[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6905-S6907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate is considering many issues now 
of great importance, but none more important to the American people 
than the future of health care in this great Nation.
  This weekend, a new poll was released by the New York Times and CBS. 
Eighty-five percent of the people surveyed said the health care systems 
in America need fundamental change or to be completely rebuilt--85 
percent. So people sense all across this country that though we have 
great hospitals and doctors, there is something fundamentally flawed 
with our system, and we can understand why. We are spending more money 
than any other country on Earth and we are not getting the medical 
results we want; and there is real uncertainty that average people 
won't be able to keep up with the costs of health insurance, the 
battles with health insurance companies over coverage, and whether at 
the end of the day they can have the quality health care every single 
person wants for themselves and their family.
  They asked the American people which party they trusted to deal with 
health care reform, and 18 percent said they trusted the party on the 
other side of the aisle--the Republicans, while 57 percent trusted the 
Democratic majority. Even one out of every four Republicans said that 
the Democrats would do a better job in creating a better health care 
system.
  People on this side of the aisle want a bill that works with the 
current system and fixes what is broken. We not only want to respond to 
the 85 percent of people who want change, we are listening to 77 
percent of the people who say they are satisfied at this moment with 
the quality of their own care. So the starting point is if you have 
health insurance you like and it is good for your family, you can keep 
it. We are not going to change that. It is a tricky balance but one we 
have to address: how to preserve what is good but fix what is broken.
  One of the foundations is the so-called public option. A lot of 
people don't know what that means, but it basically says there should 
be an option to private health insurance companies that is basically 
public in nature. We have a lot of public health now in America. 
Medicare is the obvious example. Forty million people count on Medicare 
to provide affordable, quality care in their elderly years and during 
their disabilities. The Medicaid Program is another one for the poor 
people in our society. We have veterans health care. There are ways 
that we involve the government in health care that have been proven to 
be successful--not just for years but for decades.
  Many folks on the other side of the aisle come to the floor warning 
us about government involvement in health care. I have not heard a 
single one of them call for the end of Medicare or the end of veterans' 
care, not a one of them. We asked the American people: What do you 
think about a government health care plan as an option--a choice--for 
you so that you can choose from the well-known names in health 
insurance, private companies, but then you also have one other choice; 
you can pick the public plan, the public interest plan, the government 
plan. This poll taken by the New York Times and CBS found that there 
was broad bipartisan backing for a public option. Half of those who 
call themselves Republican say they would support a public plan, along 
with nearly three-quarters of Independents. This chart here shows the 
question: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a 
government-administered health insurance plan such as Medicare that 
would compete with private health insurance plans? All respondents--72 
percent--said they favored it. Only 20 percent were opposed.

[[Page S6906]]

