Weekly Press Conference With House Minoirty Leader John Boenher - Also Participating: Rep. Roy Blunt; Rep. Mark Kirk, Rep. Lynn Jenkins

Press Conference

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. BOEHNER: On every major issue addressed by Congress and the White House this year, it's the American middle class that's taken the hit. From the trillion-dollar stimulus bill to the fiscally irresponsible budget to these endless bailouts, Washington has asked the middle class to bankroll trillions in spending that we know we can't afford. Now it appears that Democrats are ready to lead the middle class off the cliff again, this time on health care.

We're here today to urge Americans to get engaged and to be on alert for what Congress is about to -- to do to rush a health care bill through this Congress and into law. They want to rush this bill through Congress as quickly as possible so that no one will understand the implication of what's about to happen.

President Obama is in Wisconsin today, pushing for a rushed passage of a bill that's going to make health care more expensive for America's middle class. But let's be clear: Washington cannot afford to repeat the same mistakes made on the stimulus, the omnibus, the budget and the bailouts. Middle-class Americans and small businesses have too much at stake when it comes to their health care.

The Democrats' emerging bill raises taxes, it rations care, and puts bureaucrats instead of doctors and patients in charge of medical decisions. It amounts to a government takeover of health care, and it would force millions of Americans off their own plans and into a government-sponsored plan.

Republicans know that there's a better way. Working with Roy Blunt, the chairman of our Healthcare Solutions Group, we've got better solutions to make sure that the middle class in America has access to high-quality, affordable health insurance.

And I hope that the Democrats will continue -- or begin, I should say -- to work with us to craft a bipartisan bill that will really address the needs that we have in our health-care system without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

(Cross talk.)

REP. : Mark Kirk.

REP. KIRK: As co-chair of the Tuesday Group, we are coming together with a centrist health-care reform bill that we'll unveil on Tuesday. What that bill will do is substantially reform health- insurance markets, backing employer-provided care, which already covers 170 million Americans.

One of the key examples that I would give on how substantive health-care reform that does not back a government takeover really still does solve a lot of problems for middle-class Americans is to compare California and New Jersey. If you want to do it poorly, you do it like the state of New Jersey, which has almost no reforms and has now boosted the average cost of care to $6,000 per person. If you want to do it in a much better way, it's California, where insurance pools are larger and lawsuit reform is present. And there, you've reduced the cost almost $5,000 per patient. And what we would be doing in our Tuesday Group reform bill is backing the kind of reforms that have lowered the costs of California over what's happening in New Jersey. That's number one.

Number two, I am very worried about how to pay for the system. Having just come back from China, we're worried about overall deficit spending by the United States and the practice of the Fed -- one part of the federal government -- buying another part of the federal government's debt. When you look at the overall weakening of the dollar in international markets, I think there's great fear about additional spending by the Congress. And the question that I would ask is, with the federal government already $1.8 trillion in debt, would you really put that institution, that's already out of money, in charge of your family's health care? A sustainable plan is what's absolutely required, especially by international markets that are worried about the dollar.

Finally, the most respected medical journal in the world, I would argue, The Lancet, which is published in Britain, just published a study on cancer survival rates. We know from the polling data that Americans are much more concerned about lowering the cost of their insurance, even more than expanding coverage for everybody. But there's one question that's more important than what any poll will tell you, which is, will you live or die given the health insurance system that's present?

The Lancet studied cancer survival rates across all European countries, Canada and the United States. And what it said, in the most respected peer-reviewed way, is you are much more likely to live in the United States through cancer than in Canada or the EU.

And we want to make sure that we do not harm that record because if you get a bad result from your oncologist and you're fighting cancer, you are much more likely to live in the United States than in those other countries, which some folks have been looking at as a model for where the United States could go.

REP. JENKINS: Good morning. I'm Lynn Jenkins from the great state of Kansas.

And health care is not just a policy issue for me. As a daughter of aging parents and a mother of two children, I've spent a fair amount of time in doctors' offices and emergency rooms in recent years. And when it comes to health care for my loved ones, I want their doctor working with us to explain treatment options and helping us make important decisions, not a distant government bureaucrat or a Washington politician who doesn't know the situation and doesn't know my family.

