[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  MIDDLE-INCOME AMERICA: PAYING MORE FOR LESS UNDER CLINTON-GEPHARDT 
                              HEALTH BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is now trying to dupe the 
American people into believing that the real group to benefit from the 
Clinton-Gephardt health plan are middle-income Americans. Sounds 
familiar--doesn't it--I believe candidate Clinton made a similar pledge 
about taxes.
  In truth, the Clinton-Gephardt bill is a bad deal. Middle-income 
Americans will pay more for less. Let me repeat that; middle-income 
Americans would pay more money for less coverage under Clinton-
Gephardt.
  Mr. Speaker, if a businessowner wants to be successful and make a 
profit, he will offer his customer more goods or services at a lower 
price than his competitors.
  But, unlike the real world, the President thinks he can fool the 
American people into paying more for less care. Apparently, Mr. Clinton 
missed the class on basic economics when he was at Oxford.
  But, isn't this the same President who promised middle-income 
Americans a tax cut and then gave America the greatest tax increase in 
history? That's called a bait and switch. Let's take a closer look.
  Under a Clinton-Gephardt system, middle-income Americans would be 
forced to buy a Government-sanctioned health care plan, regardless of 
whether they like their current policy or not.
  These families would also be required to purchase benefits, many of 
them quite expensive such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation or 
abortion benefits, that they may not need or want.
  Under global budgets and spending caps, there will be a tremendous 
amount of cost-shifting away from Medicare and Medicaid-eligible 
patients to those who have private insurance--hospitals and other 
providers will have little choice. The current Medicare reimbursement 
rate is on the average about 59 percent of what private insurers pay 
for the same procedures or treatment. In view of the funding limits and 
cuts in Medicare spelled out in the bill, the disparity in 
reimbursement rates will only widen. The bottom line is that middle-
income Americans will pay the toll through higher premiums, higher 
taxes, and less care.
  Mr. Speaker, this entire discussion could really be boiled down to 
one simple question, ``Who pays?''
  Who pays for creating Medicare part C which will expand the total 
number of Medicare-eligible individuals to roughly half the entire 
population?
  Who pays for the approximately $170 billion a year in low-income 
subsidies provided for in this bill?
  Who pays the 2 percent on health insurance premiums?
  Who pays for the Clinton-Gephardt bill in lost or depressed wages, or 
with their jobs?
  Who pays? The answer is simple--who pays now for the waste and fraud 
in our welfare system?
  Who always pays? The middle-income American.
  According to a study by the American Legislative Council, the average 
middle-income American worker who earns between $14,000 and $30,000, 
will lose anywhere from $660 to $2,300 per year in lost wages, under a 
Clinton-Gephardt-type employer mandate.
  Why is that? Well, it's something that I don't think many policy 
wonks in the administration have had much experience with--it's called 
meeting a payroll. I have had to meet a payroll for more than 30 years 
now as a small business owner. Should a Clinton-Gephardt mandate be 
enacted, small business owners would be forced to pay 80 percent of the 
cost of a Fortune-500 equivalent benefits package whether they can 
really afford to or not. That leaves the small business owner with very 
few options at the end of the day. Either reduce the hours employees 
work, reduce their wages or eliminate their jobs altogether.
  To highlight this point, an August 8th study by CONSAD Research 
indicates that in my State of Alabama, employer mandates in the 
Clinton-Gephardt plan will result in 18,824 people losing their jobs. 
What about the impact on the local economy? Mr. Speaker, I don't know 
about your State, but Alabama simply cannot absorb job losses of this 
magnitude.
  In closing, let me say to my colleagues and to the American people 
watching tonight, Congress cannot seriously ask middle-income Americans 
to pick up the tab on more time. The alleged advantages of the Clinton-
Gephardt plan for middle-income Americans ring hollow just like the 
ever-elusive middle-income Americans tax cut promised by the Clinton 
administration and the promise to ``end welfare as we know it.'' 
Judging from the calls and letters I have received in my office, 
middle-income Americans are tired of being Washington's ``fall guy.''
  The White House and the Democrat leadership have put on their best 
``trust us'' faces regarding the benefits of the Clinton-Gephardt bill. 
This brings to mind a bit of wisdom from Abraham Lincoln about fooling 
all of the people all the time. But, the American people won't be 
fooled. The Clinton-Gephardt plan is based on paying more for less.

                          ____________________