[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10410-10412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the need for 
dramatic, bold health care reform in this country, so every American 
has real access to good, affordable health care. In doing so, I wrap up 
a project I began 8 weeks ago with six of my Senate colleagues to 
highlight our proposed solutions to reforming health care in America.
  I start by thanking those colleagues, Senators Coburn, DeMint, Thune, 
Isakson, Martinez, and Burr for joining me here on the Senate floor and 
in

[[Page 10411]]

other venues to talk about this enormously important challenge for all 
of us.
  We have reaffirmed what I think virtually every American knows, that 
we are in a health care crisis in this country, and there are some 
fundamental things broken, some fundamental things wrong with our 
present health care delivery system.
  I want to reaffirm what was said: We need not just tinkering at the 
edges but some bold, dramatic reform to fix that system and give every 
American access to good quality and affordable health care.
  But I also want to reaffirm there are clear choices to be made, 
dramatically different alternatives. We have laid out our positive 
choices in contrast to the other large alternatives, the single payer 
socialized solution that several of our colleagues here in this body 
have long advocated.
  Our message, my colleagues and mine, Senators Coburn and DeMint, 
Thune, Isakson, Martinez, and Burr, has been simple at its core: The 
health care system must be centered on the doctor-patient relationship. 
Health care plans must be flexible and there must be real choice. 
Americans must be able to own and control their own plans and decisions 
and choose how those plans work for them, and Washington should not 
control or run or mandate all of this.
  We believe individuals and families should own their own health 
insurance, and we oppose the Government managing or rationing people's 
health care. We believe individuals are capable and are better than 
bureaucrats at choosing that coverage which is best suited for their 
own needs.
  We are opposed to forcing people to enroll in a plan versus providing 
incentives to encourage individuals and families to choose to enroll. 
We believe existing Government programs can be improved and modernized 
so they provide more efficient quality care to serve the purpose of 
their enactment.
  In contrast to that, we oppose attempts to expand these specifically 
targeted programs and make them a Trojan horse for broader overreaching 
socialized medicine and sickness management by the Federal Government.
  Instead of looking to put more people on Government health care, we 
should assure that the truly indigent have health coverage. My friends 
and colleagues who tried to rationalize a dramatically expanding SCHIP, 
for example, the ability to offer Government health care to already 
insured children, argued we have to put children first. But last year 
this Senate unfortunately and overwhelmingly rejected an amendment by 
Senator Coburn that would have assured that all children in the United 
States would have health care coverage before funding special interest 
pork projects.
  We believe we should open and expand the health insurance marketplace 
to Americans so they can shop for health care across State lines and 
let insurance companies compete to provide quality, cost-effective 
care.
  We oppose increasing the number of costly mandates that price 
individuals in so many cases out of the market and restrict consumer 
choice and access.
  As my friend from South Carolina stated, there are almost 2,000 
individual mandates in health care, covering in some cases 
acupuncturists and hair prostheses.
  These mandates obviously drive up the cost of health care. In fact, 
according to the CBO, for every 1 percent increase in the cost of 
health care, 300,000 people lose their insurance. So there is a real 
human cost to so many of these mandates. This is supposed to be a free 
market society. I am perplexed as to why a consumer in South Carolina 
should not be able to shop for cheaper health insurance if that product 
is offered and sold in Louisiana.
  This is commonsense reform to drive down mandates to a reasonable 
level. It would force insurance companies to compete with each other 
across State lines to offer cheaper quality plans. Americans are able 
to purchase or invest in almost anything in any State of the Union. 
This does promote competition. It encourages companies to offer better 
prices and better quality and more attractive interest rates for 
savings and better service. Why can't we bring that positive aspect to 
the market of health insurance?
  My colleagues and I who join together in this discussion recognize 
that seniors have increasingly turned to Medicare Advantage plans 
because they offer better value, more choice, a higher quality of care 
than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. We oppose attempts to cut 
Medicare Advantage and reduce health care choices for seniors. Again, 
unfortunately, too many folks in this body are moving in the other 
direction. In fact, the chairman of the Finance Committee has indicated 
that the majority side of the aisle will offer a Medicare package that 
will likely significantly cut funding for the popular Advantage plan.
  I have heard from thousands of Louisiana seniors who are 
overwhelmingly pleased with their Medicare Advantage plans. I hope we 
can preserve this option for seniors and find a reasonable compromise 
so we don't cut Medicare Part C and negatively affect those seniors.
  We believe we should dramatically reform the tax treatment of health 
care by providing powerful incentives that will increase access by 
allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money to pay for 
health care. We oppose tax increases that do the opposite, that seize 
American money from American families to pay for government-run and 
government-dominated health care. That limits access to doctors. It 
lowers the quality of health services. Addressing health care through 
our Tax Code would fundamentally change the health care market, if we 
do it in the right way. By letting Americans keep more of their money 
for health care through refundable tax credits, we can empower 
Americans with more resources to obtain and access care.
  We have seen the results of increased utilization of health savings 
accounts. We want to see that when given the freedom to keep their tax-
free money for health care, Americans will make conscious efforts to 
stay healthier, make better health care decisions, and shop for more 
cost-effective care and services. HSAs, health savings accounts, are a 
newly implemented concept and one that is working. Americans want 
choice, and tax advantage options such as HSAs allow for more choice in 
health care. We know our proposals would reform a broken system into 
one that is patient centered, high quality, lower cost, and where 
families choose and own their own health care plan. Government-run 
health care does not work and limits access and choice for families.
  If you do not believe that, look to our neighbors. To the north we 
see Canada, which has a weekly lottery to see which of their citizens, 
in essence, can go to the doctor. Look to our friends across the 
Atlantic, to the British. The British National Health Service recently 
promised to reduce the wait time for hospital care to 4 months. That is 
supposed to be a dramatic improvement under that model, under Great 
Britain's national health care system.
  Is that the kind of health care we want Americans to have? I 
sincerely hope our proposals over the last 8 weeks will be some part of 
promoting this badly needed debate. I sincerely hope that important 
debate leads to action, to results in the Senate and the Congress, 
results for the American people. Health care is one of the most 
important issues for American families today. It is time we actually do 
something instead of sitting on our hands in Washington. We need to go 
back to the States to talk about how we need to reform the American 
health care system. It is time to embrace the challenge of health care 
reform and do something now, not just punt to future Congresses, future 
Washington politicians, future Presidents.
  I hope our discussion over the last 8 weeks helps promote that, not 
just debate but debate leading to action to improve the lives of all 
Americans with regard to health care.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 10412]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________