BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALTMIRE. The gentleman said a couple of things that I wanted to comment on. I will get to the public option momentarily. But I agree with the way the gentleman characterized the discussion about Canada and Great Britain, the two countries that we most often hear the horror stories from.
Look, I don't live in Canada. I don't live in Great Britain. I don't know what it's like to live under those systems. But I do know this. I have a master's degree in health care administration. I've spent a career in health care policy.
I can tell you it is interesting to study what other countries do--not just Canada and Great Britain, but other countries around the world--and everyone has a different system. That's a nice political science or health policy discussion to have. But, as the gentleman talked about, that has nothing to do with what we're doing in this bill.
This bill doesn't in any way bring to America what Canada does, certainly. It's not even close. There's no comparison to be made. It doesn't do anything close to what Great Britain does, which is even more to the left of Canada.
And so we can watch the TV and hear the horror stories. And they're interesting to listen to, but it has no place in this discussion because it has nothing to do with the proposals that we're voting on.
With regard to the public option--and I'm going to use another example from when I was back in the district. I continued to hear people say, You know what? The government is inefficient, it's bloated, it can't do anything right. They would say, You can't name one program that the government has ever run that's worth anything. Everything it touches is bad. And if you have them touch a public option, it's going to cost too much, it's going to be inferior care.
And I would say, Look, the public option is going to be self-sustaining. We do need to work out the details of what exactly it's going to look like, but it's going to be self-sustaining, with no taxpayer subsidies. It's going to compete on a level playing field with the insurance companies. It'll have to meet all the same regulatory requirements that they meet.
And there is some disagreement on this. I would like to see it have negotiated rates like the insurers. There are other opinions on that. But the point is it's going to be a fair fight. And it'll have to meet all the same requirements as the private insurers.
If you believe that the government can't do anything right, that they're going to mess up everything that they touch, and it's going to be inferior quality at a higher cost--and, under the terms of the bill no one is forced into the public option; it's voluntary--then what are you afraid of if you believe the private market can do everything better?
I'm not afraid of that competition. I think the private market can't compete and win. I think there are some families and businesses that would choose the option and feel that's a better deal for them--not because it has an unfair advantage, but if it's a level playing field and you don't think government can do anything right for those that have that belief, then why are you afraid of the competition?
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, we have example after example of where the private sector and the public sector compete pretty well side by side, and most of the examples involve public sector entities that are heavily subsidized, and they still compete side by side with private entities.
Public colleges haven't run private colleges out of business despite the fact that they are heavily subsidized by the government. Public hospitals haven't run private hospitals out of business despite the fact that they are often subsidized. The same thing for even smaller, more mundane examples. Public golf courses and private golf courses, public pools and private pools. There is example after example of where public entities can coexist side by side with private entities, and they actually compete with each other.
I think this is such an important point, and I go back to the CBO estimate here, Mr. Altmire. Assuming that you create that level playing field, which you and I both want, with an insurance exchange that includes a public option, the CBO tells us that not only will you have more people in private insurance when all is said and done but the number of people in the public option will be about 10, 12 million people, 2, 3, maybe 4 percent of the overall health care consumers out there. A significant number but by no means a government takeover, as some people would have us believe. This is an option for people that can compete.
For me, I look at government health care and I think, well, you know, if it's good enough for our soldiers, if it's good enough for our veterans, if it's good enough for our Federal employees, if it's good enough for Members of Congress, if it's good enough for State employees, if it's good enough for every individual in this country over 65, then I think that my constituents should have the choice of whether it's good enough for them. I don't want to make that choice for them. I don't want to be like a European country that says your only choice is public insurance.
But I also don't like the arrangement we've got today where our law as set by the Federal Government tells my constituents that your only choice is private insurance. I give my constituents credit. I mean, I think that they'll be able to make the best choice for them. And I think if we do that, then we will get to where I think a lot of us want to get to, which is to really stimulate and reinvigorate that market, Mr. Altmire.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I agree with the gentleman on those points.
