or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Health Care Reform

Floor Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, from media reports, certainly not because Members on this side of the aisle have been told about it, I understand the majority leader is now corralling the final three Democrats, which I am sure he will succeed in doing, in order to secure 60 votes to move forward with the greatest takeover of the private sector in health care by legislation perhaps in the history of this country. Of course, I would not know that myself, nor would any Member on this side of the aisle, because of the fact that there is no communication between the majority leader and Republicans. I understand they have 60 votes. I understand they will get 60 votes. I understand that they may likely be able to railroad this through the Senate. Then, again, they will gather in a small room, and they will come out with significant changes and revisions in the form of a conference report.

I have been having townhall meetings around my State of Arizona, the
second hardest-hit State in America because of the economic downturn. I assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, there is a revolution going on out there. It is a peaceful revolution. They do not want increased costs of a reform commitment that would be up to $3 trillion, that would cut Medicare by $500 billion and tax Americans across the entire income spectrum by an additional $500 billion. My friends across the aisle may not have gotten the message from the elections in New Jersey and Virginia not that long ago. Americans want cost control, and they want affordable and available health care. They don't want increases in taxes. They don't want the government taking over the health care system. Yet that is what is going to be delivered.

A lot of people, may I say, may not trust the word of some of us on this side of the aisle and may think we are uninformed or we are just politicians. Maybe we ought to listen to Dr. Jeffrey Flier, dean of the Harvard Medical School. I have never been that great of an admirer of Harvard, but the dean of the Harvard Medical School states in today's Wall Street Journal, entitled ``Health Debate Deserves a Failing Grade''--and he has some criticism for this side of the aisle that perhaps is deserved--

As the dean of the Harvard Medical School, I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I'd give it a failing grade.

Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama's agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health--not politics--have been left in the lurch. And as the controversy heads towards a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.

During the last campaign, I proposed addressing the issue of employer-provided health benefits, doing away with it in return for a $5,000 refundable tax credit. Tens of millions of dollars in attack ads were leveled against it. I proposed it not because it was easy, not because I didn't think the American people didn't need straight talk. I did it because it is one of the fundamental problems with the cost of health care in America. If someone gets something for free, they are not going to be careful about the money that is spent.

Ronald Reagan once said: Nobody ever washed a rental car. He is right. So when people receive free medical care that they don't have to pay for and that they don't have to have accountability for, it is obvious that that is misused.

Again, there is the story this morning about some $49 billion in wasteful spending in Medicare. The numbers go on and on.

Why is it that the dean of the Harvard Medical School says ``the rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive''? Maybe it is. But the rhetoric on both sides becomes more intense because of a failure to sit down and try to work something out together. At no time during this entire, long, drawn-out process have there been serious negotiations between Republicans and Democrats. Not once. Of course, the rhetoric gets exaggerated on both sides and even deceptive. We are not doing what the American people expect us to do, and that is sit down together and work these things out on one of the greatest financial crises this Nation faces.

Dr. Flier goes on to say:

Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost--and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

Dr. Flier is alleging that there is no control of the growth of costs or rise in the quality of care. We all know that the cost of health care is unsustainable. The Medicare trustees have said in 7 years it will go broke. I believe forcing more Americans into Medicaid, a public program that gets failing grades for access to care and the quality of care, is not the right approach to covering millions more Americans.

Dean Flier goes on:

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it.

The whole problem with health care in America is not the quality of health care, it is the accessibility and affordability. Dr. Flier says ``the final legislation that will emerge will markedly accelerate national health care spending rather than restrain it.''

Dr. Flier continues:

Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system.

This isn't just Dr. Flier's opinion. Look at Samuelson's article the other day about the effects of what has been passed by the House and will apparently be before us. Democrats are proposing a $3 trillion expansion of government health care, including $1 trillion in Medicare cuts and tax increases. But experts tell us the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health care's dysfunctional delivery system. Senate committees have spent months writing bills and spinning the benefits of legislation, and experts tell us the efforts fail the basic test.

On March 5 of this year, the President is quoted as saying:

If people think we can simply take everybody who's not insured and load them up in a system where costs are out of control, it is not going to happen. We will run out of money. The federal government will be bankrupt; state governments will be bankrupt.

The President is right. But the Democratic leadership writing these bills is not listening. Partisan reform designed behind closed doors will bankrupt this country, in effect committing generational theft. The majority leader continues to put his bill together in a secret committee of one with a deaf ear to what experts tell us is needed. And we wait. We wait with great anticipation to see how high taxes and fees will be increased. We wait with great anticipation to finally understand how Senate Democrats will force a government health insurance entitlement into our health care market.

We will wait to see how much they will cut Medicare. And these are Medicare cuts, my friends, have no doubt about it. We will wait to see the new mandates on individuals and employers to buy government-designed insurance.

We already know that the Senate Finance Committee bill includes roughly $508 billion in new taxes on individuals and businesses.

Beginning in January of 2010, health insurers would also be required to pay annual nondeductible fees totaling $60.4 billion over 10 years.

Beginning in January of 2010, medical device manufacturers are required to pay $40 billion in new nondeductible fees.

Beginning in January 2010, prescription drug manufacturers are required to pay $22 billion in new nondeductible fees.

