[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 102 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7932-H7937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2200
                        PATIENTS BEFORE PROFITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I am Keith Ellison and I am a Member of the 
Progressive Caucus. It is late and the hour is moving toward when a lot 
of people are looking to retire for the evening, but we have to talk 
health care. Before I do, let me introduce the Progressive Caucus 
message that we have for people tonight. The Progressive Caucus message 
is we come to this Chamber every week to talk about a progressive 
vision for America.
  What is a progressive vision for America? It is a vision, Mr. 
Speaker, in which people can live free of discrimination; people can 
live in harmony with the Earth; workers can work with dignity. Workers 
can have respect and safety on the job and earn decent pay. Where all 
Americans can have health care and enjoy the benefits and the bounty of 
this great country of ours.
  A progressive vision, a vision similar to the one that Martin Luther 
King had for our country, a vision similar to the one that the great 
Rachel Carson, author of ``Silent Spring,'' had for our country. A 
vision similar to one which Walter Reuther, a great labor leader, had 
for our country, a progressive vision which embraces all, which 
includes all, where human beings live in harmony, free from fear who do 
not disrespect or abuse our environment, believe all people have 
dignity, and we should have health care so people can have a decent 
standard of living.
  This is the progressive vision that we talk about with the 
progressive message and it is what we do when we come to the House 
floor to talk on this House floor about what we believe in.
  The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the group that I speak for 
tonight. This is our Web site, Mr. Speaker, which is cpc/
grijalva.house.gov.

[[Page H7933]]

  What are we talking about tonight? We are talking about health care 
reform, patients before profits.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I think this presentation could not be possibly 
more different, it could not possibly be more different from the hour 
you just heard because the hour you just heard a moment ago talked 
about what we couldn't do, who couldn't get care, why we have to have 
the status quo, why things have to be the way they are and why we 
cannot have reform. That is what you just heard, horror stories and 
fear-mongering like we have been hearing for many decades.
  It was the same thing in 1994. Remember the Harry and Louise ads? Oh, 
the government is going to take your health care away; the government 
is going to make medical decisions for you.
  It is not true. Don't fear. The American people should not fear 
health care reform. The American people, 300 million strong, know that 
50 million, nearly 50 million of our number, are without any health 
care at all. The 250 million who do have health care know that the 
private insurance companies have been reaping enormous profits while 
you've been paying higher deductibles and higher copay, and you have 
been paying higher premiums and you have been being denied coverage for 
preexisting conditions. The time for change is now.
  I think for the first time in a long time, real change is right 
within our hands. Mr. Speaker, if the American people have a will for a 
greater level of health care, for a greater level of quality of life in 
which all Americans don't have to go to bed at night afraid that they 
are going to be without, this is the time for them to raise their 
voices.
  I think a few things are important to know, and that is, just like as 
in 1994, the scare tactics that we just heard and will probably hear 
again tonight are in full force. And if the American people don't step 
forward, you don't know which vision of America will prevail: a 
progressive vision where all Americans have health care and access to 
care that says prevention, that says long-term care, that says we are 
going to have a public option which we desperately need, or this 
situation which leaves 50 million Americans out with escalating costs 
and preexisting costs which doom people to a medical nightmare. We will 
talk more about that in a moment.
  First, I want to say that the fight is on. It is raging. It is 
happening. And if the people want to be heard, Mr. Speaker, they need 
to be heard now.
  Let me say this: in the first 3 months of 2009, in the first 3 months 
of 2009, the Chamber of Commerce and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and 
Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, played lobbyists a combined $22.5 
million to promote their interests. Okay, you didn't hear me: $22.5 
million to lobby people like me, Mr. Speaker, to not give the American 
people health care, to keep the status quo, to let it be how it is, to 
let these preexisting condition exclusions continue on, to leave 50 
million Americans out in the cold, to continue the increasing premiums 
and these ridiculous copays people are having to pay.
  You didn't hear me? The first 3 months of 2009, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of 
America, PhRMA, laid lobbyists a combined $22.5 million to promote 
their interests; $22.5 million in January, February, and March.
  You think that is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker? It's nothing if you 
compare it to the amount of money they made by denying Americans health 
care, by denying enrolled Americans health care, as they have been 
doing and saying we don't cover that. And by reaping all of these 
excessive profits, oh, $22 million is a rounding error for them, but it 
is an enormous amount of money for us.
  Monday, July 6, The Washington Post said: Familiar players in health 
care bill lobbying.
  The largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more 
than 350 former government staff members and retired Members of 
Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues.
  That is not quite one for every Member of Congress, but it is nearly 
one for every Member of Congress, and that is just counting the former 
Members of Congress and former staffers. Just to try to twist an arm to 
say leave the status quo as it is.
  Three out of every four major health care firms have at least one 
former insider on their payrolls, according to Washington Post 
analysis. Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for key 
committees and lawmakers currently debating whether to adopt a public 
insurance option which is opposed by major industry.
  So they are getting people who used to work here to try to stop 
progress and keep us from a progressive vision because they care more 
about profits before patients. We, in the Progressive Caucus, care 
about patients before profits.
  The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the 
health care industry. This is according to The Washington Post, record-
breaking influence peddling campaign by the health care industry. You 
know, Mr. Speaker, you may have been dazzled, shocked, and amazed by 
what you saw in 1994 when they in fact killed health care. Now they are 
pulling out all of the stops, and they are going to make sure that they 
set a record in the amount of influence that they are trying to 
campaign for to defeat health care reform.
  They want the status quo. We want a progressive vision. Mr. Speaker, 
just hold onto something because this number might stagger you: $1.4 
million a day, nearly $1.5 million a day to stop health care reform by 
paying lobbyists, and this is just according to what has been disclosed 
in their records. So $1.4 million a day just to lobby against health 
care reform? Yes.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if the American people want health care reform, they 
better say something because $1.4 million a day can speak pretty loud.
  The Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America doubled 
its spending, nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed 
by Pfizer with more than $6 million. If they are right, if this system 
is good, why have they spent all of this money? Can't they just let the 
facts speak for themselves? No, the facts need to be adjusted for them.
  The Post examined federally required disclosure reports submitted by 
health care firms that spent more than $100,000 lobbying in the first 
quarter of this year, and it used current and past filings to identify 
former lawmakers, congressional staff, and executive branch officials.

