News

Recent Press Releases

Americans Want the Right Health Care Reform

June 23, 2009

‘The American people don’t want us to spend trillions of dollars we don’t have on a health care system they don’t want. And yet that’s exactly what Democrats plan to do, even though they can't explain to anyone how they will pay for it’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform: “The Secretary of Health and Human Services recently said that when it comes to health care, the status quo is unacceptable, and I agree with her. She then went on to say that there are a lot of people on Capitol Hill who are content with doing nothing, though she didn’t name names. On that point, I disagree. Republicans and Democrats all share the belief that health care reform is needed. The question is what kind of reform it should be.

“Some have proposed a government-run health care system that would force millions to give up the private health plans they have and like and replace them with a government plan where care is denied, delayed, and rationed. This so-called ‘reform’ is not the kind of change Americans want. They want health care that’s more affordable and accessible, but that preserves the doctor-patient relationship and the quality of care they now enjoy.

“And that’s why Republicans are proposing reforms to make health care less expensive and easier to obtain without destroying what’s good about our system. Republicans want to reform our medical liability laws to discourage junk lawsuits and bring down the cost of care; we want to encourage wellness and prevention programs that have been successful in cutting costs; we want to encourage competition in the private insurance market to make care more affordable and accessible; and we want to address the needs of small businesses without creating new taxes that kill jobs. But instead of embracing these common-sense ideas that Americans support, Democrats in Congress are trying to rush through a health care bill that will not only lead to a government-run system, but will do so by spending trillions of dollars and plunging our country deeper and deeper into debt.

“Recently, the independent Congressional Budget Office told us that just one – just one – section of the bill being discussed in the HELP Committee would spend 1.3 trillion dollars over a decade. And Senator Gregg, the Ranking Member on the Budget Committee, estimates the HELP bill could end up spending more than two trillion dollars – more than two trillion dollars on a bill that wouldn’t even solve the entire problem.

“The American people don’t want us to spend trillions of dollars we don’t have on a health care system they don’t want. And yet that’s exactly what Democrats plan to do, even though they can't explain to anyone how they will pay for it. Despite the staggering costs of the Democrat health care plan, we’re being told we need to rush it through the Congress for the sake of the economy. When Republicans ask how Democrats are going to pay for it, or what impact it will have on our health care system and the economy, the only words we hear are rush and spend, rush and spend.

“We heard similar warnings earlier this year when Democrats pushed through their stimulus bill, and voted on it less than 24 hours after all of the details were made public. Well, if the American people learned anything from the stimulus, it’s that we should be suspicious when we’re told that we need to spend trillions of dollars without having the proper time to review how the money will be spent or what effect it will or won’t have.

“Democrats also said the stimulus money wouldn’t be wasted and that they would keep track of every penny spent. Yet already we’re learning about outrageous projects like a $3.4 million turtle tunnel that is 13 feet long … or more than $40,000 being spent to pay the salary of someone whose job is to apply for more stimulus money.

“The administration also predicted that if we passed the stimulus, the unemployment rate wouldn’t exceed eight percent. But just last week, the President said that unemployment would likely rise to 10 percent.

“So when Democrats now predict that their health care plan will cut costs, Americans should be skeptical. And they have good reason to be, since independent estimates show that every health care proposal Democrats have offered would only hurt the economy.

“Americans should also be skeptical when it comes to Democrat promises that people will be able to keep their current insurance. Just last week, the independent Congressional Budget Office said that just one section of the HELP Bill will cause 10 million people with employer-based insurance to lose the coverage they have. And that’s even before we’ve seen a finished product. The bill is still missing significant sections, such as a government plan that Democrats want, which could force millions more to lose their current coverage.

“The stimulus showed that when politicians in Washington say the sky’s going to fall unless Congress approves trillions of dollars right away, we should be wary. Yet just a few months later, Americans are hearing the same thing from Democrats in the health care debate: rush and spend, rush and spend. Americans want health care reform, but they want the right health care reform. They want us to take the time and care necessary to get it right. And that’s why the Democrats’ rush and spend strategy is exactly the wrong approach.”

###

McConnell ‘Troubled’ by Use of ‘Empathy Standard’

June 23, 2009

‘Judges are supposed to be passionate advocates for the even-handed reading and fair application of the law, not their own policies and preferences’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: “This morning I’d like to turn my attention to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and, more specifically, to the so-called empathy standard that President Obama employed in selecting her to the highest court in the land.

“The President has said repeatedly that his criterion for federal judges is their ability to empathize with specific groups. He said it as a Senator, as a candidate for president, and now as President. I think we can take the President at his word about wanting a judge who exhibits this trait on the bench. And based on a review of Judge Sotomayor’s record, it’s becoming clear to many that this is a trait that he’s found in this nominee.

“Judge Sotomayor’s writings offer a window into what she believes having empathy for certain groups means when it comes to judging. And I believe that once Americans come to appreciate the real-world consequences of this view, they’ll find the empathy standard extremely troubling as a criterion for selecting men and women for the federal bench.

