Recent Press Releases

‘What Americans want is for health care to be affordable and accessible. What some in Washington are offering instead is a plan to take away the care that people already have, care that the vast majority of them are perfectly satisfied with, and to replace it with a system in which care and treatment will be either delayed or denied’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Monday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“When it comes to health care, Americans are looking to Washington for real reform. Americans are rightly frustrated with the ever-increasing cost of health care and many are concerned about losing the care they have. Americans also believe that in a nation as prosperous as ours, no one should go without the health care they need. All of us agree that reform is necessary, that we must do something to address the concerns Americans have on this issue. The only question is: What kind of reform will we deliver?

“Will we deliver a so-called reform that destroys what people like about the care they have? Or will we deliver a reform that preserves what’s good even as we solve the problems that all of us acknowledge and want to address?

“Unfortunately, some of the proposals that have been coming out of Washington in recent weeks are giving Americans reason to be concerned. Americans have witnessed the government take over banks, insurance companies, and major parts of the auto industry. They’re concerned about the consequences. Now they’re concerned about a government takeover of health care — and for good reason.

“What Americans want is for health care to be affordable and accessible. What some in Washington are offering instead is a plan to take away the care that people already have, care that the vast majority of them are perfectly satisfied with, and to replace it with a system in which care and treatment will be either delayed or denied.

“Last week, I offered some examples of real people in Britain and Canada who were denied urgent medical treatment or necessary drugs under the kind of government-run system that those two countries have and that many in Washington would now like to impose on Americans, whether the American people like it or not. This afternoon, I’d like to describe how government-run health care systems like the one in Canada not only deny, but also delay care for weeks, months and even years.

“By focusing on just one hospital in one city in Canada — Kingston General, in the city of Kingston, Ontario — we can get a glimpse of the effect that government-run health care has on everyday Canadians, and the long waits they routinely endure for necessary care.

“Now, I have no doubt that the politicians in Canada never intended for the people of that country to see their health care denied or delayed. I’m sure the intention was to make health care even more accessible and affordable than it was. But as we’ve seen so many times in our own country, government solutions have a tendency to create barriers instead of bridges. The unintended consequence becomes the norm. That’s what happened in Canada. And Americans are concerned it will happen here too.

“A medium-sized city of about 115,000, Kingston, Ontario, has about the same number of residents as Lansing, Michigan, to its South. But while it’s not uncommon for Americans to receive medical treatment within days of a serious diagnosis, at Kingston General Hospital, wait times can be staggering.

“Take hip replacement surgery, for example. A couple years ago, the wait time for hip replacement surgery at Kingston General was almost two years. Well, a lot of people were understandably unhappy with the fact that they had to wait more than a year and a half between the time a doctor said they needed a new hip and the surgery to get it. So the government worked to shorten the wait. Today, the average wait time for the same surgery at the same hospital is about 196 days. Apparently in Canada, the prospect of waiting six months for hip surgery is considered progress.

“That’s hip replacement surgery. What about knee replacements? Well, at Kingston General, the average wait time is 340 days, or almost a year from the moment that the doctor says you need a new knee. How about brain cancer? In Ontario, the target wait time for brain cancer surgery is nearly three months; same for breast cancer and prostate cancer. And for cardiac bypass surgery, patients in Ontario are told they may have to wait six months for a surgery that Americans can often get right away.

“The patients at Kingston General Hospital in Kingston, Ontario, have been understandably unhappy with all the waiting they have to do. Fran Tooley was one of them.

“Two years ago, Fran herniated three disks in her back, and was told that it would be at least a year before she could consult a neurosurgeon about her injury, which had left her in constant pain and unable to sit or stand for more than a half-hour at a time.

“According to a story in the Kingston Whig-Standard, Fran’s doctor referred her to a neurosurgeon after an MRI scan showed the herniated disks were affecting the nerves in her legs. The story went on to say that patients in Ontario can be forced to wait for up to two years, and sometimes even longer, for tests, appointments with specialists, or even urgent surgery.

