Radio Address by the President to the Nation, 10-26-02

The White House ^ | 10-26-02 | George W. Bush

[Salvation]

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 26, 2002

Radio Address by the President to the Nation

     Audio

THE PRESIDENT: America's health care system has advantages no other nation can match, but also challenges we cannot ignore. The quality of American medicine is excellent, yet too many Americans live in communities lacking good clinics and basic health care; others are forced to wait for new medical devices that are delayed in an overburdened approval process. And the high cost of prescription drugs is placing a heavy financial burden on many Americans, especially our seniors.

This week, we are taking steps to address all of these problems. Today, I have signed legislation that will expand the number of community health centers across the country. Community health centers are America's health care safety net, providing prenatal care, checkups and preventative treatments to anyone who walks in the door. They serve more than a million people, mainly in remote areas or in inner-city neighborhoods, places where too many people do not have the access to the quality health care they deserve.

I have set a goal of creating 1,200 new and expanded community health centers by the year 2006. The bill I signed today will help my administration achieve this goal. If Congress funds my budget request for these important health centers, we can help an additional 1 million Americans get health care in 2003, and 4 million more by 2006.

Also today, I'm signing legislation that provides faster access to safe and effective medical devices. Each year American companies are creating new technologies to save and improve lives, technologies like coronary stints and increasingly sophisticated pacemakers, which have helped reduce the death rate from heart disease by 35 percent since 1980.

Medical devices are often very complex and require careful testing before they're approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA is overwhelmed by the volume of new technologies, making delays more frequent, and undermining the quality of device reviews.

Under the new law, we're going to speed up and improve the approval process. Companies that manufacture medical devices will be required to pay a reasonable fee to the FDA, so the FDA can afford more expert staff to conduct thorough reviews within reasonable time limits. The entire nation will benefit from a faster approval of lifesaving innovations.

Earlier this week, I also announced action to bring lower cost generic drugs to market more quickly. Right now, some brand name drug companies are using legal maneuvers to delay the approval of generic drugs, sometimes for years. We're setting new limits on those delays. By reducing the public's wait for quality generic drugs, we will reduce the cost of prescriptions in this country by more than $3 billion each year. These savings will help employer health plans, state Medicaid programs, and seniors who buy medicines on their own.

On health care reform, we still have much work ahead of us. I applaud the House of Representatives for passing a prescription drug benefit for seniors, and for its efforts to fix the nation's badly broken medical liability system, which is driving up the cost of medicine and driving good doctors out of the profession. I'm disappointed that the Senate has failed to act on these important reforms.

With these reforms, and the actions we have taken this week, we will bring the benefits of our health care system into the lives of more Americans. Thank you for listening.

END

[Salvation]

FYI and discussion.

[Salvation]

Addressing a key dimocrat issue here. Will he take the wind out of the dims sails?

[Salvation]

I have put together a short Radio Address to the Nation ping list.

Please let me know via FReepmail if you would like to be added or deleted to/from this list.
Salvation

[fooman]

I like everything but the drug benefit. That will rise in cost geometrically and be and abused like every other welfare program since the 60s. The old, non working folks vote and have too much power IMHO.

I know that the last statement will be unpopular, but most older people have plenty of money compared to an 18 old.

Why are we taxing the poor young people to give to relatively older people?

Disclosure: I am 34, but was once 18!

[fooman]

relatively wealthy older people....

[rintense]

I know that the last statement will be unpopular, but most older people have plenty of money compared to an 18 old.

I would respectfully disagree. The average 18 year old has a disposable income much greater than the elderly. They have very little debt. Plus, 18 year olds can usually obtain financial support form their parents, and of course, can go find a job that provides healthcare.

[fooman]

Not all 18 year olds are pampered by thier parents. I was not.

I spent well over 110K to get through grad school and undergrad.

Aslo at 18, what are you going to get, a 25K a year job tops unless you make significant investments in yourself.

No, it the relatively wealthy older people tax the poor young. I did demographics at a financial institution, and we did not even want to talk to you unless you had a six figure income and investable assets of 300K. That demographic starts at 35.

Responsible young people have FAR less disposable income and wealth than older people, althought the young tend to consume less and seem less 'needy'.

