[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]


                              {time}  1930
 
 HEALTH CARE REFORM: REMARKABLE EROSION OF SUPPORT AMONG MIDDLE-INCOME 
                               AMERICANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Farr of California). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, there has been a remarkable erosion of support 
among middle Americans, that is to say Americans of middle-income, for 
the Clinton health care bill and for the Clinton health care bill in 
its legislative form in the other body, where it is the Clinton-
Mitchell bill, and in the House, where it is the Clinton-Gephardt bill. 
The same phenomenon occurred last year during consideration of the 
Clinton tax bill. During the 1992 campaign as a candidate he talked 
about middle-class tax cut, but in fact we know how quickly that 
evaporated once we got down to brass tacks. Instead this Congress 
pushed through the biggest tax increase in American history, one that 
directly impacted the middle class, for example, seniors receiving 
Social Security making $14,000 got a 70-percent effective rate increase 
on their Social Security benefits. That is how much their income taxes 
went up on Social Security benefits.
    
    
  That record-breaking tax increase passed by the Congress will pale in 
comparison to the Clinton-Gephardt bill that we are likely to take on 
here in the House, although it is difficult for us to talk about it as 
Members of Congress because while we have looked at the press releases 
and press statements about the bill, we are still waiting, we are still 
waiting for a bill even though we are just days away from adjournment. 
And the Congress hopes to act on health care before we adjourn. But we 
do not have a bill. The Congressional Budget Office has not been able 
to give us an estimate of how much precisely in the way of new taxes 
the bill contains and precisely how much in the way of new spending the 
bill contains. We simply have not read it. This is more than a trivial 
point. Health care comprises one-seventh of our Nation's economy. It is 
also on a more personal level a matter of life and death for every 
American. One would think that a new health care plan prescribed by the 
Federal Government for the whole country would therefore be the most 
carefully studied document since the Constitution. But instead when, 
as, and if this Congress and House get around to seeing and voting on a 
bill, we are going to find that Members have not had a chance to read 
it, that in fact when we vote Members will know more about O.J. 
Simpson's blood type than they will about the content of our own health 
care legislation. But we operate necessarily in an environment of 
uncertainty. We do not have a bill, but we must debate what it is we 
anticipate because after all the vote will be upon us and that will be 
it and we will have an election. We must adjourn at some point, and 
that point is arriving rather quickly.

  Why are people skeptical of what they have been seeing? The Heritage 
Foundation did an analysis of the Clinton-Gephardt bill as it was 
released. What they found is that the new taxes, and there are many of 
them in the Clinton-Gephardt bill, would amount to $42.6 billion in the 
first full effective year of the plan in 1999, on top of the current 
costs on the system. People who are saying these new taxes are only 
going to displace existing health care costs or somehow limit the 
growth of health care costs must face this fact; $42.6 billion in new 
taxes will be imposed by the Clinton-Gephardt health care bill on top 
of our current estimates for how much the existing system is going to 
cost.
  Now, the average additional tax burden per individual as a result of 
the Clinton-Gephardt bill, according to the Heritage Foundation is $430 
per individual on average. The Clinton-Gephardt bill unquestionably is 
going to offer Americans less choice. It does not quite do justice to 
the fact to say less, almost none compared to what presently an insured 
American has available.
  Congress and the Federal Government are going to prescribe a standard 
health care plan. And that is going to be the norm for the country, 
like it or not. If your existing plan is different than the standard 
plan, if you continue to get those benefits, you will pay a tax, not 
only will you pay a tax but your employer will pay a tax. The new taxes 
imposed by the Clinton-Gephardt bill are going to be split 80 percent 
by the employer and 20 percent by the individual. So 20 percent of 
these new taxes will come directly out of the paycheck of the American 
worker. There will be far more bureaucracy in this plan because for a 
substantial part it is going to rely upon something called Medicare 
Part C. Medicare Part C is, in effect, a Government-run insurance plan 
that will extend, together with the existing Medicare program to over 
half the entire population or to about half the entire population, 
according to our best estimates. Half of the American people at that 
point will be getting their health care from a Government plan, as 
compared to the current system.

  The more Americans learn, it seems the more likely they are to 
realize that instead of providing Americans with greater health 
security the Clinton/Gephardt plan, Clinton/Mitchell plan over in the 
other body, and whatever congressional cousins are aboard or are just 
now being written in so many different staff offices, will create 
greater uncertainty, especially for middle-income Americans. Middle-
income Americans will pay more in both taxes and health care premiums 
for less in both taxes and health care premiums for less in both 
quantity, availability of health care and the quality of that care. Why 
will they be paying more in premiums? We discussed why they pay more in 
taxes under the Clinton/Gephardt bill, why pay more in premiums, 
because of the community rating system. That is where factors like age 
cannot be taken into account. Senior citizens incur about 4 times on 
average in the way of health care costs as younger working Americans. 
If you are under 45 years old, you will have a steep increase in your 
health care premiums under a community rating system. So for all 
Americans under 45 years old, the Clinton/Gephardt plan, the Clinton/
Gephardt health care plan, is going to represent a big increase in 
premiums on top of the payroll tax increase. It is not surprising then 
that the strategy of the Democrat leadership is to, in the words of 
Senator Rockfeller, pass health care regardless of the views of the 
American people. I would hope we would not handle it that way. I do 
hope instead of a legislative version of blindman's bluff we will get 
at least 30 days to read any health care bill that will come forth for 
a vote.

                          ____________________