So three to one favor the idea of a public health care plan. Fifty 
percent of Republicans do, 87 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of 
Independents.
  Then we asked the harder question: Are you willing to pay more or 
higher taxes so that all Americans can have health insurance that they 
can't lose no matter what happens? Look at this number: Fifty-seven 
percent of all who responded said they are willing to pay higher taxes 
if it means that everybody has peace of mind that health insurance 
would be there. Those making less than $50,000, 64 percent of those 
folks support it, and those with incomes over $50,000, 52 percent 
supported it as well.
  Many of the people coming to the floor on the other side of the aisle 
don't agree with the vast majority of Americans when it comes to this 
issue. I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for at 
least coming to engage us in this debate, but we do see things a lot 
differently. We have heard a lot of Republicans coming to the floor 
discussing health care. Many of them have been critical of change. 
Maybe it has been made clear to a majority of the American people that 
those who are waiting on Congress to act may see some on the other side 
of the aisle reluctant and slow, while those on our side of the aisle 
are trying to follow President Obama to a solution. Regardless of the 
reason, it seems that most of the Republicans' approach to this can be 
summarized in three words: deny, delay, and ration. That is what we 
have heard from the Republicans on health care reform.
  The Republican leader started it 2 weeks ago. We heard it from him 
again last week, and no doubt we will hear it from him again this week, 
as well as from the Republican whip. Perhaps they think if they keep 
drilling home these three words--deny, delay, and ration--that people 
will lose their appetite for change in our health care system.
  When our economy was in a deep freeze earlier this year with the 
recession that President Obama inherited, he called on us to enact 
landmark legislation to try to get this economy moving forward. It was 
an effort that was resisted by the other side of the aisle. We ended up 
with three Republicans at the time who supported us, even though the 
President asked them personally to be engaged, to be involved, and to 
help us solve this problem. But they denied that the problem was as 
great as it was. They wanted to delay consideration of the legislation, 
drag it out as long as possible, and then they wanted to limit, or 
ration, the dollars we put into recovery. They thought the economy 
would get well all by itself. If we had given in to their view, I am 
afraid unemployment figures today would be even higher, economic output 
anemic, and many of our States facing bankruptcy today would be faced 
with even worse circumstances. So we went forward. We would not allow 
the Republican approach when it came to recovery and reinvestment in 
the American economy.
  We see the strategy now repeatedly from the Republican side of the 
aisle. It seems to be their approach to governing or not governing. 
They want to deny requests on the floor to move to legislation. Last 
night was the most recent. Here is a bill which nobody argues against 
to increase tourism in the United States, bring in more foreign 
visitors who will spend more money, who will help hotels and 
restaurants and airlines and businesses, large and small. Eleven 
Republicans cosponsored it. Last night we said, OK, let's pass it. 
Let's get it done. Let's move on. This is the type of thing that is 
good, but it shouldn't take all of this time to do. Only 2 of the 11 
Republicans who cosponsored the tourism bill were willing to vote for 
it last night. They wanted to delay this again. They want us to end up 
this week accomplishing little or nothing. At the end of the week, if 
they get us to do nothing, they consider it a successful week. I don't 
see how it can be. This bill we are talking about on tourism is 
designed to help create jobs in this country--something we desperately 
need.
  Health care is a serious issue which we need to move on and not 
delay. Democrats believe the role of the Federal Government is to keep 
the best interests of the American people in mind. Half of those 
questioned in the New York Times-CBS poll said they thought the 
government would be better at providing medical coverage than private 
insurers. Incidentally, that number is up from 30 percent a couple of 
years ago. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in 
holding down the costs, up from 47 percent.
  The American people know the government doesn't want to deny people 
health care, delay their services, or ration, but it is no surprise the 
Republican leaders still use these words. That is their playbook. It is 
a playbook that was written by a pollster, an adviser and counselor 
whom I know--Frank Luntz. Mr. Luntz has been around a long time. He is 
the guru, the go-to guy, the great thinker on the Republican side of 
the aisle. He calls himself in his own publications Dr. Frank Luntz. 
Well, it looks as though when it comes to strategy on health care 
reform, the Republicans are more focused on Dr. Frank than they are on 
the realities that doctors and patients face in America every single 
day. Dr. Frank give them a 28-page memo on how to stop health care 
reform before we had even put a bill on the table.
  There are those who want to stop health care reform before they know 
what is in it. Do you know who they are? They are the people who are 
today making a fortune on the current health care system. They see 
their profitability at risk if there is health care reform.
  It is no wonder that you hear Dr. Frank come up with proposals for 
the Republican side of the aisle, which are then repeated here on the 
floor of the Senate. On page 15 of his marching orders, Frank Luntz 
wrote:

       It is essential that ``deny'' and ``denial'' enter the 
     conservative lexicon immediately.

  On page 24, he said:

       Of the roughly 30 distinct messages we tested, nothing 
     turns people against what Democrats are trying to do more 
     immediately than the specter of having to wait.

  On page 23 of the memo of Dr. Frank Luntz, he wrote:

       The word ``rationing'' does induce the negative response 
     you want. . . .

  He says that to his Republican followers.

     . . . ``rationing'' tests very well against the other health 
     care buzzwords that frighten Americans.

  That last phrase caught my attention, because more and more of what 
we hear from the other side of the aisle in criticizing President 
Obama's agenda is fear--be afraid, very afraid, be afraid of change.
  The American people weren't afraid of change last November; they 
voted for it. They asked for change in the White House. I think they 
said it overwhelmingly. We have seen change. What we hear from the 
Republican side is to be afraid of change. That is their mantra, 
whether it is a question of changing the economy as it was under the 
Bush administration, changing health care as it has been for years, 
changing education so that we get better results, the Republicans say 
be afraid of this, be frightened.
  I think that is, unfortunately, their motto. They have used it time 
and again. I don't think it is what Americans feel. We are a hopeful 
nation, not a fearful nation. We want to be careful but not afraid. We 
want to make the right decisions and make them on a cooperative basis 
and bring everybody in a room and try to come up with a reasonable 
answer. But we should not be afraid to tackle these things and not 
frightened by the prospect that it might be hard work. As the President 
said about health care reform, if it were easy, it would have been done 
a long time ago. That is something we all need to look at and 
understand.
  I can tell you that Democrats recognize the status quo, the way we 
have been doing things forever, isn't working for millions of Americans 
when it comes to health care. The idea of having the public insurance 
plan option is a course to make sure that we keep the private 
profitable health insurance companies honest, and see that they have 
some competition; otherwise, we are stuck with the current system, 
where they can make a blanket decision that people with preexisting 
conditions have no coverage or they can decide what your doctor thinks 
is the best procedure is something they won't pay for.
  American families deserve health insurance that does not force 
families to face limitless out-of-pocket expenses.

