by Mark Silva
Republican Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming calls health-care reform "one of the most important debates of our lifetime.'' And he calls the Democratic prescription a mistake that could last another lifetime.
""If Congress and the administration mess this up, each and every one of us will pay for the mistakes, as will generations to come,'' Enzi says, in delivering the Republican Party's weekly address today.
""We need health care reform - but more importantly, we need to get it right. We need reforms that will actually lower health care costs for working Americans and we need to make sure we do not increase the deficit and add to the record debt we're already passing on to our children and grandchildren.
"People across America are telling Congress that current health care bills are the wrong approach and that there should be a course correction on health care reform,'' he says. "They've said we need to scrap these flawed bills and take the time to develop the real solutions that the American people want and need.''
See the senator's address above and read it below:
"Hello, I'm Mike Enzi, from the State of Wyoming and the Ranking Member of the Senate's Health Committee.
"Before I begin my remarks I want to acknowledge the loss of a great leader this week - one who's influenced policy for almost half a century. Senator Ted Kennedy has been a tireless champion on a wide range of important issues and his voice will be missed in the Senate. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family at this time.
"I would now like to take a few minutes to speak with you about the current health care reform debate in America. Across the country, people are concerned about the reform bills Democrats have proposed. I heard a lot of frustration and anger as I traveled across my home state this last few weeks. I know my colleagues in the Senate have also heard loud and clear the worries so many Americans have about the changes to their health care being considered.
"People in Wyoming and across the country are anxious about what Washington has in mind.
"This is big.
"This is personal.
"This is one of the most important debates of our lifetime.
"If Congress and the administration mess this up, each and every one of us will pay for the mistakes, as will generations to come.
"We need health care reform - but more importantly, we need to get it right. We need reforms that will actually lower health care costs for working Americans and we need to make sure we do not increase the deficit and add to the record debt we're already passing on to our children and grandchildren.
"The bills introduced by Congressional Democrats fail to meet these standards.
"According to the non-partisan and independent Congressional Budget Office, the House and Senate bills will actually drive up heath care costs. The Congressional Budget Office also says that the Democrats' bill will significantly increase our nation's deficit.
"Take a minute to think about that.
"The Democrats are trying to rush a bill through the process that will actually make our nation's finances sicker without saving you money. The American people are growing increasingly concerned about out of control spending in Washington that's leaving us with trillions of dollars of debt.
"These bills also raid Medicare. This will result in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the elderly to create new government programs. Savings from Medicare should only be used to strengthen Medicare.
"The bills would expand comparative effectiveness research that would be used to limit or deny care based on age or disability of patients. Republican amendments in the HELP Committee would have protected Americans by prohibiting the rationing of their health care. The Democrats showed their true intent by voting every amendment down and leaving these unacceptable provisions in the bill. This intrusion of a Washington bureaucrat in the relationship between a doctor and a patient is not the kind of reform that Americans are seeking.
"People across America are telling Congress that current health care bills are the wrong approach and that there should be a course correction on health care reform. They've said we need to scrap these flawed bills and take the time to develop the real solutions that the American people want and need.
"We need to enact common sense reform that will actually cut costs.
"More and better choices of competing health plans should be available, so you can find the plan that meets your needs at a price you can afford.
"It's important that we help small businesses provide affordable coverage for their workers. One way to do this is to give small businesses the power to band together across the country and use their combined negotiating power to find quality, affordable insurance plans.
"We should also reform our current tax system, which drives up costs and makes it difficult for individuals to purchase insurance on their own. Everyone should get a health care tax advantage or no one should.
"We need to reform our flawed medical liability system and eliminate junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Unnecessary lawsuits cause extra costs and drive up health care costs.
"We need to incentivize healthy lifestyle and push for a greater awareness of the importance of prevention rather than increasing sick care.
"And, we need to provide patients with more and better information about the price and quality of their health care services, so they can make the right choices for their families.
"America is a country of choices. We're a nation of people who want the ability to choose what will best fit our families' needs and it should be that way with health care too. These are the kinds of health care reforms that the American people want to see, and that's the kind of change I hear that people want as I travel across Wyoming. A government monopoly just doesn't serve us best.
