health care system would lower 
costs, while 29 percent said prices would remain the same.
  Americans' concerns about how the President's plan would affect 
health care access and quality are reflected in this same Public 
Strategies/Politico survey.
  Asked by pollsters ``what effect a government-managed health care 
coverage option would have on access to health services, 40 percent 
said it would make the situation worse, 38 percent said it would make 
it better, and 22 percent said it would remain the same.''
  Asked what effect the President's plan would have on the quality of 
health care, ``42 percent said it would make health care worse, 33 
percent said it would make it better, and 25 percent said it would not 
have an effect.''
  We, in Congress, have heard Americans' concerns about the President's 
proposed health care reform for weeks now--and these concerns were not 
allayed at all when the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office told us that these reforms would actually increase, 
rather than decrease, costs, and drive our Nation more deeply into 
debt.
  That statement, along with congressional Democrats' plan to raise 
taxes

[[Page S8129]]

on small businesses--creators of two-thirds of new jobs in America--as 
well as individuals, should put to rest any claims that we need this 
Washington-run health care system to help the economy. Moreover, except 
for tax increases, many of the proposals in the President's bill 
wouldn't take effect for at least another 4 years, by which time the 
recession will hopefully be over.
  In a recent radio address, President Obama criticized those ``who 
make the same old arguments'' in opposition to his health care plan and 
painted those who object to it as obstructionists.
  I would like to know why the President equates having legitimate, 
honest objections to a government-run regulatory health care system 
with being an obstructionist?
  No one in Washington wants to block health care reform. But many of 
us want to take the time to achieve the right kind of reform--the kind 
Americans are looking for.
  Republicans want an approach that will bring costs down, make sure 
health care is accessible to all, and fix parts that aren't currently 
working. We have put forward many sensible ideas on how we can get 
there, without jeopardizing the care many happily insured Americans 
have.
  To reiterate some of those ideas: We want to root out Medicare and 
Medicaid fraud, reform medical liability laws to discourage ``jackpot 
justice,'' allow small businesses to band together and purchase health 
insurance as large corporations can, allow insurance companies to sell 
their policies across State lines--just as car-insurance companies 
can--and strengthen wellness and prevention programs that encourage 
healthy living. We believe we should apply specially tailored solutions 
to specific problems, rather than scrap the whole current system and 
impose a one-size-fits-all Washington-run health care system.
  If the President's plan is implemented, Americans could be left with 
a health care system that few people would recognize, or even want. And 
they would be stuck with it, permanently.
  I urge President Obama and congressional Democrats to take a harder 
look at Republican ideas, which the Republican leader, many of my 
colleagues, and I have spoken of repeatedly.
  These reforms would put patients first, lower costs, make health care 
more accessible to the uninsured, and most wouldn't cost taxpayers a 
dime. I believe that is an approach Americans would be sure to support.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal 
article ``Health Reform's Hidden Victims'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2009]

                     Health Reform's Hidden Victims

                             (By John Fund)

