[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23773-23776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          HEALTH CARE REFORM: TREAT THE CAUSE, NOT THE SYMPTOM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an M.D. I know that when I advise on 
medical legislation that I may be tempted to allow my emotional 
experience as a physician to influence my views. But, nevertheless, I 
am acting the role as legislator and politician.
  The M.D. degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our 
managed-care mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical 
services, as it is with all goods and services, is determined by the 
degree the market is allowed to operate. Economic principles determine 
efficiencies of markets, even the medical care market, not our 
emotional experiences dealing with managed care.
  Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government 
regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do 
not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of 
government policies which have destroyed the health care market.
  In today's system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the 
patient is in conflict with the rights of the insurance companies and 
the Health Maintenance Organizations. In a free market, this cannot 
happen. Everyone's rights are equal and agreements on delivering 
services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both 
sides.
  Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at 
the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one 
side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is 
in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages 
between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be 
reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the 
problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, 
the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
  No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for 
the HMO's role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of 
corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines

[[Page 23774]]

care is a creature of government interference in health care. These 
non-market institutions and government could have only gained control 
over medical care through a collusion through organized medicine, 
politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal 
health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, 
housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the 
poor do much better getting these services through the marketplace as 
prices are driven down through competition.
  We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new 
Bill of Rights, such as a taxpayers' bill of rights, or now a patients' 
bill of rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of 
Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market 
to provide all services? If over the last 50 years we had had a lot 
more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, State 
jurisdiction, and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess 
we are facing today in providing medical care.
  The power of special interests influencing government policy has 
brought us to this managed-care monster. If we pursued a course of more 
government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined 
to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area 
that the Government should not be managing at all is the problem, 
another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, cannot be 
helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the 
principle of government control over providing a service will be 
further entrenched in the Nation's psyche. The choice in actuality is 
government-provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or 
medical care provided by a market economy.
  Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads 
to total government control. Plans for all the so-called patients' bill 
of rights are 100 percent endorsement of a principle of government 
management and will greatly expand government involvement even if the 
intention is to limit government management of the health care system 
to the extent necessary to curtail the abuses of the HMO.
  The patients' bill of rights concept is based on the same principles 
that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy. HMOs 
are being attacked for the wrong reasons. And the patients have become 
a political football over which all sides demagogue.
  The problems started early on when the medical profession, combined 
with the tax code provisions making it more advantageous for 
individuals to obtain first-dollar health care coverage from third 
parties rather than pay for health care services out of their own 
pockets, influenced the insurance industry into paying for medical 
services instead of sticking with the insurance principle of paying for 
major illnesses and accidents for which actuarial estimates could be 
made.
   A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to 
afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, 
patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the 
generous third-party payment system was discovered to be closer to a 
Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, 
and medical care became more sophisticated, demands increased because 
benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the 
demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a 
growing elderly population--just as we see the problem developing with 
Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels became much 
more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups.
   Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets 
could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government 
entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery 
of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got 
involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little 
resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely 
restricted. Doctors like being paid adequately for services than in the 
past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing 
to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked 
this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their 
services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation's medical bill 
and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of 
emergency room abuse are notorious since ``no one can be turned away.''
   Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, 
produces a well-known cycle. The increased benefits at little or no 
cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the 
incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, 
labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients 
and doctors don't complain. Then it is discovered the insurance 
companies, HMOs, and government can't afford to pay the bills and 
demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of 
care; limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay 
in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions 
that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, 
start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and 
their budgets are limited however, doesn't justify introducing the 
notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than 
the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the politicians 
say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher 
costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of 
government intervention.
   For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: 
Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, 
and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other 
for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors 
against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the 
doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-
patient relationship. That's where we are today and unless we recognize 
the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More 
government meddling surely will not help.
   Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and 
would exist--there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser 
system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current 
unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO 
mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, 
tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to 
socialize medicine ``American style'', that is the inclusion of a 
corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care 
from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for 
services the more pressure there has been to managed care.
   The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health 
care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe 
they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the 
rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as 
possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this 
argument and only political forces between the special interests are at 
work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to 
both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the 
rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can 
provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care 
services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. 
Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from 
poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating 
introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we're 
debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine 
for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards.
  Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly 
identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the 
current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by 
politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO's when 
both sides are incapable of such a feat.
  Excessive litigation has significantly contributed to the ongoing 
medical care crisis. Greedy trial lawyers are certainly part of problem 
but there is more to it than that. Our legislative bodies throughout 
the country are greatly influenced by trial lawyers and this has been 
significant. But nevertheless people do sue, and juries make awards 
that qualify as ``cruel and unusual punishment'' for some who were 
barely involved in the care of the patient now suing. The welfare ethic 
of ``something for nothing'' developed over the past 30 to 40 years has 
played a role in this serious problem. This has allowed judges and 
juries to sympathize with unfortunate outcomes, not related to 
malpractice and to place the responsibility on those most able to pay 
rather than on the ones most responsible. This distorted view of 
dispensing justice must someday be addressed or it will continue to 
contribute to the