We've got a health-care crisis on our hands. It's definitely a crisis when a family is denied the ability to choose the doctor or hospital that are best for them. And I'm concerned with some of the proposals that are being discussed here in Washington that will take that choice away and put a government bureaucrat in charge. Health- care decisions are personal, and one thing we know for sure is that a one-size-fits-all government takeover of health care will result in fewer choices for patients. And it's not a matter of if there will be fewer choices, it's a matter of when.

Doctors are the best health-care experts out there. They've spent years just to get that DR in front of their name. The last thing Kansans need is a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. telling them what kind of treatment they do or do not deserve. My constituents in Kansas have called and sent letters to my office asking me to represent them in this debate. The vast majority of them say reform is needed, but I've not heard many who think that a government-run health-care system will benefit them.

One lady from Pittsburg, Kansas said she was concerned about any plan that allowed so-called leaders who have no medical background deciding who will get what treatment when. She went on to say treatment may be delayed or not given.

My constituents have it figured out. House Republicans will continue to act to be part of this debate. This will no doubt be one of the most important pieces of legislation we will consider this year and for years to come. And so for all the medical decision-makers across this nation -- mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters -- rather than letting a distant bureaucrat call the shots for the ones you love, we want to put the medical professionals in charge, and we want you to have a say in every decision regarding your family's health.

Thank you.

REP. BLUNT: Well, thank you, Lynn. Lynn Jenkins was on the health care task force that the speaker -- that the leader put together with -- our leader, Mr. Boehner, put together. The ranking members from all the committees involved -- the workforce committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee -- have been actively working. Mark Kirk's group has been very involved in the discussions we've been having.

And I think what's happened in the last few weeks is we've become more and more specific; the administration has become less and less specific. Their -- their eight principles are now three. Their website has a lot less information on it than it did a few months ago. And one of the frustrations for our side has been, with the administration, is we keep pounding on the door, saying we have good ideas here, we want to be part of this process, we agree with the goals; that door just never opens for us. I read in one of the Hill newspapers this morning that on the Senate side, the outside groups were told that if you're caught talking to Republicans, you're going to be penalized in this -- as this discussion goes forward.

I think what the concern here is, is that our friends on the other side know that particularly when it comes to a public option, that this idea of a government takeover of health care just simply will not fly with the American people. The American Medical Association, which had been trying to work with the administration up until my guess is about yesterday, yesterday announced that they are absolutely opposed to a government-run health-care plan. They understand, as does everyone else who's analyzed this, that if that's one of the competitors that very quickly you'll have no competitors; that all a government plan does is shift cost to everybody who doesn't have that plan. And doctors have seen that now. And these are not advocates for the insurance companies, these are advocates for a competitive marketplace that works.

And in our principles, one of the principles that we have, of course, is we're not for a government takeover of health care because we think it drives people away from the coverage they have now. And most Americans really think the coverage they have now works pretty well for them. They've heard all the reports, they've heard all the discussion, they listened through the campaigns, and they believe there's a problem; they just actually don't think that the problem affects them. About 83 percent of the American people think that their current health-care coverage is either "good" or "excellent" -- 83 percent. And that's why you hear the president saying, as Mrs. Clinton started saying last year -- Senator Clinton started saying, "If you like what you have, you can keep it" because they know that people like what they have. But the truth is, under their plan, you will not be able to keep it because it just won't be there anymore. A government -- the government will never compete fairly.

And so before long, you don't have any competitors. Lamar Alexander said the government competitors are like an elephant in a room full of mice and the mice don't survive very long in that kind of competitive environment.

The government won't compete fairly and we need to have actually more competition, not less competition. Republicans would add to that statement, if you like what you have, you can keep it and you should also have even more choices than you have now, more opportunity to get into a system that everyone can find coverage in. We're for a system that everybody can have access to regardless of their preexisting conditions.

We think competition and better management and transparency and liability reform make that system more affordable, not less affordable and we also want to get realistic about the number of Americans now that don't have insurance. That number may be 45 million, but an awful lot of them could get insurance at work if they wanted to. An awful lot of them are healthy people under 30, but we're not satisfied, ten million can't get to the system now, we want everybody including those ten million people that don't have access to have access.