I would say also let's look at the totality of what we're talking about with reform. When we talk about making reforms in the private insurance market that I think everybody agrees with, this is what you're going to get from health care reform: no more preexisting condition exclusions. No more caps for people with chronic diseases, annual caps or lifetime caps, out-of-pocket costs. Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop your coverage because you get sick or injured. These are all practices that we know exist. They won't be available after this bill passes.
The help for small businesses who can't afford health care to be able to help them, hopefully through tax credits or some other way, to afford coverage for their employees; to do the reforms in the system to incentivize quality of care, not quantity of care. We've talked about this many times on the floor where the current system is a fee-for-service system. The number of times you show up in the doctor's office, the number of tests they run and procedures they order, that's the amount of money that they make. So they have a financial incentive for you to be sick. The more often you're there, the more things you have wrong with you, the more money they're going to make. Well, that's a perverse incentive.
We want to change the reimbursement system to incentivize quality to keep you healthy and keep you out of the system before you get sick. And that's why we're going to incentivize prevention and wellness, to make those services that senior citizens especially can access the Medicare system at no cost so that you can have the diabetes screenings and the mammograms and the flu shots and things that are prevention at no cost. They're going to prevent people from getting sick in the first place.
So these are things that I think we all agree on when we talk about reform.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, on this point of reforming the way that Medicare works to start paying for outcomes, start paying for systems and doctors and providers and hospitals that get results rather than just paying for volume, it is incredibly discouraging to me to watch Members of this body that proclaim to be fiscal conservatives come down here and eviscerate the efforts of the President and of the Democratic side of the aisle to try to rein in the cost of Medicare.
I hear sort of arguments out of two different sides. Opponents of reform talk about the fact that the government can't run anything, that they can't run Medicare; but then they also at the same time attack the fact that this bill for the first time in a long time tries to rein in the cost of Medicare, actually tries to fix the abuses out there.
Yes, in this bill there are reductions in the cost of Medicare. Nobody should apologize for the fact that we are going to rein in the abuse and waste and sometimes fraud in the Medicare system. It just doesn't make any sense, Mr. Altmire, that there are health systems with the same medical populations and one is spending $16,000 per year on every Medicare beneficiary and the other community is spending $8,000 per Medicare beneficiary. And when you actually look at it, there's no difference in the outcomes that they get. Why are we rewarding systems of health care that just add volume upon volume of care and get no added benefit out of it?
Now, I'm not saying that the way that you fix that is easy. I'm not saying that there is some silver bullet that comes in here and all of a sudden finds a way to reward value over volume. But I'm saying that for those out there that have come down to this floor and have gone out in public and railed against the cuts in Medicare in this bill, they've got to pay attention to the reality.
The reality is the benefits stay the same for beneficiaries. In fact, they get better. As you said, we're not going to require seniors to pay for the costs of checkups and preventative health care anymore. We're going to eliminate the doughnut hole over time. We're going to start paying their physicians more to take care of Medicare patients rather than what the Republican majority insisted on, which was an annual 4 percent cut.
Are we going to say to health care systems and hospitals and providers who are just ordering tests and procedures for the sake of reimbursement and volume and not for quality that they shouldn't get paid as much as they do now? Absolutely. But that's our obligation as stewards of the taxpayer dollars, as people that care, like our constituents do, about preserving the life of Medicare.
So I hope that we can join together in this conversation. I hope that my friends out there that claim to be fiscal conservatives don't spend the next 2 to 3 months out there railing against every single
10-year reduction in Medicare spending in this bill because, again, if we want to come together, there is nothing more appropriate to come together on than spending our taxpayer dollars wisely on existing government programs like Medicare. I want Medicare to be around when I turn 65, and if we don't tackle the excessive costs in some parts of our Medicare system right now, it's not going to be, Mr. Altmire.
