WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Republican Whip and a member of the Senate Finance Committee, today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor regarding health-care reform:
“The problems with the current state of health care in America are well known. Republicans don’t need to be convinced of the case for reform. We hear from our constituents who have concerns about their own health-care dilemmas and those of their neighbors. We all agree that the millions of uninsured Americans need access to high-quality health care. Though we agree on the need for reform, we have disagreements on how best to accomplish our goals.
Republicans favor a patient-centered approach that allows patients to choose their own insurance, keep it if they like it, and never have to get permission from a Washington bureaucrat to get the test or treatment their doctors say they need.
“President Obama wants Congress to pass a sweeping new Washington-run health care system that would jeopardize the care most Americans already have. Such a system would likely lead to the collapse of private insurance and replace it with an enormous Washington bureaucracy that would ration the health care of all Americans.
“I’ve discussed my concerns that Washington-run healthcare would diminish Americans’ access to quality care – leading to denials, shortages, and long delays for treatment – and would give power to Washington to dictate which medications and procedures Americans could get and when they could get them.
“It’s already in the works. A recent National Institutes of Health project description states: ‘Cost-effectiveness research will provide accurate and objective information to guide future policies that support the allocation of health resources for the treatment of acute and chronic conditions.’
“‘Allocation of health resources’ is a euphemism for rationing – denying care based on cost.
“To that end, Senator McConnell and I introduced legislation that would bar the federal government from using comparative effectiveness research to delay or deny care to anyone. That is the bare minimum we should do to prevent rationing of care. Our bill incidentally is endorsed by the American Medical Association.
“Government-run-and-rationed approaches have caused much pain to people in other countries. In Canada, for example, in an article for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, it was written of the long waits Canadians endure for just about any procedure or diagnostic test: seniors who lay on stretchers for five days in a hospital waiting room, a three-year wait list for a hernia operation, a two-year delay for sleep apnea treatment, a year-long delay for a hip replacement, and so on.
“It’s one thing for Washington to take over the car companies. Getting it wrong there won’t lead to life-or-death problems. But it’s an entirely different matter to allow Washington to go into business as the nation’s health care provider. Who’s going to protect you when they get it wrong? Who are you going to appeal to?
“In his healthcare speeches, President Obama has stressed that if you like your current health care you can keep it if you don’t want to get on the Washington-run plan.
“That sounds all well and good, but it won’t play out that way. The Lewin Group produced a study that shows if enacted, the president’s ‘public option,’ the government-run insurance company, would displace 119 million happily-insured Americans.
“Their companies could take the easy route and simply pay a fine and tell their employees to sign up for Washington-run health care, even if they don’t want it.
“How does that square with President Obama’s assurances that people get to keep what they have? A May 14 Rasmussen poll shows that 70 percent of Americans rated their coverage as ‘excellent,’ and another 23 percent rated it as ‘fair.’ So, most folks are happy with their current insurance, and would not appreciate being pushed into Washington’s health care bureaucracy, with all of its complex rules, hours of waiting on hold, and webs of impenetrable bureaucracy.
“And then there’s the matter of cost. How much will it cost to add 47 million people to the health care rolls? Who will pay? To not know the answers to these questions is to be fiscally irresponsible. Yet we don’t even have precise estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, whose responsibility it is to tell Congress how much legislation will cost the taxpayers.
“The Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary estimate shows that only a part of the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee bill costs $1 trillion, but only reduces the number of uninsured by 16 million people. The remainder of the bill hasn’t even been scored. My math shows that equals $62,500 per person. And that only covers about a third of the 47 million who are said to lack insurance. And it doesn’t take into account the estimated 119 million insured who will be switched from private coverage that they currently have to the government program. So what will the total cost be?
“There’s another concern that hasn’t been much discussed – a major concern for America’s seniors. Over the weekend, the administration proposed trimming Medicare’s budget to pay for this new public plan. This is exactly the wrong thing to do and can only mean one thing: rationing and waiting lists for America’s seniors.
“Seniors want Congress to strengthen Medicare, make it more efficient, and, most importantly, make it solvent. They want it to serve as intended – to pay for health care for seniors. They do not want its resources drained to pay for a massive new plan for the 47 million uninsured, plus 119 million currently insured, but soon-to-be displaced into the government system. Seniors rightly ask: Won’t the new demands for care greatly diminish the quality of care seniors now receive and lead to dangerous waits for tests and treatment?
“President Obama has acknowledged that Medicare’s promises of treatment are financially unsustainable. And we learned recently that Medicare’s liability – that is, the amount of benefits promised that are not covered by taxes—is $38 trillion over the next 75 years!
“One lesson we can draw from Medicare’s financial troubles – and veterans’ health care – is that health care plans run by Washington bureaucrats are not cost effective or efficient. They have no incentive to be. The economic principle of the tragedy of the commons applies here. Since the money doesn’t belong to any one individual or group, no incentive exists to be cost efficient, eliminate waste, or streamline the bureaucracy.
“Seniors, veterans, private insurance holders, and the uninsured – all Americans – should be given the chance to review and discuss and provide feedback on any legislation as important as health-care reform. It will affect the way we all get our health care.
“I look forward to an ongoing dialogue about the health-care reform we all want. But we must not rush to churn out and then hastily pass a plan that will lead to rationing and the displacement of millions from the insurance they currently enjoy. It’s of paramount importance that the principles of quality care, choice, freedom, and putting patients first triumph in the reform we all want.”