"I hope the President and the Democratic-controlled Congress will reject the go-it-alone path that they are currently on. If they do, we'll have a chance to truly work on a real bill that will address those critical issues. Then we can bring about the reform necessary to decrease health care costs and increase access to affordable, quality health care for all Americans.
"Thank you."
Comments
Here's a health plan for you and it doesn't require 1,009 pages of gobbledy-gook: (1) Allow inter-state competition among health insurance companies which will lower prices; (2) Extend Medicaid to poor families, but ONLY those who truly cannot afford it; (3) Exclude a "government option" that is a poor disguise for eventual rationed national health care; (4) Eliminate any mention of death panels and leave that issue to individuals and their families; (5) Do not provide for tax-supported abortions which compel those opposed to such practice to pay for them; and (5) In doing the above, save taxpayers $l,800,000,000,000! Finally, keep Obama and his Chicago-Soros-SEIU-Acorn gang out of health care.
Posted by: Aaron | August 29, 2009 2:04 PM
Aaron,
Excellent list. Let's add Health Savings Accounts and to make the tax law equal for businesses and individuals - health insurance fully deductible.
Posted by: Terry | August 29, 2009 4:31 PM
Yes...exellent list...BS...but an exellent list. Also almost perfect numerically exept 6 comes after 5, not another 5. Rationed huh? What planet do you come from if you don't realize we already have that? I love that death panel garbage also. Yes indeedy, death panels. Someones a sandwich short of a picnic. You have almost perfectly listed the top lies about healthcare...Bravo!
Posted by: bill r. | August 29, 2009 6:40 PM
Aaron great ideas, no, wait, let's look at them...
1.Who says that interstate competition will lower prices? Prices aside, what about actual care, will they allow for pre-existing conditions?
2. Obviously you are not poor and do not know anyone who is because Medicaid for the poor is called Medicare, it exists already.
3. You're right, a "government option" should not turn into "rationed care." It's a good thing that no one has suggested it.
4. "Death Panels" already do not exist in the bill.
5. (You actually have two number 5's so let's tackle the first). Yeah, I don't agree with tax supported abortions in the cases where it's someone's choice (they're so cheap anyway!). However, in a case of necessity (danger to the mother's life) this should be considered applicable.
5. (The second #5) Where on earth did you get this figure?
You're logic is faulty on too many accounts.
Posted by: CAM | August 29, 2009 6:52 PM
CAM
1) Econ 101 says it will.
2) Medicaid is for teh the poor people, Medicare is for the elderly.
3) Rationed care is not in the bill, but gov't run health care will turn into rationed care as we have seen in most countries that have gov't run health care. Also, considering BO now has projected the deficit at $9,000,000,000,000, rationed care wouldn't be far off if the feds were to assume this responsibility.
4) Death Panels - see rationed care above. Same sad result.
5a) The issue of abortion really gets to the larger issue of what elective medical procedures would be paid for under a gov't plan. Going back to number one, this is where interstate competition would become valuable since different state laws have different requirements for procedures that must be covered by health insurance sold within that state.
5b) I have no idea on where that figure is from.
Posted by: Terry | August 29, 2009 7:48 PM
Sorry about the duplicate 5s. Just a typo. But to answer the questions: (A) Medicaid, not Medicare (for seniors), is intended for the poor. It now covers children; it should be extended to adults who cannot (not "will not") pay for insurance; (B) Death panels, disguised as government counseling on end-of-life advice or treatment, are found in several sections on page 425 of the House bill; (C) The $1.8 trillion was the estimate of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, give or take a few billion; (D) Both parties admit that authorizing insurance companies to cross state lines would introduce competition that would lower prices;
(E) Page 335 of the bill mandates establishment of "outcome-based" measures (aka rationing). In essence, provide insurance for the poor but keep the doctor-patient decision process in place without having a clerk in Washington interfering. (And no, while I am not poor, I also am far from rich and live from paycheck to paycheck. No LCD TVs, no car, no I-pods etc., and a small apartment. But I do pay for my family's health insurance).
