Like many citizens across the country, Iowans flocked to town meetings this summer to express strongly held views about proposals to reform the delivery of health care in America. To a large degree, people seemed to divide along the lines of those for and against a nationalized health care system.
These face-to-face meetings gave a collective voice to a growing concern shared by many Iowans regarding the direction being taken by the federal government. In fact, attendance at the public meetings this summer was the highest I've seen in the 2,871 constituent town meetings I've held during my 29 years of service in the U.S. Senate.
Already the federal government has put taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy and pump up the banking sector and automobile industry. And, already there are numerous documented examples of waste, fraud and abuse in these government programs. It’s understandable why Iowa taxpayers are worried that putting Uncle Sam in charge of medicine is the wrong prescription to improve the delivery of health care services and make health insurance more affordable.
Many Iowans are worried that a government takeover of the health care system would result in bigger tax burdens, less quality, limited access to health care services and more restrictions on patient choice. Recent nonpartisan audits reviewing the proposed health care bills in Congress confirm these concerns. Independent actuaries say the bills being advanced by congressional leaders would result in higher insurance premiums for consumers, estimated to reach three times as high for individuals under nationalized health insurance.
Many Iowans agree the U.S. health care system is far from perfect – medical inflation is unsustainable (currently three times the rate of inflation); health care spending consumes a disproportionate share of the U.S. economy (currently 16 percent and targeted to reach 25 percent by 2025); millions of Americans can’t afford health insurance; and, the sickest patients often face discriminatory coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions.
Changes are needed to fix these problems in our health care system. But partisan solutions that federalize health care are poisoning the well for bipartisan reforms that would build upon America’s track record that puts the patient first; fosters medical miracles; and encourages prosperity and innovation. Hailed as a cure for the public good, pending proposals offer a financing scheme that would redistribute wealth to create a permanent, unsustainable new entitlement.
I don’t think Americans want a health care system that rations care, stunts medical breakthroughs and further burdens taxpayers. Injecting the federal government into the insurance market would put employer-based coverage at risk and drive private insurers out of business.
The federal government already accounts for 46 percent of medical spending in the United States. If Washington prescribes health care as a responsibility of the federal government, taxpayers soon would be footing the bill for 60 cents of every health dollar spent in the United States. What’s more, the federal bureaucracy would become the invisible gatekeeper of health care services and approved medical providers. Medical rationing administered by the federal government would become the new reality. The proposed income surtaxes would hit small business owners, new “insurer fees” would be passed along to consumers and penalties would be imposed on 18 million people who experts predict would not comply with the insurance mandate.
One non-partisan review by the Office of the Actuary at HHS estimates that total national health care spending would jump 2.1 percent and rise $750 billion from 2010-2019, if the House bill becomes law. Health care costs would be increased, rather than decreased.
That gets us back to square one: reining in health care spending and making health insurance more affordable. It’s too bad medical malpractice reform isn’t likely to see the light of day in the 111th Congress. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says comprehensive medical liability reform would reduce federal budget deficits by about $54 billion over 10 years. But Congress won’t commit to reforms that would curb defensive medicine so that doctors can worry less about being sued and more about providing quality, patient care.
Higher taxes, bigger insurance premiums, rationed care and staggering federal deficits sure don't sound like a good bargain for the public good.