Having the elites redistributing wealth dampens productivity and abridges the liberty of the responsible.

[nicmarlo]

I'm disappointed that the Senate has failed to act on these important reforms.

If he even just said, "I'm disappointed with the Senate," that would be an understatement, thanks to Daschole the Obstructionist.

Thanks for the ping, salvation.

[rintense]

No, I understand that not all 18 year olds are pampered. But they have a larger financial support system that most elderly. Secondly, *most* 18 year olds do have a large amount of disposable income. That's why they are a highly sought after democgraphic for advertisers. They have much pocket change and little other financial responsibility.

Kudos to you for being so financially responsible. I'd like to think that you are the rule, but these days, I think you would be the exception.

[fooman]

. But they have a larger financial support system that most elderly. Secondly, *most* 18 year olds do have a large amount of disposable income. That's why they are a highly sought after democgraphic for advertisers.

Thank you for flame free debate. I will try to do the same.

Now I see how people think that the young have the appearence of wealth, but its just an illusion.

A young person has low income and no balance sheet.

One must buy a car (even if used) a house, and support a wife/kids and educate oneself obtain seed capital for a bud or remain poor.

Redistributing income is only more discouraging and equitable.

Your average 65 year in most cases will own their house (no rent) and have a port of 100 - 500K or more, unless of course they have lived a life of consumption and laziness.

So why should we tax the young and deny them a balace sheet, when either the older people already have OR SHOULD have the money in most.

Its just another addition to the social security ponzi scheme.

[fooman]

Correction:


Thank you for flame free debate. I will try to do the same.

Now I see how people think that the young have the appearence of wealth, but its just an illusion.

A young person has low income and no balance sheet.

One must buy a car (even if used) a house, and support a wife/kids and educate oneself obtain seed capital for a business or remain forever poor.

Redistributing income is only more discouraging and INequitable.

Your average 65 year old in most cases will own their house (no rent) and have a port of 100 - 500K or more, unless of course they have lived a life of consumption and laziness.

So why should we tax the young and deny them a balace sheet and future, when either the older people already have OR SHOULD have the money in most cases to pay for drugs.

Its just another addition to the social security ponzi scheme.

[fooman]

Incidentally, another related issue is not being addressed but is another form of evil socialism.

Socialist governments like Canada and Europe DEMAND price discrimination from drug companies.

This means that the average 500MM in development costs for a new drug are disproportionarely paid for by americas.

In other your cost for Zocor or some other new drug MUST be higher, because the lazy socialists in these countries make americans finance their health care!

Let 'em either pay up or use low tech I say.

When I was in France recently, people were very critical of how hard americans work. But they dont seem to mind our hard work financiing their healthcare system! Barf!

[fooman]

ping!

[rintense]

All good points. I think I should explain the disposable income part...

Teens have very little financial responsibility. No credit cards, mortgage, kids, loans, etc. Therefore, any money they do have, is considered disposable. The elderly, on the other hand, have less of a disposable income due to many factors- rent, medical expenses, etc. So, even though the elderly may have more gross income, they have less net than a teen would.

I do think that each generation tends to become more and more dependent on the government to help them. That is one of the problems with this country. Rather than take responsibility for their lives, they would rather the government do it. Sure, there are exceptions. But there are so many other influences that foster a society of dependency. And there are many people to blame for this, but it ultimately belongs to the individual.

Back to the healthcare, just found out that my medical coverage- and all that is offered by my employer- now covers brith control! Amazing. :)

[fooman]

Teens have very little financial responsibility. No credit cards, mortgage, kids, loans, etc. Therefore, any money they do have, is considered disposable. The elderly, on the other hand, have less of a disposable income due to many factors- rent, medical expenses, etc. So, even though the elderly may have more gross income, they have less net than a teen would.

I had a credit card at 18 and financial institutions are on campus blast marketing cards.

This so called disposable income should be saved for college/home and then one would have plenty of assets and no rent by the time they were 65.

My parents MADE us save from our jobs and taught us compound interest. There are calculators on the web that can show the hockey stick, such that a five year old can understand compound interest.

