[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 43 (Tuesday, April 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
AT WHAT COST REFORM?
The SPEAKER. Under the Speaker's announced policy of February 11,
1994, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized during
morning business for 4 minutes.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, underlying the entire national health care
reform debate lie two central philosophical questions: How much
Government do we want in the American system? How much Government can
we afford?
Some people believe the Government should take over and manage our
entire national health care delivery system--with centralized control
and decisionmaking. On the other end of the spectrum are those of us
who believe that our health care decisionmaking must remain
predominantly private, personal, and market driven.
Clearly, the current patchwork of Government and market forces that
crisscross our health structure have left an imperfect situation in
which millions of Americans lack access to quality care and the cost of
providing that quality care is skyrocketing. But is more Government
control--some of us might say ``interference''--the answer? Looking at
the history of American health care spending, we see alarming trends
that raise serious red flags about the costs of Government-run health
care.
In 1940, this Nation spent $4 billion on health care. In 1960, total
national health expenditures were $27.1 billion. In 1965, the year
Government became a health service payor for millions of Americans
through Medicare and Medicaid, national health spending had increased
to $41.6 billion. Over the next 15 years, national health spending
quintupled, reaching more than $250 billion in 1980. Over the next
decade, health spending more than doubled again, and by 1991, this
Nation was spending $751.8 billion on health care. Put another way, in
1960 we spent 7.8 percent of our gross domestic product on health care.
By 1991, that number was 14.1 percent. Not only has Government's entry
into a major portion of our health care market not had a positive
effect on the cost of care, but, rather, many of us believe
Government's intrusion into the marketplace has been a major factor in
the enormous increase in health spending.
Simply put, Government control tends to inflate, rather than lower
costs.
The President keeps telling us that his health reform plan will
control health spending, while ensuring that everyone has health care
and bringing down the national debt. If it sounds too good to be true,
that is because it is. Even the Congressional Budget Office, which was
under enormous political pressure to provide a favorable review of the
Clinton plan, has found that under the best of circumstances--that is,
if price controls are 100 percent effective--the Clinton health plan
will generate additional deficits of $130 billion over the next 5
years.
When has anything the Government does been anywhere close to 100
percent effective? A more realistic review, conducted by the well-
respected policy firm of KPMG Peat Marwick, found the Clinton plan will
likely add $579 billion to the national debt in the next 7 years if its
price controls are 50 percent effective--which is also a stretch for
the Federal Government.
As we look at other analyses--like those that predict massive job
loss under the Clinton plan, and those that show the President's
approach has severely underestimated the costs of the new health
entitlement he promises--it's no wonder Americans are increasingly
rejecting the Clinton plan.
The answer to those two central questions is becoming loud and clear:
Americans do not want Government making their health care decisions,
and they cannot afford it either, and they know it, and they are asking
us to look at the other choices.
____________________