Mr. ALTMIRE. And on that point, Medicare, as we all know, is scheduled to go bankrupt within 7 years. It's already, as a trust fund, paying out more than it's taking in. It has for the last few years. It's going to be completely insolvent in the year 2016. That's because of rising health care costs which are, unlike Social Security, which is going to be solvent through the year 2040, and because of demographics, it takes a downturn thereafter, but health care costs are unpredictable.
Retirement costs are very predictable. You can generally figure out how long a population is going to live in the aggregate, what kind of money they're going to make, what their salary progression is, and what their retirement benefits look like. That's easily predictable.
Health care benefits aren't. You don't know how much technology is going to change, how much prescription drugs are going to cost, how much high-technology treatments are going to cost, and what the future holds with regard to new innovations and technologies down the road. So for that reason, it's impossible to predict Medicare costs in the same way. The first baby boomer becomes eligible for Medicare in the year 2011. That's a big part of it too demographically.
So what we're trying to say is what can we do to preserve and protect Medicare for the long term? That's the whole point of health care reform, to bring down those costs, to make Medicare solvent, to make the reforms necessary so that it can last into the future and be there certainly for all the current beneficiaries, the baby boomers, for the gentleman and myself, and for our grandchildren. That's why we have to reform the Medicare system, the payment system, and that's why we need to reform our health care system.
But we spend as a Nation $2 1/2 trillion a year. This year, 2009, we're going to spend $2 1/2 trillion as a Nation for 1 year on health care. So what are we talking about?
Now, we used to in this House score things over a 3-year period; and then people, I think rightly, said that doesn't give you an estimate of sort of the long-term impact of the legislation; let's do it over 5 years. So for a while, several years, we scored all the bills over a 5-year period. Now in the interest of transparency and to give the public an idea of the full long-term costs, we actually score legislation that comes to this floor over a 10-year period.
And what's the cost of this bill going to be? The President of the United States stood right behind where the gentleman stands about a month ago and told us that it's going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $900 billion over 10 years, which is going to be fully paid for. It's not going to add to the deficit. We'll talk about that. But $900 billion over 10 years. So on average, that's $90 billion per year in a system where we're spending $2 1/2 trillion this year, and it's going to go up exponentially every year for the next 10 years.
Is there anyone out there who doesn't think we can find inefficiencies in the system and waste that we can squeeze out to the tune of $90 billion a year in a $2 1/2 trillion system, that we can't make it more efficient and save enough money to make the reforms that we're talking about?
I just think that the American people, when they think about these numbers, need to remember that we're talking about reforms that are going to increase quality, that are going to increase benefits for people, but that we are talking about in the aggregate a relatively small portion of the health care system as a whole when you talk about this stuff.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Altmire, you've been a great leader on this question, which is to say, listen, to fix the problems with our health care system, we're going to need to spend a little bit of money up front, with tax credits to individuals or to small businesses to help them afford insurance, money to plug the doughnut hole to pay for preventative care for our seniors, expansion of Medicaid programs to cover some more people. We have got to look to savings first. And that is a point you've made to dozens of Members on this floor. To say, listen, exactly as you put it, and you're much more eloquent on this subject than I am, we can squeeze savings out of this system.
And as you enunciate, it's important to remember that that 10-year cost of this bill, whether in the end it's $900 billion or $700 billion or $600 billion, that's the gross cost, not the net cost. That can be paid for in whole or in large part by the savings that we're talking about here to the current government health care expenditures.
Now, listen, for those people that say I don't want the government involved in health care, guess what? It's too late. Fifty-five percent, somewhere in that neighborhood, of health care dollars in this country are spent by the government. Medicare, Medicaid, the veterans system, et cetera. We have not just the obligation but the opportunity to modernize those programs, glean real savings out of them, and turn it back around to people who are left out right now.