[[Page S6907]]

Americans want real health insurance reform. This public option is 
going to promote that kind of choice.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to assault this 
idea of public insurance, insisting it is too much government. The 
minority leader on the Republican side said Americans don't deserve a 
health care system that forces them into government bureaucracy that 
delays or denies their care and forces them to navigate a web of 
complex rules and regulations. Of course they don't.
  Raising that fear, as suggested by Dr. Frank Luntz, the Republican 
strategist, is what they want to do--plant the seeds in the minds of 
people that any change will be bad. I don't think the American people 
feel that way. If you want to see a bureaucracy, try getting through a 
call to your health insurance company after you get the letter that 
says they won't cover the $1,500 charge for the procedure your doctor 
ordered. Talk to someone who can no longer get health insurance because 
of an illness they had years ago, a preexisting condition, or because 
they are too old in the eyes of health insurance companies. Ask them 
how streamlined or efficient conversations are with insurance companies 
today.
  If you want to see a bureaucracy, talk to a small businessman in 
Springfield, a friend of mine, who had to jump through a series of 
hoops to find a way to continue health care coverage for his employees 
and keep his business going. Plain and simple, health insurance today 
is a bureaucracy. It is one most people know firsthand. Americans and 
small business owners face it every day.
  We need to move to a new idea, an idea not based on the health 
insurance companies' model. Frankly, they are the ones who are 
profiting.
  Last year was a bad year for most American businesses. According to 
CNN and Fortune Magazine, only 24 Fortune 500 companies' stocks 
generated a positive return last year. Among those that didn't have 
that were GM, United Airlines, Time-Warner, Ford, CBS, and Macy's. All 
these companies lost billions in what financial analysts tell us was 
the fortune 500's ``worst year ever.''
  There were two sectors of the economy that did well--the oil industry 
and the health insurance industry. The top four health insurance 
companies in America--UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, and 
Humana--made more than $7.5 billion in combined profit last year, while 
the bottom fell out for virtually every other company, short of the oil 
industry, across the board.
  The goal with the Democratic health reform bill is to create health 
care that values patients over profits and quality more than bottom 
line take-home pay and bonuses.
  Republicans want to preserve a broken system, one with escalating 
costs and no guarantee the policy will be there when you need it. 
Rather than help insurance companies, Democrats want to put American 
families first and help those struggling with high health care costs.
  This is a moment of truth for us in this Congress. This isn't an easy 
issue. Right now, the Finance Committee and HELP Committee are working 
hard to put together health care reform. Without it, things are going 
to get progressively worse. The cost of health care will continue to 
rise to unsupportable levels. Even if individuals have a good health 
insurance plan today, it may cost too much tomorrow. Even if they think 
their health insurance covers them well today, they may be denied 
coverage tomorrow. Businesses that want to keep insuring their 
employees worry over whether they can be competitive and still pay high 
health insurance premiums. Individuals worry about this as well.
  The last point I want to make is that I think the President is right 
to say to us that we have to get this job done. I say to my friends on 
the other side of the aisle: Don't deny the obvious. Don't come to the 
floor and deny the need for health care reform. It is real. We need it 
in this country, and 85 percent of the American people know it. The 
Republican leadership should come to know it in the Senate.
  Second, don't dream up ways to delay this important deliberation. 
That isn't serving our country well. If justice delayed is justice 
denied, the same is true regarding health care reform. Delaying this 
into another Congress and another year doesn't solve the problem. It 
makes it worse. We need to face it today, and we need a handful of 
Republicans who will step away from the Republican leadership and say 
they are willing to talk, that if this is a good-faith negotiation to 
find a reasonable compromise, they are willing to do it. It has 
happened in the past--even a few months ago; it can happen again. It 
will take real leadership on their side.
  The President said his door is open. The same thing is true on the 
Democratic side. The door is open for those who want to, in good faith, 
try to solve the biggest domestic challenge we have ever faced in the 
Senate. We have that chance to do it. We honestly can do it if we work 
in good faith.
  But denying the problem, delaying efforts to get to the problem, and 
deciding we are only going to do a tiny bit of it so we can move on to 
something else is, unfortunately, a recipe for disaster. It is one the 
American people don't deserve and one we should avoid.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Udall of Colorado pertaining to the introduction 
of S. 1321 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Sessions and I be granted 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________