“A review of Judge Sotomayor’s writings and rulings illustrate the point. Judge Sotomayor’s 2002 article in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal has received a good deal of attention already for her troubling assertion that her gender and ethnicity would enable her to reach a ‘better’ result than a man of a different ethnicity. Her advocates say this assertion was inartful, that it was taken out of context. We’ve since learned, however, that she has repeatedly made this, or a similar, assertions.

“Other comments Judge Sotomayor made in the same law review article underscore, rather than alleviate, concerns with her approach to judging. She questioned the principle that judges should be neutral. And she said that the principle of impartiality is a mere aspiration that she’s skeptical judges can achieve ‘in all or even in most cases.’

“I find it extremely troubling that Judge Sotomayor would question whether judges have the capacity to be neutral in ‘even most cases.’

“There’s more. A few years after the publication of this particular law review article, Judge Sotomayor said the ‘Court of appeals is where policy is made.’ Some might excuse this comment as an off-the-cuff remark. Yet it’s also arguable that it reflects a deeply-held view about the role of a judge — a view that I believe most Americans would find extremely worrisome.

“I would like to talk today about one of Judge Sotomayor’s cases that the Supreme Court is reviewing. In looking at how she handled it, I am concerned that some of her own personal preferences and beliefs about policy may have influenced her decision.

“For more than a decade, Judge Sotomayor was a leader in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. In this capacity, she was an advocate for many causes, such as eliminating the death penalty. She was responsible for monitoring all litigation the group filed, and was described as an ‘ardent supporter’ of its legal efforts. It has been reported that her involvement in these projects ‘stood out,’ and that she ‘frequently’ met with the legal staff to review the status of cases.

“One of the group’s most important projects was filing lawsuits against the City of New York based on its use of civil service exams. Judge Sotomayor, in fact, has been credited with helping develop the group’s policy of challenging these exams.

“In one of these cases, the group sued the New York City Police Department on the grounds that its test for promotion discriminated against certain groups. The suit alleged that too many Caucasian officers were doing well on the exam and not enough Hispanic and African-American officers were performing as well. The city settled the lawsuit by promoting some African-Americans and Hispanics who hadn’t passed the test while passing over some white officers who had.

“Well, some of these white police officers turned around and sued the City. They alleged that even though they performed well on the exam, the City discriminated against them based on race under the settlement agreement and refused to promote them because of quotas. Their case reached the Supreme Court, with the High Court splitting 4-4, which allowed the settlement to stand.

“More recently, another group of public safety officers made a similar claim. A group of mostly white New Haven, Connecticut, firefighters performed well on a standardized test which determined promotions for lieutenant and captain. Other racial and ethnic groups passed the test, too, but their scores were not as high as this group of mostly white firefighters. So under this standardized test, individuals from these other groups would not have been promoted. To avoid this result, the city threw out the test and announced that no one who took it would be eligible for promotion, regardless of how well they performed.

“The firefighters who scored highly sued the City under federal law on grounds of employment discrimination. The trial court ruled against them on summary judgment. When their case reached the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor sat on the panel that decided it.

“It was, and is, a major case. As I mentioned, the Supreme Court has taken the case, and its decision is expected soon. The Second Circuit recognized it was a major case, too. Amicus briefs were submitted. The Circuit allotted extra time for oral argument. But unlike the trial judge who rendered a 48 page opinion, Judge Sotomayor’s panel dismissed the firefighters’ appeal in just a few sentences. So not only did Judge Sotomayor’s panel dismiss the firefighters’ claims, thereby depriving them of a trial on the merits, it did not even explain why they shouldn’t have their day in court on their very significant claims. “Now, I don’t believe a judge should rule based on empathy, personal preferences or political beliefs. But if any case cried out for empathy, it would be this one. The plaintiff in that case, Frank Ricci, has dyslexia. As a result, he had to study extra hard for the test, up to 13 hours each day. To do so, he had to give up a second job, while at the same time spending $1,000 to buy textbooks and to pay someone to record them on tape so he could overcome his disability. His hard work paid off. Of 77 applicants for eight slots, he had the sixth best score. But despite his hard work and high performance, the City deprived him of the promotion he earned.

“Is this what the President means by ‘empathy’— where he says he wants judges to empathize with certain groups, but implicitly, not with others? If so, what if you’re not in one of those groups? What if you’re Frank Ricci?

“This is not a partisan issue. It’s not just conservatives or Republicans who have criticized Judge Sotomayor’s handling of the Ricci case. Self-described Democrats and political independents have done so as well. President Clinton’s appointee to the Second Circuit and Judge Sotomayor’s colleague, Jose Cabranes, has criticized the handling of the case. He wrote a stinging dissent, terming the handling of the case ‘perfunctory’ and saying that the way her panel handled the case did a disservice to the weighty issues involved. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen was similarly offended by the way the matter was handled. Last month, before the President made his nomination, Mr. Cohen concluded his piece on the subject as follows:

‘Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of his race. Obama’s Supreme Court nominee ought to be able to look the New Haven fireman in the eye and tell him whether he has been treated fairly or not. There’s a litmus test for you.’