And for those opponents of reform who go around demagoging the Medicare reductions in this bill and say we cannot touch Medicare, those Democrats had better not make any changes to Medicare, well, Mr. Altmire, as you pointed out, Medicare's going to go bankrupt. So if you don't control Medicare costs, if you're one of the people on this House floor or out there on the stump saying that Congress, whatever they pass on health care reform, can't touch Medicare, then you have only one other option in order to preserve Medicare for your kids and your grandkids, and that's to increase taxes. That's to increase the amount of money that comes out of everybody's paycheck to pay for Medicare.
So I can certainly understand a disagreement about where we need to rein in costs on Medicare and where we shouldn't, but I hear a lot of commotion out there by people who say we should not touch it. I agree we should keep benefits where they are and improve them, but we do need to find efficiencies in the system.
Turning to another subject, Mr. Altmire, you and I both have young children. I know in the 12 months that I have had the joy of being a parent, there is not a day, not a week that goes by that I don't think about the cost of what we are doing to my son.
As someone who, frankly, voted for the stimulus bill, what I thought was a necessary means to get this economy back up and running and to stabilize what had been up to that point a free fall, I approach this health care bill with the same bottom line that the President does: We need to pass a bill that finds a way to get coverage to more people and reins in the cost of care. And to the extent that requires spending some money at the outset in order to get a better system in the long run, it has to be done in a deficit-neutral way. ``Deficit-neutral'' is kind of an inside Washington term, but the bottom line is this, we can't borrow any money to pass health care reform.
I think that is a growing commitment on behalf of both sides of the aisle here. It is certainly a bottom line for the President. And again, I think a central tenet of health care reform has to be do what you push for, squeeze the savings out of the system as much as we can in order to pay for what we need to do, and then make a rock-solid commitment that we won't borrow a cent in order to pay for it.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I agree with the gentleman. I have said that I will not support a bill that adds one penny to the deficit. Even more important than that, the President of the United States said that from the podium behind you. He will not sign a bill that adds one penny to the deficit.
I heard time and again over the course of being back in the district concerns about the spending that is taking place in Washington and the increase in the debt and the annual deficits over the past 9 years. I have young children, as the gentleman said. I completely agree, we have to do this in a way that is not going to add one penny to the deficit or the national debt.
One of the Senate bills which has been finalized and is being marked up this week, in fact, saves money over 10 years. I don't know if that is going to be the finished product. Certainly it is not word for word, but it is possible to do health care where we might actually bring a bill to the floor that, at minimum, is not going to add to the debt but might even reduce the debt over a 10-year period, or reduce the deficit on an annual basis.
That is something that I think the American people should consider when they talk about the need for health care reform, but also the need to bring down our long-term deficit. We can't ever address our long-term deficit without doing health care reform. It is too big a part of our economy to ignore.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Estimates are, within the next 30 years, health care costs will consume 50 percent of gross domestic product in this country. Think of that. One out of every two dollars spent in this country by the government or private sector will be spent on health care. Today, it is creeping up on 20 percent, but in 30 years things will be out of control.
You are exactly right, there is no way to talk about deficit and debt reduction without talking about health care reform. We have examples of how we have been able to do that just in the last week.
Last week we passed an education reform bill that modernized our student loan program, got $87 billion worth of savings, and applied a significant portion of those savings not to new student loan programs but to deficit reduction. Frankly, that should probably be a model for everything that we do here. If we can glean savings out of government programs, we need to apply all or part of that to paying down the debt.
We are at the close of our hour, so if you have any closing comments, Mr. Altmire. I appreciate you joining us down here for this hour.
I am optimistic by nature. We both focused on the points of agreement we think we can get here. I do make a point to call out my Republican friends when I think they have tried to lead folks out there astray on a particular point on the bill, but it is because I want to have an honest debate in the end. I think if we are all talking about the facts, we can get to a point of agreement, because our constituents out there want us to get there because the problems in our health care system dictate that we create a real solution that isn't incremental and isn't small and around the edges, but attacks the foundation and the gut and the root of our problems.
So I look forward to coming back down to the House floor and continuing to push forward this case for reform.