By the way, in case my colleagues missed it, surprise, surprise, the pharmaceutical industry has now dramatically increased their prices, while the cost of living has gone down. What a shocker. Those great people from the pharmaceutical lobby who have been willing to make such ``sacrifices'' for the American people are raising their prices in an unprecedented fashion, totally disconnected to the absolutely nonexistent increase in the cost of living. And the administration continues to oppose drug reimportation from Canada, where seniors could get prescription drugs for about half of what it is now costing them.

Beginning in 2013, Democrats raise taxes by $201 billion by increasing taxes by 40 percent on certain family health care plans with higher coverage values, payable by insurance companies or employers.

Beginning in 2013, taxpayers who deduct medical expenses on their tax returns will pay $15 billion more in taxes.

Taxes on individuals who fail to maintain government-approved health insurance coverage will pay $4 billion in new penalties, breaking President Obama's promise that no one with income under $250,000 would pay higher taxes.

Businesses that are struggling to keep the doors open and keep workers employed in this recession will see higher taxes of $23 billion in the form of mandates and penalties for failing to offer government-approved health insurance.

Again, I urge my colleagues to read the article in the New York Post entitled ``Obamacare: Buy now, pay later'' by the well-respected economist Robert Samuelson. He writes:

There is an air of absurdity to what is mistakenly called ``health-care reform.'' Everyone knows that the United States faces massive governmental budget deficits as far as calculators can project, driven heavily by an aging population and uncontrolled health costs. As we recover slowly from a devastating recession, it's widely agreed that, though deficits should not be cut abruptly (lest the economy resume its slump), a prudent society would embark on long-term policies to control health costs, reduce government spending and curb massive future deficits. The administration estimates these (deficits) at $9 trillion from 2010 to 2019. The president and all his top economic advisers proclaim the same cautionary message.

So what do they do? Just the opposite. Their far-reaching overhaul of the health-care system--which Congress is halfway toward enacting--would almost certainly make matters worse. It would create new, open-ended medical entitlements that threaten higher deficits and would do little to suppress surging health costs. The disconnect between what President Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.

Those are not my comments, Mr. President. Those are the comments of Robert Samuelson, one of the most respected economists in America.

I want to take another minute to talk about how the influence of special interests--I mentioned the pharmaceutical companies and the deal they cut so the administration would oppose drug importation from Canada, that there would not be competition for Medicare patients. But let me talk about probably the most powerful force in this whole discussion of legislation, and that is the trial lawyers of America.

There is no provision for medical liability or medical malpractice reform in this legislation. In fact, it was passed by the House that if States have enacted reforms, they will not be eligible for any additional funding to try and fund demonstration projects to reduce the cost of medical malpractice.

Everybody knows, ask any physician, they will tell you, they practice defensive medicine. They do so because of their fear of finding themselves in court and being wiped out. Sometimes these additional procedures and tests are not so comfortable for the patient, but, most importantly, they dramatically increase costs. Time after time after time, any effort we have made to put in medical malpractice reform--and we will do it again when the majority leader gives birth to whatever you want to call this--then, the fact is, they are not seriously interested in reducing costs, but they are seriously dependent on the largesse and generosity of the trial lawyers of America, and it is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage.

I would point out, when the President talks about, ``demonstration projects,'' there is a demonstration; it is called Texas. The State of Texas was hemorrhaging doctors and physicians and medical care practitioners. They reformed the medical malpractice. There have now been reductions in premiums. There have been reductions in lawsuits. There have been doctors and physicians and medical care providers flowing back into the State of Texas. It is proven. It is not everything we want. But it shows that medical malpractice reform can reduce health care costs.

And what have my friends on the other side and a couple on this side done? They have refused to consider in any significant way what everyone agrees could reduce health care costs in America. Outrageous. So do not be surprised when our approval rating is 18 percent. The approval rating of Congress: 18 percent. And in the townhall meetings I have been having, I have not met anybody in that 18 percent.

We need truth and honesty in our national discussion on health care reform, not spin, not budget gimmicks, not cuts to Medicare, not higher taxes, not government takeover, and not trillions in new health care spending.

We have $12 trillion in debt, 10 percent unemployment--17 percent real unemployment in my State--and an economy that is still struggling. Meanwhile, Wall Street makes obscene profits and bonuses that are unbelievable. We cannot afford another $3 trillion open-ended health entitlement. Americans deserve an honest discussion of ideas without artificial deadlines, and real solutions that will bring our skyrocketing health care costs under control.

Finally, I guess we are told that maybe this evening there may be something that will emerge with white smoke from the majority leader's office and we will be given the manifesto that he will call health care reform, and that will begin a great debate. I believe the question will be: Will the special interests and the big spenders and those who are in favor of government control of health care in America win or will the American people win?

That is why the American people are aroused. If they stay aroused, and if we continue to see the tea parties and the townhall meetings and the expressions of anger and frustration the American people feel, we will beat this back and we will go back to the bargaining table--for the first time we will go to the bargaining table and sit down, Republicans and Democrats, together.

History shows there has been no successful reform in America without bipartisanship, and I do not believe this will be the first one. I hope--I hope and pray--it will not be.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Back to top