“Legal journalist Stuart Taylor with the National Journal has been highly critical of how the case was handled, calling it peculiar. Even the Obama Justice Department has weighed-in. It filed a brief in the Supreme Court arguing that Judge Sotomayor’s panel was wrong to simply dismiss the case.

“It is an admirable quality to be a zealous advocate for your clients and the causes in which you believe. But judges are supposed to be passionate advocates for the even-handed reading and fair application of the law, not their own policies and preferences.

“In reviewing the Ricci case, I am concerned that Judge Sotomayor may have lost sight of that. As we consider this nomination, I will continue to examine her record to see if personal or political views have influenced her judgment.”

###

Ideas That Work on Health Care

June 22, 2009

‘Instead of the rush and spend, rush and spend approach that has led to a chaotic process and hugely expensive health care proposals that don’t even address the whole problem, Democrats should slow down and consider ideas that have been shown not only to be effective in delivering care, but also effective in reducing costs’

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 debate over health care reform continues, a number of different approaches have now emerged. But one thing unites us: all of us agree that health care reform is needed. The question is what kind of reform: a reform that cuts costs and expands access, or a so-called reform that leads to a government takeover where premiums are increased but health care is delayed, denied, and rationed.

“The American people want reform. But they want reform that allows them to keep their current insurance while preserving the freedoms, choices, and quality of care they now enjoy. That’s why Republicans have proposed a series of reforms to lower costs and improve access, without destroying what people like about our health care system.

“As it turns out, President Obama has said that he’s open to some of the ideas Republicans have put forward, such as the need to reform our medical liability laws to discourage junk lawsuits, and the need to encourage wellness and prevention programs that have proven to be effective in cutting costs and improving care.

“In fact, during a speech last week to the American Medical Association, the President discussed one particular wellness and prevention program at the Safeway supermarket chain, which has dramatically cut that company’s health care costs and employee premiums. The President even said he’d be open to helping businesses across the nation adopt wellness and prevention programs like the Safeway plan.

“And yet the bill that Democrats are now trying to rush through the Senate would actually ban this program from being copied and implemented by other companies.

“This makes no sense. All last week, we heard eye-popping cost estimates for health care proposals coming out of Capitol Hill — proposals that wouldn’t even solve the entire problem but would bury us deeper and deeper in debt. If the goal is to decrease costs, why wouldn’t Democrats in Congress support a plan that we know has been effective in doing so — especially if the President himself supports it. One would think this would be an easy bipartisan feature of any Democrat plan.

“According to Safeway CEO Steve Burd, Safeway’s per capita health care costs have remained flat even as the per capita health care costs of most American companies have increased by nearly 40 percent since Safeway implemented its wellness and prevention plan in 2005.

“Safeway’s plan has also reduced the health care costs for employees and their families by offering incentives to workers who adopt healthier lifestyles. Those employees who choose to participate in the plan are tested for tobacco usage, for a healthy weight, and for their blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

“Employees who pass these tests are given discounts on their health care premiums. For example, if employees pass all four tests, their annual premiums are reduced by $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. And if employees miss their goals the first time, the company provides support for improvement and financial incentives for those who make progress.

“All of this makes health care more affordable; and it also helps to improve the health and quality of life of Safeway’s workers. The company’s obesity and smoking rates are now about 70 percent of the national average, and employees like the plan so much that 76 percent of them want more incentives that reward healthy behavior.

“Safeway executives estimate that if the United States had adopted its approach in 2005, the country’s direct health-care bill would be $550 billion less than it is now.

“The Safeway program has proven so successful that the company wants to increase its incentives for rewarding health behavior. Unfortunately, current laws restrict it from doing so. But instead of offering legislation that corrects the problem, the so-called reform bill being pushed through the HELP Committee would do the opposite: it would actually prohibit companies from implementing the Safeway program.

“Let me repeat that: The bill that’s currently being pushed through the HELP Committee doesn’t let companies consider an employee’s health status when providing insurance — meaning employers would be banned from rewarding healthy behavior like Safeway does and offering lower premiums to workers who manage their chronic diseases, eliminate high-risk behaviors like smoking, or lose weight. In other words, it would prohibit companies from implementing programs that have been proven to cut health care costs. I thought that was the point of health reform…

“When it comes to making health care more affordable, we should all support ideas that work. Americans want health care ideas that cut costs and improve care. The Safeway model is an excellent place to start. The President supports it. Republicans support it. And Safeway’s experience has shown that it works. If Democrats in Congress are serious about making health care more affordable, they should support it too. Instead of the rush and spend, rush and spend approach that has led to a chaotic process and hugely expensive health care proposals that don’t even address the whole problem, Democrats should slow down and consider ideas that have been shown not only to be effective in delivering care, but also effective in reducing costs.”

###
« First < Prev Next > Last »