[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 131 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E1999]]



                HEALTH RESEARCH AND QUALITY ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 29, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2506) to 
     amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act to revise and 
     extend the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research:

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney, for offering this amendment today to focus 
on the need for universal health care in the United States. Our 
amendment clarifies that the Agency for Health Research and Quality 
should allow for studies that would compare the effect of a single-
payer plan on national health expenditures with the health expenditures 
under the current system.
  Our Nation spends more per capita on health care than any other 
Western nation. And yet, we have 43 million Americans with no health 
coverage. This is absurd.
  We know that a universal, single-payer system will save the United 
States billions of dollars a year. Now let's prove it.
  Earlier this year, a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Medical 
Society reported that in Massachusetts alone, a single-payer system 
could save over a billion dollars and eliminate more than 80 percent of 
patients' out-of-pocket costs. Not to mention covering hundreds of 
thousands of uninsured residents of that state. Imagine what the 
savings could be on a national basis.
  Specifically, cutting the bureaucratic overhead by creating a single-
payer system would have saved about $3.6 billion in Massachusetts. The 
added cost savings under this model would add up to a $5 billion 
reduction in the $36 billion the state spends on health care each year. 
The report further states that it would then only cost $4 billion of 
the $5 billion in savings to cover all of the uninsured in the state 
and expand health benefits to those who have insurance. While this is 
the high-end estimate, the low-end estimate still finds the state 
saving $170 million while increasing coverage for its residents.
  The group that commissioned Massachusetts study, its state Medical 
Society, has traditionally not been a supporter of a single-payer 
system. And yet they had the insight to at least study how much their 
state could save under the program. That is what we are asking under 
the Tierney amendment today.
  Should we live in a society in which all people, because they are 
human beings, have access to the best quality health care that the 
society can offer, or do we live in a society where health care is a 
commodity offered to people on ability to pay--with the wealthy in this 
country getting, probably, the best health care in the world--while 
middle class, working class and poor people receive a lower quality of 
health care or none at all?
  At a time when our health care costs continue to skyrocket while the 
availability of care declines, single-payer is becoming an even more 
attractive option and the best, most cost-effective solution to 
insuring all Americans.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment.

                          ____________________