“Americans don’t want to end up like Fran Tooley. They like being able to get the care they need, when they need it. They don’t want to be forced to give up their private health plans or be pushed onto a government plan that threatens their choices and the quality of their care. They don’t want to wait years for surgery that their doctors say they need right away. And they don’t want to be told they’re too old for surgery or that a drug they need is too expensive. But all of these things could be headed our way.

“Americans want health care reform. But they don’t want reform that forces them onto a government plan and replaces the freedoms and choices they now enjoy with bureaucratic hassles, hours spent on hold, and surgeries and treatments being denied and delayed. They don’t want a remote bureaucrat in Washington making life and death decisions for them or their loved ones. But if we enact a government-run plan, that’s precisely what Americans can expect.”

###

‘It has been reported that Congressional Democrats are privately considering the entreaties of the White House to repudiate these very clear views and to allow terrorist detainees to come into the United States’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding Guantanamo Bay:

“Mr. President, just a few weeks ago, the Senate answered the question that has concerned Americans: whether or not the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba should be transferred stateside to facilities that could be in or near their communities.

“By an overwhelming vote of 90-6, the Senate said ‘no way; not without a plan.’ It passed the bipartisan Inouye-Inhofe amendment that bars the administration from transferring these terrorist detainees into the United States.

“This is not a change in the Senate’s position. Just a few years ago, the Senate, by a vote of 94-3, said the same thing: we should not move some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists out of Guantanamo’s modern, safe, and secure facility and into our country.

“So the views of the Senate are abundantly clear. Nevertheless, it has been reported that Congressional Democrats are privately considering the entreaties of the White House to repudiate these very clear views and to allow terrorist detainees to come into the United States.

“What has changed?

“The views of the American people have not changed. They firmly oppose it. Nor have the dangers and difficulties of moving the detainees into the U.S.

“The FBI Director has testified about the dangers of holding these terrorists in the United States.

“Most of us are familiar with the problems that Alexandria, Virginia experienced with just the trial of just one terrorist: security problems, transportation problems, logistical problems, commercial problems. Indeed, if you want to try these detainees by military commission, something I support, there is no better place than the $12 million, modern courtroom at Guantanamo Bay.

“The administration’s supporters point to Supermax as a place to house these terrorists. But our colleagues from Colorado don’t support moving them there, nor is there even any place in that facility to put them.

“The Denver Post reports there is just one bed open at Supermax. That means these terrorists would have to come somewhere else, perhaps to a facility in your state.

“So, why in the world would Senate Democrats be entertaining the idea of giving the administration millions of dollars for doing this, especially without having seen a plan?

“According to a Member of the Democratic Leadership, it is because keeping terrorists at Guantanamo is a ‘problem politically’ for the administration.

“That is most curious. Assuming this is a political problem, with whom does the administration have it?

“It’s not with the American people. They don’t want Guantanamo closed, and they certainly don’t want its inmates transferred here.

“It’s not with our colleagues from Colorado. They don’t want these detainees transferred into their state any more than the rest of America does.

“It seems like the administration’s ‘political problem’ is a diplomatic one with Europeans, who want the U.S. to accept some of these dangerous terrorists before they will.

“It’s not in the interest of the U.S. to compromise our security to appease our European critics.

“Like most Americans, I am for keeping Guantanamo open. It is safe and securely away from our civilian population.

“Perhaps I could be persuaded to change my mind if the administration comes up with a plan. They have time to do that and still receive funding to execute a plan through the regular order when we take up the FY 2010 appropriations bills in a few months.

“But we should not rush to give the administration a blank check to do something, sight unseen, that Americans oppose.

“As Senate Democrats have often said, the Senate is not a rubber stamp. And we should not flip-flop on our vote of just a few weeks ago.”

