A packed room of reporters, policy analysts and commentators joined the Free Market Health Care Reform panel today at noon in Cannon Building to discuss President Obama’s health care initiatives and the GOP’s response.
The event opened with Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, offering a few remarks to those gathered. Norquist explained that the goal of the Free Market Health Care Reform panel was to “improve health care without raising taxes or reducing people’s choices and leaving people to make their own decisions and work directly with their doctors.”
Following Norquist’s remarks, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) offered a physician’s perspective when reviewing the current administration’s health care legislation. Price, who is the Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, asserted that President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress would be “putting in place policies that truly endanger the future of our nation” if they were to succeed.
Price believes that President Obama’s plan, under Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-MA) “American Health Choices Act,” there are three “death nails” that would immediately and severely change Americans’ health care forever. They are:
1. The public option, which would render the private sector incapable of competing to provide health care coverage. The public option, as the Obama Administration calls it, would, according to Price, make the “the referee and the player the same person.” He argues that when the government acts as both a player and a referee, “the team that loses is the patient.” Additionally, Price assesses that 110 to 120 million Americans would be crowded out from their private insurers.
2. Any mandate that the government requires, either inflicted on the individual or the employer, would allow for the federal government to qualify what is adequate or worthy health care. Price asserts that the government will be able to tell patients and physicians what coverage they are required to have or what kind of care they are required to provide.
3. The government would become the gatekeeper, determining what is quality health care. This would empower bureaucrats to set the standards of the medical industry, instead of the patients.
Rep. Price believes that the most fundamental tenants of substantive medical care are, but not limited to, virtues such as quality, responsiveness, accessibility, freedom of choice and of course, affordability. All of these, and then some, would be compromised if a state-run health care system were in place.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) followed Rep. Price, echoing his sentiments regarding the flaws of socializing medicine through a so-called public option plan. He also promoted his own bill, the “Health Care Freedom Act.”
DeMint said that his bill would “encourage the individual market, giving every family a $5,000 certificate to equal the benefit of a work place or an individual $2,000.”
Additionally, his legislation would call for the return of TARP funds that would fund the extension of coverage to the 20 to 25 million Americans who currently are without insurance and would be able to acquire it through the $5,000 per family allotted for saving for purchased care or premiums.
The “Health Care Freedom Act” would also:
· Issue block grants to states to help pay for uninsured citizens with pre-existing conditions.
· Require more transparency on pricing from hospitals.
· Institute tort reform that would cut back on medical malpractice abuse.
· Protect the private insurance of the more than 170 million Americans who already maintain coverage.
“We need to advocate for a plan that helps people get insurance. We don’t need to compromise on the expansion of government for health care,” DeMint explained.
DeMint also claims that the Left is misrepresenting the true costs and true number of uninsured Americans. He believes that they are “creating a crisis” but exaggerating the number of people uninsured.
“They are talking about a government plan that is supposed to do things government has never done before,” DeMint continued. “We know what works in America, and government doesn’t.”
A brief segment of questions from the press contained inquiries as to the issue framing mastered by the Obama Administration to convince Americans that if they like their current plan, they will keep it.
“President Obama declared that the government will not force you into another plan, but the government might institute rules that will force you out of your plan,” Price explained.
After TARP money is returned to the federal government in October 2010, the government, if not reined in through measures such as DeMint’s bill, would continue to spend the money on further program expansion.
This year, the U.S. will pay $150 billion in interest on its debts. This number will skyrocket to a total of $800 billion during the ten years after President Obama’s inauguration.
DeMint argues that his bill will save taxpayers money, especially after costs drop due to strict tort reform. The credits for uninsured families will be paid with returned TARP money, not a tax increase.
DeMint concluded his speech by exposing what he believes are the true thoughts of the Obama Administration regarding the awareness of the American people.
“This administration believes the American people are stupid. They will sit there and report 1.9 million jobs lost and then say, with a straight face, that they have created 150,000 jobs,” he said. “They think you are stupid. They think you aren’t paying attention. They think the media aren’t paying attention.”
Several other keynote speakers continued the press conference, with groups representing varying consumer, physician, patient and taxpayer interests.
According to the Media Research Center, from January 20, 2009 to June 19, 2009, there were 55 spots on ABC from either President Obama or his colleagues to publicly support a universal health care plan. The opposition was only allowed 18 free market alternative experts.