                              {time}  2230

  This is a quote: ``The revolving door offers a shortcut to a Member 
of Congress to the highest bidder,'' said Sheila Krumholz, who is the 
executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, which 
compiled some of the data used in the Post analysis. Here's her quote--
and this is really a shocker, Mr. Speaker: ``It's a small cost of doing 
business relative to the profits that they garner.''
  So again, $1.4 million a day seems like a whole lot of money to me, 
but when you think about the money that is reaped from the status quo 
in their denial of claims, in their denial of preexisting conditions, 
and all of this stuff, it's really not a big deal at all.
  Mr. Speaker, let me show folks just what this profit is doing. 
Projected spending on health care as a percentage of gross domestic 
product, Mr. Speaker, has been doing nothing but going up and up and 
up. If you look at just projected costs in 2007, we're talking about an 
enormous upward slide from about 15 percent upward to nearly 50 percent 
if these numbers are projected to 2008. Medicare going up and Medicaid 
going up, but those lines are relatively flat. If you look at all the 
other health care costs, it's just jumping up. This is spending, and 
whatever I spend, somebody else makes. This represents the enormous 
amount of money that will be made under the status quo, and it 
represents why they're willing to drop $1.4 million a day just to 
defeat the real change that we need.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just also point out a few other facts that I 
think are important. We have a growing number of Members of this body, 
the House of Representatives--many of whom are Progressive Caucus 
members--who are saying they won't vote for any plan unless it includes 
a public option. I'm one of those. I know I've been accused of being 
doctrinaire, of drawing a line in the sand and not being flexible. 
Well, they're right; I'm flexible, but not on

[[Page H7934]]

