[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12017-12018]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, over the last weeks, I have spent hundreds of 
hours helping craft a moderate, centrist bill on health care.
  Our country should work on lowering the costs of health insurance. 
And while a nationalized government HMO could prompt tax increases, 
inflation and a decline in quality, we could instead enact policies 
that lower the costs of health insurance for Americans.
  When we reform health care, we should follow key principles. First, 
reforms should defend your relationship with your doctor. Insurance 
companies already interfere with much of our care, and a government HMO 
would do worse. Second, reforms should reward the development of better 
treatments and cures. Americans support treating

[[Page 12018]]

diseases like diabetes, but they are passionate about a cure. And 
finally, reforms should be sustainable because so many senior citizens 
depend on them. The worst thing we could do is enact a program that we 
cannot afford.
  In considering health care reforms, Americans look to Canada and 
Britain as models. Canadians have a different view. While over 60 
percent of Americans are actually satisfied with their health care 
plan, only 55 percent of Canadians are happy. Over 90 percent of 
Americans facing breast cancer are treated in less than 3 weeks, while 
only 70 percent of Canadians get such quick treatment. Meanwhile, 
thousands of Canadians seek treatment in U.S. hospitals. The average 
Briton waits even longer, 62 days. Britain has fewer oncologists than 
any other Western European country. It is no wonder Britain ranks 17 
out of 17 industrialized countries in surviving lung cancer.
  The most dramatic differences come in the field of cancer, where 
Britain's most respected medical journal, The Lancet, published results 
on a review of European and American survival rates. In short, The 
Lancet reported, American men have a 66 percent chance of surviving 
cancer, European men 47 percent, American women 63 percent, European 
women 56. In short, you are more likely to live if you are treated in 
America.
  Newborns, most at risk, need the care of a neonatal specialist. In 
the United States, we have six neonatologists per 10,000 live births. 
In Canada, they have fewer than four, in Britain fewer than three. In 
this country, we have more than three neonatal intensive care beds per 
10,000, just 2.6 in Canada, less than one in Britain. It is no wonder 
babies in Britain are 17 percent more likely to die compared to just 13 
percent a decade ago.
  The starkest difference appears when you are sickest. In Britain, 
government hospitals maintain nine intensive care beds per 100,000 
people. In America, we have three times that number, at 31 per 100,000. 
In sum, Britain has less than two doctors per 1,000 people, ranking it 
next to Mexico, South Korea and Turkey.
  Stories of poor care under government-only systems are common in 
Britain. Last February, the Daily Mail reported on the case of Ms. 
Dorothy Simpson, age 61, who had an irregular heartbeat. Officials of 
the National Health Service denied her care, telling her that she was 
``too old.''
  The Guardian reports in June that one in eight NHS hospital patients 
have waited more than 1 year for treatment. In Congress, we have 
proposals to create a new option for Americans to sign on to a 
government health care plan. Proponents claim that this will offer a 
choice between their current health insurance and the government plan. 
That is what proponents say. What they do not say is that under many of 
the major pieces of legislation under consideration, the government 
health care plan is funded by ending the tax break employers receive 
for providing health care insurance. This tax break supports health 
insurance plans for most families, 165 million Americans. Do they know 
that the legislation being considered will trigger a tax decision by 
their employer to cancel health insurance for their family, leaving 
them actually no choice but an untested, brand new, government-only HMO 
attempting to care for their family?
  The new legislation also depends on funding from a climate change 
bill that press reports indicate a number of majority Members will not 
support. Without funding from a climate change bill, there is little 
revenue except borrowing or printing more money to support new 
government health care.
  Seniors and low-income Americans depend on the promises we make. The 
worst thing we can do is make commitments that are too expensive and 
pull the rug out from those who can least afford to cope. We should 
back reforms that the government can afford to keep. And we will be 
putting forward new legislation on that in the coming days.
  There are a number of steps that Congress should take to bring down 
the cost of medicine.
  First, we should expand the number of Americans with access to 
employer-provided health care. One of the best ways to do this is by 
allowing small businesses to band together to form larger pools of 
insurable employees.
  Second, the Congress should expand access to care for millions of 
self-employed Americans without insurance. A refundable tax credit for 
individuals equal in value to the same tax breaks large employers get 
would help them to buy insurance.
  Third, as jobs become more portable, so should health insurance. We 
should protect Americans who lose their jobs and families excluded from 
coverage by pre-existing conditions. Congress can remove the current 
18-month time limit on COBRA continuing coverage, giving family members 
the option of always sticking with the insurance plan they currently 
have.
  Fourth, we must pass common-sense measures to bring down health care 
costs. The VA already uses fully electronic medical records to care for 
20 million patients while saving lives and cutting wasteful spending. 
We also need lawsuit reform. We need federal lawsuit reforms to lower 
malpractice insurance premiums and retain doctors in high-risk 
professions.
  In sum, I working with Congressman Charles Dent, my co-chair of the 
Moderate Tuesday Group of 32 moderates on a health care bill. We will 
have a detailed plan by the May recess that makes, insurance less 
expensive . . . and therefore covering more Americans without 
burdenings our treasury with new borrowing needed from China or any 
other country.

                          ____________________