[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28029-28030]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           AMERICANS DESERVE MORE THAN OVER-THE-TOP RHETORIC

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in recent floor speeches and in numerous 
media appearances, some Members of Congress continue to repeat the 
mistaken idea that a significant number of people will die 
automatically because of lack of access to health insurance. Now, as 
Franklin Roosevelt said, ``Repetition does not transform a lie into 
truth.'' The American people deserve better than this kind of rhetoric. 
The American people deserve a Congress that can work together to find 
solutions to our most pressing problems.
  This argument is based upon a questionable study conducted by biased 
researchers, inaccurate characterizations, and faulty ideas. Oftentimes 
these Members quote from a Harvard study, which estimates that 45,000 
deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of 
health insurance. What they neglected to tell you was that the two 
authors of this study, Dr. Himmelstein and Dr. Woolhandler, are 
cofounders of the Physicians for a National Health Program. And what do 
they support? This program supports government-backed, single-payer 
health coverage.
  In fact, Dr. Woolhandler testified before the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, where I serve on the Health Subcommittee, on June 24. What 
did he testify on? On the absolute need, in his opinion, for a single-
payer system. So he is totally biased. This report reflects his demand 
and his desire for a one-payer system. It's clear that this study was 
conducted by researchers who knew what they wanted the outcome to show 
before they even conducted the study.

[[Page 28030]]

  Furthermore, this study used questionable methodology to reach its 
conclusion. According to analysis by John Goodman of the National 
Center for Policy Analysis, the authors of this Harvard study 
``interviewed the uninsured only once and never saw them again. A 
decade later, the researchers assumed that participants were still 
uninsured''--this is after 10 years they assumed it--``and, if they 
died in the interim, lack of insurance was blamed as one of the 
causes.'' Obviously, that's faulty logic.
  Yet, like unemployment, uninsurance happens to many people for short 
periods of time. It happens to a lot of people. Most people who are 
uninsured again regain insurance within 1 year, yet they forgot about 
this statistic. The authors of this study did not track what happened 
to the insurance status of the subjects over the decade examined, what 
medical care they received, or even the causes of their death. How can 
they make those claims?
  In Massachusetts, for example--the public option here in Congress is 
patterned after Massachusetts. It has the highest percentage of its 
residents insured in the United States at 97 percent. We can see the 
effects of a government-run health care system by looking at 
Massachusetts. According to a 2009 survey by Merritt Hawkins & 
Associates, there is a 63-day wait to see a family medical doctor in 
Boston, the longest of the 15 cities surveyed. This long wait is, in 
large part, due to Massachusetts' health care initiative. So, instead 
of waiting over 2 months to see a doctor, patients are flooding the 
emergency room since they cannot find a doctor, and this is putting a 
major strain on already overburdened and crowded emergency rooms. 
Obviously, these supporters of the public option here in Congress don't 
tell you how many people would die waiting for a medical doctor.
  The United States has the best health care in the world, especially 
in comparison to countries that have a one-payer system. In 10 of 16 
specific cancers, American patients have statistically better outcomes 
than their European counterparts. A new report released found that up 
to 15,000 lives could be saved every year if patients in Britain's 
National Health Service received the same type of quality care that 
patients in the United States receive. British Government responded by 
saying it's going to give patients the ``right'' to see a cancer 
specialist within 2 weeks of diagnosis.
  I could go on. There are horror stories all around this world from 
countries that are practicing socialized medicine. From 2001 to 2003, 
the British health system would only allow doctors to prescribe a 
treatment to preserve vision for those suffering from age-related 
macular degeneration after the patient had lost vision in one eye. Only 
after they lost one eye. A woman with epilepsy in the United Kingdom 
faced a 56-week wait to see a doctor. Also, in the United Kingdom, 
Christine Preuth, 72 years of age, was told she was too old to receive 
treatment for a head injury at a 24-hour walk-in center. While walking 
in, she tripped and fell on the pavement. Bleeding from the head, the 
nurse said she was not able to receive full treatment because she was 
over 65 years of age and her complaint was a head injury.
  We need to support health care reform that provides greater access to 
private insurance, lowers costs, and allows people who like their 
insurance to keep it. The public option does not allow that. 
Unfortunately, Democrats believe that the government-run health care 
system, spending over a trillion dollars, will solve the problem. The 
facts in all socialized countries do not bear that out. The numbers 
just don't add up, and future generations will be on the hook for 
paying for this dangerous Democrat health care experiment.

                          ____________________