Recent Press Releases

‘There's clearly a double-standard at play here, one that undermines our ability to fulfill one of the Senate's most important and solemn responsibilities’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Monday regarding the need for a thorough review of the Sotomayor nomination:

“It was less than three weeks ago that the President announced his intention to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. In announcing her nomination, the White House made much of the fact that the Judge had the lengthiest judicial record in recent memory. Last week, in a departure from past practice, the Democratic leadership of the Judiciary Committee unilaterally scheduled her hearing without even notifying the Ranking Member. Because of this unwise and unfair approach, Judge Sotomayor’s hearing will begin just three legislative weeks from today.

“As I understand it, her questionnaire is still incomplete. Among other deficiencies, she has not provided materials from seventeen cases she handled as a prosecutor. Nor has she provided materials from any appellate cases she handled. And she has not provided materials from over 100 speeches she has given.

“During the Roberts and Alito hearings, our Democratic friends repeatedly told us it was more important to ‘do it right’ than to ‘do it quick.’ Now that there is a Democratic President, it appears their attitude is to ‘just do it.’ They want the shortest confirmation process in recent memory for a nominee with the longest judicial record in recent memory. There's clearly a double-standard at play here, one that undermines our ability to fulfill one of the Senate's most important and solemn responsibilities.”

###
‘Americans want health care reform. But they don’t want the kind of reform that denies, delays, and rations care’

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:

“As the national discussion over health care intensifies, one thing is already clear: Both Republicans and Democrats agree that health care is in serious need of reform. The only thing that remains to be seen is what kind of reform we’ll deliver. And Americans are increasingly worried about what they’re hearing from Washington.

“Americans want lower costs and they want the freedom to choose their own doctors and their own care. What they don’t want is a Washington takeover of health care along the lines of what we’ve already seen with banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry. Americans don’t want a government-run system that puts bureaucrats between patients and doctors. And they certainly don’t want the kind of government boards that exist in places like New Zealand and Great Britain that deny, delay, and ration treatments that are currently available to Americans.

“Americans want change. But they don’t want changes that will make existing problems worse. And that’s exactly what a government-run system would do.

“Unfortunately, the notion of a government-run plan has been gaining steam. Over the past couple weeks, one Democrat leader after another has insisted that it be included as part of any reform. The reaction to this should tell us something.

“Among those who have begun to mobilize in opposition to a government plan are America’s doctors, who warn that it would limit access to care and could lead to nearly 70 percent of Americans being kicked off the health plans they currently have.

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents about three million businesses in this country, has warned that the creation of a government plan would lead to a government-run health care system. The CEO of the renowned Mayo Clinic warned that some of the best providers could go out of business. And the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the nation’s leading associations of small businesses, has also expressed its concerns about a government-run plan.

“Americans don’t want the kind of government-run system that some in Washington are proposing. They don’t want politicians to use the real problems we have in our health care system as an excuse to tear down the whole thing, take away everything that’s good about it, and replace it with something worse. They want practical solutions to specific problems. And that’s what the rest of us are proposing.

“Here are some common-sense proposals.

“We all agree that health care in this country is too expensive. Americans don’t think basic procedures should break the bank, and American families shouldn’t have to worry about going bankrupt if a family member becomes ill.

“But government-run health care will only make matters worse. If our experience with Medicare shows us anything, it’s that government health plans are not cost-effective.

“Over the weekend, the Administration proposed making cuts to Medicare as a way of defraying the cost of a new government plan. This is exactly the wrong approach.

“America’s seniors expect Congress to stabilize Medicare so that it continues to serve their needs — not drain its resources to pay for another, even bigger government plan. Changes to Medicare should be used to make Medicare solvent for seniors today and for those who are paying into it and who will rely on the system tomorrow, not to build a brand new government plan on top of one that’s already on an unsustainable course. If we want to cut costs and rein in debt, then extending a Medicare-like system to everyone in America is the wrong prescription. We need to make Medicare solvent and find ways to improve the current health care system.

“One way to do that is to implement reforms that we know will save money. We could start with illness prevention programs that encourage people to quit smoking and to control their weight. It’s no mystery that smoking and obesity are leading causes of the kinds of chronic diseases that are driving up health care costs. And finding ways to reduce these illnesses would also reduce costs. We should allow employers to create incentives for workers to adopt healthier lifestyles.

