[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 116 (Thursday, September 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9544-S9545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I will take also a few minutes, putting on
a little different hat because I had not intended to talk about health
care today, but my friend from Massachusetts spoke with his usual vigor
and eloquence on this subject and I thought perhaps a few words in
response were warranted.
I agree with my friend about one thing--there certainly is a very big
difference between the approach of the President to resolving the
problem of the uninsured and costs in health care and the approach of
my friend and his colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. There is
no question that there is a problem in this country because too many
people do not have health insurance. I have been leading a fight on
this issue for at least 7 or 8 years. There are about 45 million people
who at any given time are uninsured. The interesting thing is that most
of those people are working people, and they are working on farms or
for small businesses.
There is a reason why a disproportionate number of the people who are
uninsured are working for small business. It is because health
insurance costs more to purchase for small groups. The administrative
costs to small businesspeople of buying health insurance for their
employees is about three times the administrative costs of buying it
for national pools, for the employees of big companies.
It is interesting to note that if one looks at the people in the
country who have health insurance, everybody, except the employees of
small business, gets their health insurance through some kind of
national pool, public or private. They are either employees of big
national companies, they have it through a big labor union plan, they
work for the Federal Government, or they are participants in Medicare
or Medicaid. Everybody else is part of a big national pool because of
the efficiencies and the lower costs that are available if one does
that except the employees of small business and farmers who are
relegated to trying to buy health insurance to cover 5-, 6-, 8- or 10-
people units. It costs more. They do not get as much health insurance
for it. In many cases it becomes unaffordable, so the small business
does not provide health insurance at all to their employees.
How many more minutes do I have? I do not want my eloquence to
consume all of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The first half hour of morning
business has expired. We are now into the second half hour, and we are
at the beginning of the majority's 15 minutes.
Mr. TALENT. So approximately 15 minutes remaining. I thank the Chair.
I have talked literally to hundreds of small businesspeople who are
suffering with this problem. They want to provide health insurance to
their employees. They would like to because, of course, in almost all
cases the owner is an employee of the corporation, like my brother is,
for example. He runs a little restaurant in Missouri. He is an employee
of the corporation. He would love to get health insurance for the whole
company. Then he would be able to get it, too, at better rates than
buying it on the individual market. He cannot because it costs too much
for small businesspeople.
What is the President's solution? It happens to be a solution I have
been working for for a number of years, so naturally I think the
President is right. His solution is to allow small businesspeople to
pool through their national trade associations to buy health insurance.
For example, the
[[Page S9545]]
President wants to pass authorizing legislation which would allow the
National Restaurant Association, to take an example, to contract with
insurance companies nationally, and then any restaurant that joined the
National Restaurant Association would become like the little division
of a big company. If we had that in place, my brother could join the
National Restaurant Association and his employees would get health
insurance on the same terms and same conditions as if they were
employees of, let us say, Anheuser-Busch, a fine company headquartered
in St. Louis, or Hallmark, a great company headquartered in Kansas
City.
Why should they not be able to do it? It would reduce the cost of
health insurance to small businesses, conservatively speaking, 10 to 20
percent. It would make it available to millions of small businesspeople
who currently have no insurance at all, and millions of others would
get better health insurance because the costs would go down and the
quality would go up. It would create competition in the small group
market that currently does not exist.
Here is another thing that working people in small businesses or big
businesses will be pleased about, and it does not cost anything because
it is not a Government program. It is empowering small businesspeople
and farmers to do the same as their colleagues who work for big
companies already can do.
The President has strongly supported this measure. It has passed in
the House by a huge bipartisan vote. We pushed it further than ever
before in the Senate. I think next year we are going to get it, and we
will reduce the number of uninsured by getting more people good quality
private health insurance which reflects what they want in health
insurance instead of what the Government condescends to give them. It
is not going to cost the taxpayers anything. Or we could pursue Senator
Kerry's plan, which will cost the taxpayer, by two different estimates,
one $1.5 trillion and the other $1.25 trillion. It will not even insure
everybody who is uninsured. It is basically a vast expansion of
Medicaid.