       President Barack Obama's health-care sales pitch depends on 
     his ability to obfuscate who is likely to get hurt by reform. 
     At Wednesday's news conference, for example, he was asked 
     ``specifically what kind of pain and sacrifice'' he would ask 
     of patients in order to achieve the cost savings he promises.
       He insisted he ``won't reduce Medicare benefits'' but 
     instead would ``make delivery more efficient.'' The most Mr. 
     Obama would concede is that some people will have to ``give 
     up paying for things that don't make you healthier.'' That is 
     simply not credible.
       While Democrats on Capitol Hill dispute claims that 
     individuals will lose their existing coverage under their 
     reform plans, on other issues many Democrats privately 
     acknowledge some people will indeed get whacked to pay for 
     the new world of government-dominated health care.
       Democrats have been brilliant in keeping knowledge about 
     the pain and sacrifice of health reform from the very people 
     who would bear the brunt of them. They've done so by 
     convincing health-care industry groups not to run the kind of 
     ``Harry and Louise''-style ads that helped sink HillaryCare 
     in 1993.
       Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) says the pressure not to run 
     ads has been ``intense, bordering on extortion.'' ``Groups 
     were told if they did they'd give up their seat at the 
     table,'' says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. ``What they 
     weren't told is that they'd be at the table as lunch.''
       Here are some of the groups on the menu if anything like 
     the existing Senate or House health plans become law:
       Young people. If the government mandates that everyone must 
     have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy 
     policies that don't reflect the low risk they have of getting 
     sick. The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums 
     based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-
     world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and 
     wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. ``They'll 
     have sticker shock,'' says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican 
     on the Budget Committee.
       Small Businesses. Employers who don't provide coverage will 
     have to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. Yet those who do 
     provide coverage also have to pay the tax--if the law says 
     their coverage is not ``adequate.'' Amazingly, even if a 
     small business provides adequate insurance but its employees 
     choose coverage in another plan offered through the 
     government, the employer still must pay.
       Health Savings Account (HSA) holders. Eight million 
     Americans, according to the Treasury Department, are covered 
     by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are 
     designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also 
     set aside in a savings account to cover the deductibles, and 
     whatever isn't spent in one year can build up tax-free. 
     Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury 
     figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on 
     their own.
       These policies will be severely limited. The Senate plan 
     says a policy deemed ``acceptable'' must have insurance 
     (rather than the individual) pay out it least 76% of the 
     benefits. The House plan is pegged at 70%. That's not the way 
     these plans are set up to work. Roy Ramthun, who implemented 
     the HSA regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003, says 
     the regulations are crippling. ``Companies tell me they could 
     be forced to take products off the market,'' he said in an 
     interview.
       Medicare Advantage users. Mr. Obama and Congressional 
     Democrats want to cut back this program--care provided by 
     private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare 
     Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% 
     of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.
       The program is especially popular with those in badly 
     served urban areas and with those who can't afford the 
     premiums for Medicare supplemental (MediGap) policies. A 
     total of 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare 
     Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the 
     Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department 
     of Health and Human Services.
       These plans tend to provide better coordinated and 
     preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But 
     Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage's private-sector nature, 
     and they have some legitimate beefs with its unevenly 
     generous reimbursement rates. This week Mr. Obama told the 
     Washington Post that the program was ``a prime example'' of 
     his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims 
     people ``aren't getting good value'' from it.
       That's not what others say. In January, Oregon's Democratic 
     Gov. Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing 
     his concern about its efforts ``to scale back Medicare 
     Advantage'' because the plans ``play an important role in 
     providing affordable health coverage.'' He noted that 39% of 
     Oregon's Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and 
     that in ``some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with 
     proper chronic disease management for such conditions as 
     heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission 
     rates have declined.''
       The $156 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts over the next 
     decade proposed by Mr. Obama will force many seniors to go 
     back to traditional Medicare at greater expense. A new study 
     for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that 
     because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and 
     lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, 
     seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments 
     if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost 
     increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to 
     $3,714 a year in Miami.
       There are reasons that Blue Dog Democrats in Congress are 
     leery of their party's health-care reform plans. Many are in 
     districts or states carried by John McCain, and they worry 
     about the political fallout when these groups realize they 
     will be paying for health-care reform.
       They also know that every government entitlement winds up 
     becoming a money pit. In 1965, Sen. Allen Ellender (D., La.) 
     dismissed promises that Medicare would be a modest program to 
     save seniors from bankruptcy. ``Let us not be so naive as to 
     believe that the Medicare program will not be increased from 
     year to year to the point that the government will have to 
     impose more taxes on the little man or else take the 
     necessary money out of the Treasury,'' he told colleagues.
       Ellender was right, and his warning is even more relevant 
     in our era of skyrocketing deficits and Medicare costs. The 
     only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if the 
     costs they impose on vulnerable parts of the population 
     continue to be hidden.

                          ____________________