Posted by: Aaron | August 29, 2009 8:08 PM
Perhaps Replican propoganda about the health bill would be more effectively delivered by someone who didn't look as if he were at death's door.
Posted by: ornery | August 29, 2009 10:11 PM
American Public Health Association gave Senator Enzi a 0% on health issues; an anti-public health voting record. He has never voted to protect the rights of Medicare or American citizens, or to cut costs for either. Not surpising he's warning that he will block this reform bill, too:
2008 Voted YES on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium.
"An individual senior making over $82,000 a year, or a senior couple making over $164,000, would be expected to pay a little over $10 a month extra. That is all we are doing. This amendment saves a couple billion dollars over the next 5 years."
2007 Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.
The bill provided health coverage for 3.9 million uninsured children. George Bush: "This bill does not put poor children first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction."
2007 Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.
The bill removed the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and would have delivered lower premiums to seniors, lower prices at pharmacies and savings for all taxpayers.
2005 Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug.
Denied an amendment that would allow federal government to negotiate with prescription drug manufactures to get the best possible prices for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D of the Social Security Act
2003 Voted YES on Republican Medicare prescription drug.
Has cost Medicare/US Taxpayers $800 billion, made seniors in the plan pay 60% more for Rx drugs than peers in other government plans and benefitted drug companies with $139.2 billion in new profits.
2002 Voted NO on allowing eimportation of Rx drugs from Canada.
Denied seniors & citizens the opportunity to buy cheaper RX drugs from Canada.
2001 Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages.
Vote to provide federal protections, such as access to specialty and emergency room care, and allow patients to sue health insurers in state and federal courts.
1999 Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction.
Denied self-employed individuals from fully deducting the cost of their health insurance on their federal taxes.
Posted by: Annemarie | August 30, 2009 1:11 AM
One only needs to read Ezekiel Emmanuel's thoughts, Obreshnev's Medical "Czar," on the subject to know where this will end:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html
Posted by: FLZapped | August 30, 2009 8:17 AM
Posted by: FLZapped | August 30, 2009 8:17 AM
Flim flam and taken out of context for your agenda. This is from fact check:
We agree that Emanuel’s meaning is being twisted. In one article, he was talking about a philosophical trend, and in another, he was writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited.
Posted by: bill r. | August 30, 2009 10:54 AM
BillyR,
"...to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited."
This is what will happen when gov't takes over health care - it will be rationed or taxes will have a dramatic increase which will cripple the economy - and thus criple tax revenues
Posted by: Terry | August 30, 2009 11:54 AM
Rationed healthcare and death panels might not be clearly written into the bill, but the verbiage of the bill leaves these things wide open as options, and at best makes one wonder what in the world it means.
Lawyer and FOX News host, Greta VanSusteren, interviewed one of the writers of the bill and asked him why they did not present a bill that was 'CLEAR AND CONCISE'. They told her it was because they didn't want the judges to take advantage.
Greta's common sense point was that it was quite the other way around.
If you want some background info on Obama and his advisors/'Czars', watch some of Glenn Beck's videos, particularly the one "A call to action" Beck is on FOX News 5-6pm (eastern time).
Posted by: Dora | August 30, 2009 4:18 PM
Terry...somehow you are under the impression this doesn't happen now.
Posted by: bill r. | August 30, 2009 4:33 PM
Healthcare for all! It's on the humane thing!
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | August 30, 2009 8:30 PM
BillyR,
The health insurance now is done in accordance with the law of state that it is provided. The contract between the employee, employer, and the insurance conmpany. The contract follows state law and the care is done in accordance with the contract.
Rodney,
And more than $9,000,000,000,000 deficits for all also.
Posted by: Terry | August 30, 2009 9:51 PM
I wonder which country we will be like in the future?
From the writings above, I am more concerned about Radicalism and Religious War in this country, than I am worried about the Democratic Health Reform plan.
Since when did any Health Insurance company do what is good for the patient vs. what is good for their bottom line. You think that you can get any health treatment you want? Good luck when the time comes and the insurance company decides you do not need the treatment or that they are not going to cover it. Then you go yelling to the government to protect you from big business.....
Posted by: JR | September 10, 2009 8:50 PM