I have supported expanding Medicaid to cover people who are
unemployed or people who cannot get insurance any other way. I believe
that is our responsibility as a society. But if we can help people get
health insurance on their own, why should we not do it? That is the
President's approach.
Something else the President wants to do is he wants to reduce the
costs that are driving health care by passing reasonable liability
insurance reform to prevent frivolous or abusive lawsuits. I hear about
nothing more often in Missouri than the whole question of liability
reform, reforming our liability system so we can prevent the frivolous
or abusive lawsuits that are driving up costs all over my State and
States across the country.
I was in Chillicothe, MO, a couple of weeks ago. The last OB/GYN shut
down, moved. You can't get a baby delivered anymore in Chillicothe
because of the rising cost of malpractice insurance that we all pay.
I was visited the other day by a group that is involved in providing
services in building facilities for seniors--assisted living and
skilled nursing facilities. They were complaining because the cost--
from the time they decided to build until the time they are building,
the cost of their liability insurance went up, I think it was from
$200,000 to $1.5 million a year.
The people of Missouri know who is paying those costs. It is getting
passed on to them. We see it in the cost of health insurance premiums.
We see it in the pressure on the Medicare and Medicaid budget.
We can have a reasonable reform that prevents that. It doesn't have
to be all or nothing at all. It doesn't have to be a system where
either we allow abusive and frivolous lawsuits that are driving up
costs or we don't allow recovery at all. We can do what we did for
hundreds of years, which is have a system that fully allows recovery
for people who are injured through negligence to the extent of their
injury but doesn't allow actions that drive up costs on behalf of
frivolous lawsuits or huge awards or settlements that are out of
relation to any damage that is actually done.
The President wants reform of that. So do the people of Missouri.
They are aware of this issue. It got filibustered. The President
supports reform and Senator Kerry supported the filibuster.
Let me just say, there are a lot of things we can do on a
commonsense, bipartisan basis to reduce the costs of health care in
this country. The more you reduce the cost of health care without
affecting quality or access, the more people will be able to get health
insurance, the more people will be able to get health care. That is
what we have to do.
It is time to stop treating this as if, depending on which side of
the aisle you are on, you either want or do not want people to have
health care. I have never met a serious political leader in either
party who did not want the people of this country to have health care.
The question is how we are going to go about it.
One of the things I like about the President's proposal is he has
decided to get away from deeply ideological solutions and to do what
makes common sense, to take steps each of which will substantially
improve the situation and put us in a better position and then open up
options for other things we can do. It is what we need to do. I am
convinced if we set politics aside, and we can once we get past this
election and pursue those measures for reform, we will pass them and
not only pass them but pass them with bipartisan majorities.
With regard to the bill for national insurance pools for small
businesses, small business health plans, that bill has repeatedly
passed the House with a bipartisan majority and it can here as well. I
am hopeful that it will, after the elections this fall.
We live in interesting times. There are a lot of key issues we are
confronting. I continue to be optimistic. This war in Iraq is
difficult. Wars are always difficult--the sacrifices, the heroism of
the people of this country and their resolve, and then the men and
women in the America's military who are a model for us all. They are
writing another glorious chapter in the story of freedom that really is
the story of the American fighting man and woman. The spread of freedom
in the 20th century was the story of the American soldier all over the
world making a reality, for other people as well as for this country,
the ideals on which this Nation is based.
We saw another example of the power of those ideals today in the
House of Representatives. It was an honor to be there and a pleasure to
take a few minutes to recall what we all heard.
I thank the Senate for its indulgence, and I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The senior Senator from Nevada has a question.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold just for a brief
unanimous consent request?
Mr. President, morning business expires in how much more time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7\1/2\ minutes.
____________________