If this so called disposable income ( a misnomer) were saved, people would have plenty of money in perpetuity to buy all of thier healthcare.

Having insurance pay for murder is obviously wrong. 40 million abortions in the us and counting

[Salvation]

Disclosure: I am 34, but was once 18!

LOL! Along that line of reasoning, we were all former fetuses!

[Salvation]

If he even just said, "I'm disappointed with the Senate," that would be an understatement, thanks to Daschole the Obstructionist.

But I would love to hear him say, "I'm disappointed that THE Dysfunctional Daschle Democrat guy had lied to me and obstructed the flow of the Senate.

[fooman]

Too bad the libs dont understand that.

[ladyinred]

Excellent! Now if the word will only get out! Just heard the so called Peaceniks (truly the most vicious people on the planet) screeching that while bombs are dropping in Iraq health care isn't available here! That is a lie, always has been a lie, and this proves it!

Health care has always been provided to those in need, it is the law, nothing new. Some people may not be aware of it, but it is there. The community clinics are being increased, and that should help in the areas where they are needed.

[fooman]

FYI this is what happens once medicine is socialized....



Transforming a war crime into an act of compassion via socialized medicine
The Wall Street Journal ^ | April 28, 2001 | Richard Miniter


Posted on 10/26/2002 2:48 PM PDT by Liz


Dateline Holland: The Dutch Way of Death Socialized Medicine Helped Turn Doctors into Killers.

Amsterdam -- Seven years ago, Dr. Wolss Winkel was asked to kill someone.

On a Monday morning that he will never forget, the Dutch physician's patient, a 77-year old woman dying from cancer, asked him to kill her.

As a purely legal matter, he knew he could do it. While euthanasia had not yet been officially decriminalized in the Netherlands--that happened earlier this month--in practice, it had. A string of high-profile court rulings in the 1980s made it nearly impossible for prosecutors to win euthanasia cases, and in the few instances in which doctors were convicted, their sentences were suspended. The Royal Dutch Medical Association had publicly approved of euthanasia, which was common even then. All that stood between euthanasia and his patient, Dr. Winkel knew, was his own willingness to comply.

On that day, he searched his conscience. "It is very hard to speak of these things," Dr. Winkel said, with a quiet sadness in his voice. "Thirty years ago, this was something that people didn't ask for."

He couldn't bring himself to kill his patient; doctors are supposed to be healers, not killers. And, as a Christian, he believed it was wrong to take into his hands the power of God. A few days later, his patient died naturally.

Most Dutchmen have come to a different conclusion; more than 80% favor "voluntary euthanasia," according to recent polls. The Dutch Parliament recently passed a measure completely decriminalizing euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide. The Netherlands is now the first democratic nation on earth to permit, under law, doctors to kill their patients.

And they may be accustomed to doing so. Of the 130,000 Dutchmen who died in 1990, some 11,800 were killed or helped to die by their doctors, according to a 1991 report by the attorney general of the High Council of the Netherlands. (The 1991 report is the only complete report on euthanasia practices by the Dutch government.)

Some of these deaths are the classic cases cited by right-to-die advocates: A terminally ill patient, in agony, demanding to "die with dignity." But many are not. An estimated 5,981 people--an average of 16 per day--were killed by their doctors without their consent, according to the Dutch government report.

And these numbers do not measure several other groups that are put to death involuntarily: disabled infants, terminally ill children and mental patients. Some 8% of all infants who die in the Netherlands are killed by their doctors, according to a 1997 study published in the Lancet, a British medical journal. Consider the case of Dr. Henk Prins, who killed--with her parents' consent--a three-day old girl with spina bifida and an open wound at the base of her spine. Dr. Prins never made any attempt to treat the wound, according to Wesley J. Smith, author of the book "Culture of Death." The treatment was death. Euthanasia critics have talked about the "slippery slope" as a possibility; in the Netherlands, it is a fact.

Many old people now fear Dutch hospitals. More than 10% of senior citizens who responded to a recent survey, which did not mention euthanasia, volunteered that they feared being killed by their doctors without their consent. One senior-citizen group printed up wallet cards that tell doctors that the cardholder opposes euthanasia.