“We should also encourage the same kind of robust competition in the health insurance market that has worked so well in the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.

“We can enact long-overdue reforms to our nation’s medical liability laws. For too long, the threat of frivolous lawsuits has caused insurance premiums for doctors to skyrocket. Doctors then pass these higher costs on to patients, driving up the cost of care. Well, most people think that health care dollars ought to be spent on health care, not insurance premiums. Yet doctors all across America are not only passing along the costs of higher and higher premiums. They’re also ordering expensive and unnecessary tests and procedures just to protect themselves against lawsuits.

“One study suggests that roughly nine out of ten U.S. doctors in high-risk specialties practice some form of defensive medicine like this — and the cost to patients is massive. Some doctors simply shut their practices or discontinue services as a result of all these pressures. And patients like Rashelle Perryman of Crittenden County, Kentucky, are the ones who lose out. Rashelle’s first two babies were born at Crittenden County Hospital, about 10 minutes from her home. But her third child had to be delivered about 40 miles away because rising malpractice rates caused doctors at Crittenden County Hospital to stop delivering babies altogether.

“This isn’t an isolated problem. And it’s not just obstetricians.

“According to a report by the Kentucky Institute of Medicine, Kentucky is nearly 2,300 doctors short of the national average — a shortage that could be reduced, in part, by reforming medical malpractice laws.

“Comprehensive health care reforms are long overdue, reforms that lower costs and increase access to care. But a government-run plan isn’t the way to do it. There are other solutions that address our problems without undermining our strengths.

“Over the past few weeks, I’ve warned about the dangers of government-run health care by pointing to the problems this kind of government-run system has created in places like Britain, Canada, and New Zealand. These countries are living proof that when the government’s in charge, health care is denied, delayed, and rationed. And, as I’ve noted, the main culprits in almost every case are the government boards that decide what procedures and medicines patients can and cannot have.

“I’ve discussed how Britain’s government board has denied care to cancer patients because the treatments were too expensive. In one case, bureaucrats in Britain refused to prescribe cancer drugs that were proven to extend the lives of patients because they cost too much. The government board explained it this way: ‘Although these treatments are clinically effective, regrettably the cost … is such that they are not a cost-effective use of … resources.’

“I’ve also discussed how the government-run health care system in Canada routinely delays care. Today, the average wait for a hip replacement at one hospital in Kingston, Ontario, is about 196 days. Knee replacement surgery at the same hospital takes an average of 340 days. The American people don’t want to be told they have to wait six months for a hip replacement or a year for a knee replacement, but that’s what could very well happen in a government-run health care system.

“Finally, I’ve discussed how New Zealand’s government board has rationed care by deciding which new hospital medicines are cost-effective. In one case, government bureaucrats in that country denied patients access to a drug that was proven to be effective in fighting breast cancer because they thought it was too expensive. As one cancer doctor in that country put it, New Zealand ‘is a good tourist destination, but options for cancer treatment are not so attractive there right now.’

“Americans want health care reform. But they don’t want the kind of reform that denies, delays, and rations care like the government run systems in New Zealand, Britain, and Canada do. They don’t want to be forced onto a government plan that replaces the freedoms and choices they now enjoy with bureaucratic hassles, hours spent on hold, and politicians in Washington telling them how much care and what kind of care they can have. They want health care decisions left to doctors and patients, not remote bureaucrats. But if some in Washington get their way and enact a government takeover of health care, that’s exactly what Americans can expect.”

###
‘All of us want reform. But the government-run plan that some are proposing here in the U.S. isn’t the kind of change Americans are looking for. We should learn a lesson from the problems that we’ve seen in countries like Great Britain and New Zealand’

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:

“The American people are frustrated with the U.S. health care system. But they’re also increasingly concerned about some of the proposals coming from Washington. And now the alarms are beginning to sound. As reported in today’s New York Times, the nation’s doctors are strongly opposed to the so-called government plan that appears to be gaining steam here in Washington. The American Medical Association says a government plan threatens to restrict patient choice by putting out of business existing health plans that cover nearly 70 percent of Americans.

“One estimate suggests that 119 million Americans could lose the private coverage they have as a consequence of the government plan. Moreover, the AMA, in its statement from yesterday, notes that ‘the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.’