We want sick Americans who have a preexisting condition, who have a chronic predisposition to be able to have health care coverage and we're going to be fighting for that. We're going to be fighting for a system that does not allow us to move into waiting lines and rationing and one payer, and I think that's where this battle is coming down to. I've seen in the last few days of these people in health care, the doctors, the most immediate example at the American Medical Association that people in health care have been trying to work with the administration. They've listened to the rhetoric, but now as they begin to see the specifics, they're saying, wait a minute, this won't work. This plan will not work.

And that brings me to the other - to the point that the Leader made that I think is critical to understand here. To set an artificial deadline of getting a bill off the House floor by the end of July when there is no bill in the middle of June, when we're talking about restructuring somewhere between 16 and 18 percent of the American economy is needless, it's dangerous, it's outrageous and it won't allow the American people to see what's happening.

So they may stay with that deadline, but as people figure out what they're trying to do, they're going to be offended by this bum's rush that the American people are getting to restructure, not only the economy, but their health care, their families' health care in a time frame that doesn't make sense, hoping that they can sneak a government takeover of health care through before the American -- (audio break).

REP. BLUNT: (In progress following audio break.) Half of the people that get their coverage through their employer now would opt for the cheaper government competitor and, of course, that destroys the system and then you don't have any competitors.

Q Should people with -- (inaudible) --

REP. BLUNT: We'll go around.

Q This question is for everybody. Is there any form of a public plan which House Republicans would be open to?

REP. BLUNT: Well, I can't speak for all House Republicans, in my case, no, there is not. A government competitor will work against the system. Now, I'd personally be open to looking back at this in four or five years and see if the marketplace doesn't develop that I think will. Back to the Part D example again where 90 percent of the people are enrolled in a volunteer system and 90 percent of them think it's either good or excellent.

The same people today that said there wouldn't be enough competitors in the marketplace wouldn't work were saying that about Medicare Part D. And then once you had a lot of competitors, then they started saying, well, people won't be smart enough to make a choice that serves their needs and neither of those things were true.

So I'd be glad to revisit this issue if I'm wrong and there's no way that a marketplace develops, but there's nothing in recent health care history that would indicate that I'd be wrong in that and so, for me, I will not support a plan that has a government competitor because the government will not compete fairly.

REP. BOEHNER: I'm opposed to a government option. Period. Listen, if you like going to the DMV and you think they do a great job or you like going to the post office and think it's the most efficient thing you've run into, then you'll love the government-run health care system that they're proposing because that's basically what you're going to have.

Yes, sir?

Q Leader, I wanted to ask you on a different wavelength on detainee photos that are going to be discussed, up for discussion today during the conference committee on the war supplemental. A number of House Democrats and the Democratic leadership is thinking about listening to them about taking the Graham-Lieberman position out of the supplemental.

I want to know what you think of their concerns given President Obama's views on the subject as well.

REP. BOEHNER: Listen, there have been a number of actions taken by this administration that have weakened our national security and put our soldiers and our intelligence officers in a position of greater risk, whether it was the plan to close Guantanamo without a plan as to what to do with those detainees and how to try them, whether it was release of the interrogation memos and then when it came to these photos, it's clear that unless Congress acts, these photos are going to be released and if they're released, it's going to put our soldiers and our intelligence officials at much greater risk and make America less safe.

And so that language is critically important to stay in this bill if, in fact, that is going to happen, but it's pretty clear that from what I'm hearing that the Democrat leaders under pressure from the far left appear to be ready to take that language out of the bill. I think they're making a very big mistake.

Q Last question.

Q Back to health care for a moment, Senator Conrad unveiled a co-op plan last night in the Finance Committee and this is what Senator Gregg said about it, "Senator Conrad has put out a very interesting idea involving co-ops, so there were other groups working around this building who are thinking in a more constructive way about how you get to a plan that would be bipartisan," end quote.

What do you think about a co-op plan that would be non-profit, that would allow consumers to choose -

REP. BOEHNER: Well, I think there's a lot of work that needs to go into this idea. It's interesting. I'm sure that in the coming weeks it's going to be more developed, so that we can take a look and see what is this idea and how would it work. We've had things like MEWAS, Multi-Employer Welfare Arrangements that were not regulated properly, that turned out to be a very big problem.

And so when you begin to look at what kind of co-ops, what kind of groupings, what kind of pooling they're talking about, as we see more details, we'll have more to comment on it.

Thank you.

Source