this. No public option means a red vote, which means no for me.
  We've got to have a public option. We have to have it. And I'm proud 
to say that Speaker Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and leaders in this body 
have said that we're going to have our public option. And it's because 
people out there have raised their voices, Mr. Speaker, and the people 
in this body haven't let the people in America down and they've stood 
up for change.
  But it's not just in the House, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to say that 
Members of the other body, Senator Russ Feingold, Senator Bernie 
Sanders, and Senator Chuck Schumer are standing up and speaking out for 
a public option right now. Senator Feingold, Senator Sanders, and 
Senator Schumer haven't been quiet, Mr. Speaker; they're trying to make 
sure that we get this public option through the Senate as we work for 
it in the House.
  What we really need, Mr. Speaker, is for Americans to let their 
voices be heard. Because if they say, Oh, well, the leaders in Congress 
got it all under control, that's exactly when we lose it. The American 
people are like the wind that pushes the boat through the sea. I don't 
care how big your sail is, how pretty it is, or what you put on it, if 
there's no wind, it doesn't move. And that's how this democracy is 
going to work.
  As I praise Senator Russ Feingold, let me tell you what he said on 
June 18 that deserves our respect, Mr. Speaker. Senator Feingold said, 
``A strong public health insurance option is consistent with a healthy 
private market and effective private insurance plans. We have several 
insurers that operate in my home State of Wisconsin that provide great 
health coverage to their beneficiaries. Responsible insurers should 
have no trouble competing with a public insurance option on the merits 
of their plans, but a strong public health insurance option will 
provide a powerful incentive for less responsible insurers to 
reevaluate their own cost-sharing and benefit plans to ensure that they 
are actually an attractive option for consumers.'' That's what Russ 
Feingold said, Mr. Speaker.
  And he went on to add, ``There is another benefit of a public health 
insurance option which hits particularly close to home. My hometown of 
Janesville, Wisconsin''--that's Russ Feingold's hometown--``has one of 
the highest unemployment rates in the State of Wisconsin. Recently, our 
GM assembly plant ceased production, and other related businesses 
throughout the community are struggling to stay afloat during these 
tough economic times.'' Of course these challenges are shared by many 
other communities across the State and, I would add, across the Nation.
  Back to the Feingold quote. ``A public health insurance option would 
be invaluable to families in Janesville and many other cities across 
America who have recently been laid off because it is a guaranteed 
affordable option that can travel with an individual from job to job. A 
public health insurance option would also make a tremendous difference 
for our small business owners who are facing crippling health care 
costs while trying to keep their businesses open.'' That is the great 
Senator Russ Feingold as he spoke passionately and convincingly about a 
public option.

  I just want the American people to know, Mr. Speaker, that in the 
House of Representatives and in the Senate there are leaders who have 
heard the cries of the American people, who have heard the demands for 
change, and who are going to stand up for a public option. And Mr. 
Speaker, I just want to take a second to say thank you to all those 
Members in the House, but also these three Senators--Feingold, Sanders 
and Schumer--and many others who have gone on record for a public 
option.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to share a few other points that I think are 
real important at this time as we've just discussed this critical 
thing. The fact is is that what we need is a real focus on patients, 
not profits. The way the health care proposal is working now in the 
draft is that there are basically three prongs.
  One is, employer-based health care insurance. If you like the 
insurance you have, you can keep it. Don't listen to that stuff you 
heard in the last hour, Mr. Speaker. The truth is, you get to keep your 
health insurance if that's what you want.
  Two, people who are over 65 or who qualify for Medicaid can get 
health insurance. Those folks who are in those government programs 
already can share in that benefit.
  But the third option is this exchange where private insurance plans 
and a public option will be available for people and people can bid on 
these options and purchase their health care. There will be a subsidy 
up to about 400 percent of the poverty guidelines.
  We would ban the exclusion of people with preexisting conditions. And 
there is a proposal that anyone who wants to put their plan in that 
exchange would have to have a medical loss ratio of about 85 percent, 
which would mean that actual health care delivered to people, the money 
would have to be 85 percent of their overall budget, and that 15 
percent would be on administrative costs and other things like that. 
Medicare already does a whole lot better than that, and so does the VA.
  So that's basically an outline, Mr. Speaker. That's basically what it 
is. But I just wanted to make sure that we really hit this idea of this 
public option tonight.
  Our system wastes roughly about $700 billion on treatments and 
procedures that cannot be shown to improve health outcomes right now. A 
public option would make charging these kind of fees to just generate 
money something they really can't afford to do because you've got real 
competition that's not driven by a profit motive but is driven by 
quality health care.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we need ways to drive waste out of the 
system and we need ways to make private insurers really compete with 
this public option, which they do not.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, insurance 
companies are not required to compete with each other. They have an 
exemption from antitrust laws, and therefore can legally collude. And 
so we need this public option so that we can make them actually 
compete.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to get up here and tell you or 
anyone else that health care costs in America are crushing America's 
businesses and families, but I will offer a few examples. Our 
manufacturers spend more per hour on health care than do their 
counterparts in Canada, Japan, and the U.K. combined. What I'm saying 
is that if you have a company that is international in scope and has 
places in Canada and subsidiaries in Japan and the U.K.--that's England 
and the United Kingdom--their American manufacturers spend more per 
hour on health care than all these other subsidiaries combined.