###

‘In America in 2009, doing nothing is simply not an option. We must act and act decisively. The question is not whether to reform health care. The question is how best to reform health care’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“One thing that unites Democrats and Republicans this morning is that all of us want health care reform in this country. Americans want reform that addresses the high cost of care and gives everyone access to quality care. In America in 2009, doing nothing is simply not an option. We must act and act decisively. The question is not whether to reform health care. The question is how best to reform health care.

“Some are proposing as a reform that the government simply take over health care. But Americans have seen the government take over banks, insurance companies, and auto companies in recent months, and they’re concerned about it. So as we discuss health care reform, it’s understandable that many Americans would be equally if not more concerned about a government takeover of health care.

“Some are openly calling for this government takeover of health care. Others disguise their intentions by arguing for a government ‘option’ that we all know will really lead to government-run health care being the one and only option. But it should be perfectly obvious to anyone who’s followed government takeovers in the financial sector and the auto industry that government creates an unfair playing field that puts other companies at a disadvantage and only ends up hurting consumers in the end.

“We’ve seen this with the insurance bailouts. When most companies want to raise money, they have to show that they’re viable and that their products and services are a worthwhile investment. Bailed-out insurers just have to ask for more money and the government hands it over. Apply this model to health care and the government would be able to create the same kind of uneven playing field that would in all likelihood eventually wipe out the competition — thus forcing millions of people off the private health plans they already have and which the vast majority of them like.

“We’re also seeing the ill effects of government control in the auto industry. The government’s already given billions to the financing arms of Chrysler and GM, allowing them to offer interest rates that Ford and other private companies struggle to compete with. This means that the only major U.S. automaker that actually made the tough choices and didn’t take bailout money is at a major disadvantage as it struggles to compete with government-run auto companies like GM. If Ford needs money, it has to raise it at an 8% rate of interest. If GM wants money, all it has to do is call up the Treasury and ask for it. No company can compete with that.

“This is how the government subsidizes failure and undercuts private companies. And this is how a government plan could undercut private health plans — forcing people off the health plans they like and replacing those plans with plans they like less.

“No safeguard could prevent this from happening. Eventually, Americans would be stuck with government-run health care whether they like it or not. That’s when the worst scenario would take shape, with Americans subjected to bureaucratic hassles, hours spent on hold waiting for a government service rep to take a call, restrictions on care, and, yes, lifesaving treatment and lifesaving surgeries denied or delayed.

“Medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients. But once the government is in control, politicians and bureaucrats will be the ones telling people what kind of care they can have. Americans could find themselves being told they’re too old to qualify for a procedure, or that a treatment that could extend or improve their lives is too expensive. And if anyone doubts this could happen, they should consider what happened to Bruce Hardy.

“Bruce was a British citizen suffering from cancer. His doctor wanted to prescribe a drug that was proven to delay the spread of cancer and may have extended his life. But the government bureaucrats who run Britain’s health care system denied the treatment, saying the drug was too expensive. The British government told Bruce his life wasn’t worth prolonging because of what it would cost the government to buy the drugs he needed. The government decided that Bruce Hardy’s life wasn’t worth it.

“Or take the case of Shona Holmes, a Canadian citizen who was told by the bureaucrats running the health care system in that country that she’d have to wait six months … six months to see a specialist to treat her brain tumor. Here’s how Shona described her plight: ‘if I'd relied on my government, I'd be dead.’

“Shona’s life was eventually saved because she came to the United States for the care she needed. With her vision deteriorating, she went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, and the doctors there told her that immediate surgery would be needed to prevent permanent vision loss and maybe even death. Meanwhile, the government-run system in Canada would have required more appointments and more delays. Ms. Holmes got the treatment she needed when she needed it, here, in the U.S.

“The American people want to reform health care. But creating a government bureaucracy that denies, delays, and rations health care is not the reform they want. They don’t want the people who brought us the Department of Motor Vehicles making life and death decisions for them, their children, their spouses, and their parents. They don’t want to end up like Bruce Hardy or Shona Holmes.”

###