[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 111 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        HEALTH CARE ALTERNATIVES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, today several alternatives to the House 
leadership proposal have been introduced. One is called the Republican 
alternative offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel]. There 
is one called the bipartisan compromise by the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Rowland] and a number of Members of the Republican party. Of 
course, the House leadership proposal, and it is my understanding other 
substitutes have been offered.
  I want to commend all those who have introduced legislative language. 
I think in my discussion and analysis of the partisan substitute, I do 
not happen to agree with provisions in there, or actually perhaps 
better said, I do not agree with the fact it does not go far enough.

                              {time}  1830

  But I do think it is worthwhile that those people have come together 
and crafted a proposal. There are some useful parts to it, but I think 
it is important to look at it in its entirety.
  Now, the reality of the situation is that health care requires a 
comprehensive approach. It is not like the crime rule that was just 
defeated in which there are a number of very important proposals in one 
bill but any one of the proposals can stand on its own. Police officers 
on the street can stand on its own. The ban on so-called assault 
weapons can stand on its own. The funding for prisons can be voted on 
separately or together. It does not matter. It can stand on its own.
  Not so in health care. Health care is like a giant sausage balloon 
filled up with water. Do you know what happens if you squeeze down over 
here, if you take some action here, pop something, something pops up 
over here. You have to deal with it comprehensively.
  The problem with these proposals is that while some of them have 
laudable insurance reforms, they would permit you to carry your 
insurance from job to job; they would say that an insurance company 
cannot deny coverage because of a preexisting condition; in some cases 
they would enable small businesses to set up pools that they could all 
be in and thus have greater market advantage, those are all laudable. 
The problem is to do those without having universal coverage, without 
having every person in our society with guaranteed private insurance 
that cannot be taken away and thus to have everybody contributing is to 
create that sausage balloon where you do something over here and make 
it worse over there.

  I would encourage the drafters of the bipartisan substitute, for 
instance, to look at the State of New York. It attempted many of these 
laudable reforms just 2 years ago. Insurance reforms, in which it 
specifically said that a person could not be denied coverage for a 
preexisting illness. The problem was that they did not make it 
universal. So what happened is that those people who had preexisting 
conditions, those who were ill, they rushed, understandably and 
justifiably, to get into the system.
  Then what happened though is the pool of people involved was such 
that the rates went up sharply. Furthermore, young people, the most 
well of our society, they opted out. They said, if I can get in when I 
am sick, who do I want to pay for insurance now when I am well? So they 
chose not to buy.
  The cycle continued in that then many of the younger people who were 
working and often making the lowest wages, who had insurance saw their 
premiums increasing sharply so they out also, further worsening the 
cycle.
  So that is what happens if you attempt band-aid health care reform. 
So that is why I think it is important that in analyzing these reforms, 
these bills, that you have to look at it to see, does it meet the 
benchmark of universal coverage, not just for a moral reason, I happen 
to think it is morally right that every American have health insurance, 
but also for the economic reason, the system does not work unless you 
have it.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, to those who would say, let us delay, and point 
to the fact that these bills were introduced today, these bills were 
not introduced today. These bills and their concepts have been with us 
for years. Indeed, for the last year and a half there has been nothing 
but discussion about these various pieces of legislation. President 
Bush introduced some of these provisions several years ago himself.
  So the concepts have been there. What we are finally getting down to 
in this chamber, and I think the American people should be delighted in 
this, we are finally getting down to real bills and real legislation 
instead of simply rhetoric. The concepts are there. The problems are 
there. The issues are there. Now it is time to resolve them.
  I welcome the introduction of these various pieces of legislation 
because now I think the American people truly can analyze, truly can 
evaluate and truly can choose.

                          ____________________