What makes the Dutch comfortable with euthanasia? One factor is that their doctors became comfortable with it. "The Dutch have got so far so fast because right from the beginning, they have had the medical profession on their side," Derek Humphrey, founder of the Hemlock Society, told the Toronto Globe and Mail last September. "Until we get a significant part of the medical profession on our side, we won't get very far."

Some suggest that Dutch doctors are naturally more inclined toward euthanasia. That seems unlikely. In contrast to the physicians of every other Nazi-occupied country, Dutch doctors never recommended or participated in a single euthanasia during World War II, according to a 1949 New England Journal of Medicine article. Even Nazi orders not to treat the old or those with little chance of recovery were disobeyed. It only took a generation, essayist Malcolm Muggeridge noted, "to transform a war crime into an act of compassion."

How did Dutch doctors change their thinking so dramatically in the space of one lifetime?

The path to the death culture began when doctors learned to think like accountants. As the cost of socialized medicine in the Netherlands grew, doctors were lectured about the importance of keeping expenses down. In many hospitals, signs were posted indicating how much old-age treatments cost taxpayers. The result was a growing "social pressure" from doctors and others, says Arno Heltzel, a spokesman for the Catholic Union of the Elderly, the largest Dutch senior-citizen group, which favors voluntary euthanasia. "Old people have to excuse themselves for living. When they say that all of their friends are dead, people say, 'Maybe it is time for you to go too,' rather than, 'You need to find new friends.' "

With such pressure, even the "voluntary" euthanasia cases may not be truly consensual. Add to that the remarkable 33% drop in elderly suicides with an almost equal rise in euthanasia in the same age group over the past two decades. What Dr. Herbert Hendin, a euthanasia opponent, calls "the Dutch cure for suicide" may simply be evidence of untreated depression. But treatment is costly.

Professional restrictions against euthanasia were cast aside. The Hippocratic Oath, a 2,500-year old credo meant to curb ancient temptations, includes the pledge: "I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if I am asked, nor will I suggest any such thing." Few medical schools in any developed nation require the oath. Other professional codes have been rewritten to be neutral or supportive of euthanasia.

Medical school curricula and professional standards were changed, too. Nearly every major medical school offers a bioethics class in which euthanasia is considered, at least, an open question. Euthanasia is now an option, not a taboo. The Dutch Pediatric Society issued guidelines for killing infants in 1993; the Royal Dutch Society of Pharmacology sends a book to all new doctors that includes formulas for euthanasia-inducing poisons.

Then came the bogus ethicists. Many of these "medical ethics experts" are drawn from or influenced by the global pro-death subculture--the World Federation of Right-to-Die Societies lists 36 groups in 21 countries--that stretches from Australia's Dr. Philip Nitschke ("Dr. Death") to Princeton University's Peter Singer. Many of them are doctors. "They can be very charming," said Rita L. Marker, executive director of the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force. They can also be very influential; they seemed to have shaped the thinking of the Dutch health minister, Els Borst. Ms. Borst, who is 69, recently called for a suicide pill for healthy but "bored" old people.

Over time, euthanasia came to be seen as normal. When I phoned Amsterdam's Academic Medical Center, a spokeswoman told me that she approved of involuntary euthanasia for disabled infants: "It is the same in all the hospitals in the world; we are just more open about it." Most hospitals try heroically to save disabled children, but the contrary view seems to be widely held among the Dutch.

Finally, the feckless politicians enter the frame. There is no major party unequivocally opposed to euthanasia in principle, not even the right-of-center Christian Democrats, who have shared power for most of the postwar period. "There is no broad opposition to euthanasia, even in Christian circles," laments Kars Veling, a member of Parliament who will lead the Christian Union party next year.

After speaking to a packed party meeting in Spakenburg, Mr. Veling soberly talks about watching his father die. The old man was suffering terribly. "We prayed for the Lord to take him," he said. The doctor offered a lethal injection. It was hard to say no, he said, but his father had never asked for death and such an end would have been contrary to the values by which he lived.

Dutch doctors are free to make such fatal offers. Every legal and professional barrier to euthanasia has been demolished, often by doctors themselves. Euthanasia began with doctors, and only an awakening of their conscience can stop it now.