Dean Heller

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Reno Gazette-Journal. -Staff

Today, health care coverage is unattainable for many American families. About 182 million Americans currently receive some form of employer-sponsored health care. With so many affected, Congress should ensure that any changes protect those already with medical coverage. If you like your coverage, you should be able to keep it -- not be forced into a "one size fits all" government program.

I am concerned that the majority party's "health-care reform" is merely a scheme to place bureaucrats in charge of a government-run health care system. Under their proposal, about 120 million people would lose their current health insurance to a public plan.

Supporters claim this plan will compete on a level playing field with private insurance. This is simply untrue. If the federal government begins providing health insurance, your taxes will support that plan regardless of your participation. Such changes disadvantage existing health plans, resulting in fewer individual choices, rationing of care and higher taxes. We cannot ignore the 47 million Americans without health insurance, but, in providing them coverage, our objective should be quality, affordable health care for all.

The challenges facing current government-run health care programs, like Medicare, should caution lawmakers. Doctors are leaving Medicare because inadequate payment rates fail to cover the costs of the care they provide. Therefore, older Nevadans have difficulty finding a primary care physician. Seniors in rural Nevada face greater challenges. The American College of Physicians estimates that 45,000 fewer doctors will exist than needed by 2025, and fewer remaining doctors will accept new Medicare patients.

Meanwhile, Medicare waste, fraud and abuse rob taxpayers of $10 billion annually. Compounding the problem, the Medicare Trust Fund will go bankrupt in about 10 years. Instead of addressing Medicare solvency, the majority party wants a new, bigger, costlier government system.

I am also concerned about health-care accessibility, likely made worse by the government rationing care. A little-known provision in the stimulus bill provided $1.1 billion for medical research that will consider cost in comparing various treatments. Government-run health-care programs in other countries have used similar studies to determine what treatments and services will and won't be covered.

Instead of this misguided approach, Americans should help improve the system by understanding, choosing and managing their health care needs. We should lower costs by curbing frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury rewards that only benefit trial lawyers. I support giving Americans more choices to pick the coverage that meets their needs. Moreover, we need better prevention tools and incentives to keep people healthy, instead of just treating their illnesses. My goal is to make health care affordable and insure every American.

Government spending does not increase health-care affordability. Moreover, the administration's proposal dramatically increases taxes, stifling our struggling economy. Our citizens need more choices, better access, and higher quality care, not another government-run program.