“Republicans and Democrats alike agree that health care reform is needed in this country. But a government plan is not the kind of reform the American people want. They want real reform for a system that’s in serious need of it. Unfortunately, what some in Washington are proposing instead is the illusion of a reform that will replace what’s good about health care in America with something that’s far worse.

“Instead of making health care more affordable and accessible, these proposals could make treatments and procedures that everyday Americans currently take for granted less accessible or even impossible to obtain — even as these proposals would add to the colossal and unsustainable debt that already burdens the federal government.

“I have spoken repeatedly here on the Senate floor about the dangers of a government-run health plan. By drawing on the experience of countries that have already adopted these government-run systems, I’ve pointed out the serious problems government-run health care creates for millions around the world. I’ve noted that a common defect of these government-run plans is that they deny, delay, and ration health care. And I’ve noted that the primary culprit in almost every case is the so-called government board that these countries have established to decide which treatments and medicines patients in these countries can and cannot have. This morning I’d like to focus again on these so-called government boards, so people have an idea of what they could expect from a government-run plan here in the U.S.

“Britain’s government board, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE, is responsible for setting guidelines on the use of drugs and treatments for patients in that country. The government bureaucrats at this agency are supposed to weigh the effectiveness of a medicine or a treatment against its cost to the government. If the government thinks that a drug is too expensive, it can refuse to make it available to patients, regardless of any potential benefits.

“Last summer, the board in Great Britain denied patients in that country access to four kidney cancer drugs that have the potential to extend life. Here’s the chilling explanation it gave to justify the move: Quote: ‘Although these treatments are clinically effective, regrettably the cost … is such that they are not a cost-effective use of … resources.’ After a public outcry, NICE reversed its position on one of the drugs, but reaffirmed its ban on the other three.

“In New Zealand, a government board known as Pharmac reviews potential drugs and treatments and decides whether or not they should be prescribed to patients in that country. Pharmac says its goal is to use its, quote, ‘expertise’ to ‘help … decide which new hospital medicines are cost-effective.’ And just like the government board in Great Britain, if Pharmac doesn’t think a drug’s cost justifies its benefits, it can refuse to make it available to patients or doctors who want it.

“One drug that Pharmac didn’t think was worth the cost was Herceptin, which had proven to be effective in fighting breast cancer. Although Pharmac began covering the drug for advanced breast cancer in 2002, it refused to fund the drug for early-stage breast cancer. After a public outcry and a reevaluation of the decision, Pharmac finally relented and decided to allow the drug for early stage breast cancer in 2007 — but only for a limited amount of treatments.

“These kinds of decisions about which drugs should and shouldn’t be covered are based on a method commonly known as Comparative Effectiveness.

“Comparative Effectiveness is not alien to the U.S. health care system. Indeed, the Stimulus Bill Congress passed earlier this year included significant funding to lay the groundwork for just this kind of research here in the U.S. And in my view, the more research we do on the effectiveness of drugs and treatments the better. Doctors should have as much good information as possible in dealing with their patients.

“What Americans strenuously oppose, however, is the government using this information to deny access to treatment or procedures that patients and doctors choose to pursue — just as government agencies like NICE and Pharmac do in Great Britain and New Zealand. Americans oppose this kind of government-mandated limitation on health care. They just won’t allow it.

“And that’s why my friend, Senator Kyl, will propose a bill that would prohibit the government from ever using comparative effectiveness in this way. It’s a wise bill, and it should be included as a part of any health reform we consider. Americans want their doctors to have clinical information on which treatments work best and which ones don’t. But government bureaucrats shouldn’t be able to use that information to determine what treatments Americans can or cannot get. That’s a decision we currently leave between a patient and his or her doctor. And that’s where it should remain.

“Americans want to see changes in the health care system. But they don’t want changes that deny, delay, or ration care. They want reforms that control costs even as they protect patients. They want us to discourage frivolous medical liability lawsuits that limit access to care in places like rural Kentucky; they want prevention and wellness programs that cut costs by helping people quit smoking, overcome obesity, and diagnose illnesses early; and they want us to address the needs of small businesses without imposing new mandates or taxes that kill jobs.

“All of us want reform. But the government-run plan that some are proposing here in the U.S. isn’t the kind of change Americans are looking for. We should learn a lesson from the problems that we’ve seen in countries like Great Britain and New Zealand. We should learn a lesson from the nightmares that so many people in these countries and their families have endured as a result of government-run health care and the bureaucratic government boards that almost always come with it.”

###