This article appeared in The Richmond Times-Dispatch
The American health care model is about choice. At its core, it’s about families having the ability to consult with their doctor and choose for themselves the quality health care that best meets their need. This is what distinguishes us and makes our system — however imperfect — stronger than those of nations such as Canada and Great Britain.
American families do not want their health decisions made by someone in the basement of the Health and Human Services building hundreds of miles away from their family member’s bedside. They don’t want to wait for weeks — or even months — on end to see a doctor of their choosing or to gain access to necessary treatments or cures.
Congress must not forget this as it engages in a spirited debate about the future shape of the American health care system. Only through a thoughtful process that seeks to protect and preserve choice and flexibility while expanding access, improving quality, and focusing on affordability can we hope to achieve a bipartisan solution.
To be very clear, Republicans agree that we need to take action to make health insurance more affordable for all Americans. We do not accept the status quo. But we disagree sharply with the administration and the Democrat majority that the government should be firmly in control of the U.S. health system. Such an abrupt turnabout threatens to unravel the elements of our system that work well for millions of Americans — and the long-term risks and costs for taxpayers are great.
House Republicans have put forward several new ideas to make health care more affordable by sparking competition in the private sector. Unlike the House bill, our plans will not lead to higher taxes and fewer jobs.
Our plans focus on the following core principles:
- A commitment to all Americans who like what they have — timely care, choice of doctor, and access to the treatments and cures prescribed by their physician — that they can keep it.
-
For those without coverage, access to an affordable, basic plan.
- A strengthened safety net for those who need it.
- A reinvigorated commitment to research and innovation that will yield the best treatments and cures.
Sadly, this is not the direction we appear to be headed. According to a recent Washington Post poll, 83 percent of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care. Yet the nonpartisan Lewin Group predicts that two out of three Americans who get their health care through their employer would lose it under the House Democrat plan.
For example, seniors who have signed up for a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan would fall victim to draconian funding cuts proposed by Congress. Millions of Americans who own health savings accounts will be at the mercy of a government bureaucrat given the power to determine whether an HSA qualifies as “acceptable coverage.” And new mandates for employers to provide insurance would unfairly harm small businesses without adequate help to meet the new costs.
The root of the problem is the House bill’s imposition of the so-called “government option.” President Obama argues that offering a government insurance plan would ostensibly spark “competition” with the private sector, bringing down costs for everyone and increasing the quality of care. Nothing could be further from the truth. This move toward making the government the “single payer” is fraught with risk. There has scarcely been a case in recent history where money has been saved and quality improved by handing over the reins of a massive industry to the government. Think Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s domination of the mortgage market, or more recently, the government’s takeover of the U.S. auto industry.
The natural response from providers of health care — who are already underpaid by existing government programs like Medicare — is to decrease the quality of care or to exit the system altogether.
Ultimately, the patient will lose when the government is forced to choose between two painful options: ration the remaining supply of lower-quality care to a growing membership base; or raise taxes so it can afford to pay a higher price to health providers.
Americans may soon find out why more than 725,000 Canadians idle away on months-long waiting lists for surgery and other critical treatments. It’s no coincidence that the survival rates for breast cancer and prostate cancer in Great Britain lag the United States by 14.2 and 40.8 percentage points, respectively.
But we need not go down that route.
Health care reform is too complex and important to the American people to be rushed through Congress. We must be thoughtful, deliberate, and act in a bipartisan fashion so that we get this right once and for all. But turning to government instead of empowering doctors and patients is not the way to accomplish our goals.