[[Page 23775]]

deterioration of medical care. Difficult medical cases will not be 
undertaken if outcome is the only determining factor in deciding 
lawsuits. Federal legislation prohibiting state tort law reform cannot 
be the answer. Certainly contractual arrangements between patients and 
doctors allowing specified damage clauses and agreeing on arbitration 
panels would be a big help. State-level ``loser pays'' laws, which 
discourage frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, would also be a help.
  In addition to a welfare mentality many have developed a lottery 
jackpot mentality and hope for a big win through a ``lucky'' lawsuit. 
Fraudulent lawsuits against insurance companies now are an epidemic, 
with individuals feigning injuries in order to receive compensation. To 
find moral solutions to our problems in a nation devoid of moral 
standards is difficult. But the litigation epidemic could be ended if 
we accepted the principle of the right of contract. Doctors and 
hospitals could sign agreements with patients to settle complaints 
before they happen. Limits could be set and arbitration boards could be 
agreed upon prior to the fact. Limiting liability to actual negligence 
was once automatically accepted by our society and only recently has 
this changed to receiving huge awards for pain and suffering, emotional 
distress and huge punitive damages unrelated to actual malpractice or 
negligence. Legalizing contracts between patients and doctors and 
hospitals would be a big help in keeping down the defensive medical 
costs that fuel the legal cost of medical care.
  Because the market in medicine has been grossly distorted by 
government and artificially managed care, it is the only industry where 
computer technology adds to the cost of the service instead of lowering 
it as it does in every other industry. Managed care cannot work. 
Government management of the computer industry was not required to 
produce great services at great prices for the masses of people. 
Whether it is services in the computer industry or health care all 
services are best delivered in the economy ruled by market forces, 
voluntary contracts and the absence of government interference.
  Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is 
dangerous. The whole notion that patient's ``rights'' can be enhanced 
by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing 
free medication to one segment of the population for political gain 
without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is 
dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating 
medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the 
tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical 
care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the 
only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the 
government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than 
they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If 
there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone's well 
being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive 
means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means 
not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles 
of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum 
freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard 
of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical 
care.
  Instead of the continual demagoguery of the issue for political 
benefits on both sides of the debate, we ought to consider getting rid 
of the laws that created this medical management crisis.
  The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for 
their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax 
treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small 
business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance 
companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through 
voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance 
policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was 
considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to 
receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state 
governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for 
contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health 
care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate 
effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of 
federal anti-trust laws--or being subject to regulation by the National 
Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all 
federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to 
physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why 
many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It 
is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines 
that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!
  The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces 
operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) 
generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to 
save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians 
would once again negotiate fees downward with patients--unlike today 
where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and 
MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy 
the American's people's desire to control their own health care and 
provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their 
care.
  There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the 
churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through 
government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can 
continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained 
individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by 
licensed MDs. We don't have to continue down the path of socialized 
medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so 
much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of 
the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply 
passing a Patient's Bill of Rights.

                              {time}  2030
     CONGRATULATIONS TO HOUSTON ASTROS AS THEY BID FAREWELL TO THE 
               ASTRODOME, THE EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have very serious matters 
to attend to in the United States Congress, but I thought with all the 
joy that we experienced in Texas in the Eighth Wonder of the World 
yesterday, the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, that I wanted to share the 
excitement, the history with my colleagues.
  I want to pay special tribute to the Astros team that overcame all 
kinds of injuries and trials and tribulations to win their division. 
Then I would like to pay tribute to Larry Dierker who suffered a 
debilitating illness early on in the season, yet he came back to lead 
his team to victory and I might say, this might be the year that the 
Astros go straight on into the World Series.
  This is the final sunset on the Astrodome. Born in 1965, noted as the 
Eighth Wonder of the World, the largest indoor stadium. We call it the 
``mosquito-ridden-free'' stadium in Houston, Texas. No sun, no heat, no 
rain, but good baseball and good fun. We have enjoyed the 35 years that 
we have had the pleasure to utilize the Astrodome and all of the hard 
workers who have made the pleasure of the fans their first priority.
  We appreciate Drayton McLane who came in and bought the Astros and 
made sure that they stayed in Houston. I want to say to all the old-
timers, though I will not call them that, those who had season tickets 
for 35 years, we thank you, too, for you were committed, you were 
loyal, and you were strong. Through the ups and downs of our Astros, 
you stood fast. All the joy that was given to the young people, the 
children who would come to the baseball game and enjoy the time with 
their parents.
  Baseball tickets traditionally have been the most reasonable tickets 
of all sports in America. It is America's pastime, yes, along with so 
many other sports like basketball and soccer now and football, but one 
thing about baseball, you could always see family members coming 
together with their young children. I am reminded of the time that I 
would go with my aunt and uncle. It was a very special time to go to a 
baseball game.
  So my hat is off to the Astros and the Astro family, to Houston and 
all of those, including Judge Roy Hofheinz, the mayor of the City of 
Houston who had the vision in 1965 to build this enormous entity that 
most people thought, how in the world could you build something with a 
price tag of $31

[[Page 23776]]

million? I think most of us would like to build stadiums today for $31 
million.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just a simple tribute to all those hardworking 
souls that made the Astros games so much fun and made the Astrodome the 
Eighth Wonder of the World where so many people enjoyed the opportunity 
to be there, not only for baseball but so many other activities and 
conventions and meetings. We are just grateful for the facility, and I 
guess what you would say is, it is off into the sunset.
  But do not worry, the Astrodome will be there for others to enjoy for 
many years to go as we move downtown to the new Astros stadium called 
Enron Field located in my district, the 18th Congressional District. 
Hats off to the Astros, congratulations, and I will see you in the 
World Series.

                          ____________________