Douglas Holtz Eakin, Ph.D., is the former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Eakin explained that while the CBO does not determine how “good or bad” a policy may be, they are tasked with assessing the costs of particular legislation. He explained that the numbers published by the CBO indicate a “bad policy.”
Merrill Matthews, Ph.D., represents the Council for Affordable Health Care. Matthews said that a public option plan already exists in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, an indication of government’s failures in the health care industry.
“Congressman Rangel suggested he wanted to pay for it, in part, with $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid,” Matthews explained. “Obama has proposed $110 billion in cuts for ‘productivity for doctors and hospitals.’”
Matthews argues that groups such as AARP have not been vocal enough about the detriment these cuts will cause to America’s seniors.
Their reasons? Political, he says.
Matthews notes that Co-Ops, another measure offered to remedy the health care crisis, is simply a “public option lite.”
The panel continued with policy expert Greg Scandlen. Scandlen argued against government mandates on employers or individuals to maintain health insurance coverage.
“Mandates simply don’t work,” Scandlen said. “We mandate auto insurance coverage and still, 15 percent of drivers don’t have coverage!”
Scandlen reminded those present that the state of Massachusetts instituted a universal health care system. Those who used the program were not pleased. 60 percent of those using this system said it was hurting them. And according to Scandlen, universal health care was not of terrible importance to the state, as “less than 10 percent were without coverage to begin with.”
Victor Schwartz then discussed the costs and troubles facing doctors due to medical malpractice lawsuits.
“It is the freedom of the doctors to practice sound medicine that cuts down on malpractice,” Schwartz said.
Schwartz explained his kaleidoscope theory that in a socialized health care system through a public option, the absence of tort reform means not that the liability will be eliminated, but instead shifted to another responsible party.
He also urged elected officials to honor the sanctity of federalism, since some states have acted on medical liability to protect doctors and their patients, driving down costs.
Lawsuit abuse, according to Schwartz, empowers courtrooms instead of doctors “Juries, though well-meaning, redesign heart monitor or catheter when they have no idea what they are doing,” he said.
Katherine Serkes, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, argued that doctors are already straddled with far too much paperwork and are reimbursed inadequately by government programs in place today.
“Thirty-three percent of doctors refuse to accept new Medicare patients,” she said. “On top of that 40 percent refuse to provide some services to Medicare patients they already have.”
According to AAPS, 65 percent of physicians claim they would rather “treat patients for free than treat a Medicare or Medicaid patient” due to regulatory excess imposed by the government.
She believes that the “hassle factor” of dealing with the government, in addition to the “regulatory roulette,” means doctors spend more time fearing mounds of paperwork and moreover, retaliation, for assisting patients on government health care.
Rick Scott, representing Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, offered a personal perspective on the poor quality of care in the U.K., throughout Europe and in Canada in systems that Left models their health care reform plans to become.
He called the care in London “pathetic” and based on “rationing care,” where citizens are prioritized arbitrarily and costs for some care are “too high” for the government to afford.
Scott feels that doctors will simply stop practicing, making health care even more inaccessible and care even more scarce.
Finally, Shona Holmes a patient from Canada, spoke on behalf of Americans for Prosperity. Holmes explained that she, as a Canadian citizen, was forced into a national health care plan. When Holmes realized that she was quickly losing her vision, she sought treatment.
In Canada, doctors told Holmes that she would have to wait six to eight months for care. According to Holmes, that is quite a fortunate estimate, given the one to two year waiting period for an initial diagnosis in Canada.
“I was in a worse position than the person in the U.S. without insurance, and I had insurance in Canada,” she explained.
As her conditioned worsened, Holmes knew her only option was to go to the U.S. to seek treatment. After an immediate screening at the Mayo Clinic, the doctors told her to head back to Canada to seek her treatments.
Meanwhile, her sight deteriorated and she knew that if she did not receive care within four to six weeks, she would be completely blind. She returned to the U.S., sought medical care and her sight was finally renewed.
“I am the face of government-run health care,” she said.
Grover Norquist, the emcee of the event, joked with Holmes, asking if ABC had called her to take part in their “debate” regarding health care reform.
“No,” she laughed. “And I’ve had my phone on all day!”