                              {time}  2220

  That's making America noncompetitive and putting us at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  Mr. Speaker, I bet you didn't know, and maybe you did, that health 
care costs for small businesses have grown 30 percent since the year 
2000 alone. We need health care. We need a public option. The average 
family premium costs $1,100 more per year because our health care 
system fails to cover everyone. The average individual premium costs 
$400 or more. Mr. Speaker, we need a public option. We need health care 
reform.
  In 2004, half of all people filing for bankruptcy cited medical 
problems as a cause. That's half. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have got a chart 
right here where this is definitely an out-of-date figure because it's 
much higher than half now. Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. 
bankruptcies, according to a recent study. Washington Reuters, that's 
the news company: Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of 
U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just 6 years, 
U.S. researchers reported on Thursday. More than 75 percent of these 
bankrupt families had health insurance but were still overwhelmed by 
their medical debts, the team at Harvard Medical Law School, Harvard 
Medical School, and the Ohio University reported in the American 
Journal of Medicine.
  ``Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies 
in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical 
debts over $5,000 or 10 percent of pretax family income,'' the 
researchers wrote. ``Most medical debtors were well educated, owned

[[Page H7935]]

homes, and had middle class occupations.''
  Mr. Speaker, this scenario is what the speakers in the previous hour 
were trying to defend. Is that not crazy? That is not what the American 
people want. That is not what the American people deserve. The speakers 
in the previous hour were literally defending this system and standing 
in the way of reform.
  A few more facts, Mr. Speaker. In 2008, just last year, half of all 
people filing home foreclosures cited medical problems as a cause. 
Again, medical problems and our broken health care system deeply 
implicated even in the foreclosure crisis. The fact is high costs lead 
to people losing coverage, and 14,000 Americans are losing coverage 
every day in the midst of this economic crisis. The numbers are 
staggering, and at some point your eyes just gloss over it and you 
can't really hear them. So sometimes numbers don't even bring as much 
light to the subject as one would want. But let me just say 14,000 
Americans are losing coverage every day in the midst of this economic 
crisis. Why? Because as unemployment creeps toward 10 percent, when you 
lose your job, you lose your health care because we have an employer-
based health care system.
  Mr. Speaker, again, a serious problem. Last month 400,000-plus jobs 
lost by Americans. Every one of them is either dealing with no health 
care or has to carry an enormous COBRA payment on their back. Mr. 
Speaker, that's not good. And 60 percent of Americans say that they or 
a member of their household have delayed or skipped health care in the 
last year.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to reform our health care system. I hope that's 
obvious to everybody. Actually, you and I both know it's not obvious to 
everybody though we wish that it was. But let me just talk a little bit 
about it for a moment. I will bring back up this poster, Patients 
Before Profits.
  Mr. Speaker, reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering 
costs. Ensuring timely access to affordable, quality health care, 
making sure everyone has access to preventative care will help keep the 
American people healthy and allowing workers to change jobs without 
worrying about losing health care. Imagine being stuck in the job you 
have, and maybe you don't even want to be there, but you can't leave 
because you've got health care.
  Mr. Speaker, I talked to a dear friend of mine whom I have known for 
many years, many years, Mr. Speaker. And I know you know what I mean 
when you've known someone for years and years and years, but there is 
something I didn't know about this friend of mine when I had a health 
care forum in my district in Minneapolis a few weeks ago. I won't 
mention this friend of mine's name because I'm going to protect her 
privacy, but this friend of mine whom I've know for years, I didn't 
know this fact about her. Let's call her Ann. That's not her name.
  Ann, after a health care forum that I held in my district in 
Minneapolis in which 220 people showed up because they demand health 
care reform, waited around after everybody left after the health care 
forum and said she needed to talk to me. And I said, Ann, sure, I'll 
take a minute and we can talk. And this is a strong woman. She is not 
someone who is easily given over to tears, but she was in tears. She's 
only about 37, 36 years old, and she has a beautiful family, and she's 
just a great person all around. Anyway, Ann sat me down and she looked 
me straight in the eye. And when she looked me in the eye, Mr. Speaker, 
I knew she was serious, serious, serious. And what she said to me, Mr. 
Speaker, was this: I'm on my job and I have health care insurance at my 
job, but members of my family, including my sisters and my mom, have 
had breast cancer. And, Mr. Speaker, she told me that she is afraid to 
go get a test to determine whether she may develop breast cancer 
because if she gets this test, Mr. Speaker, then a health care company 
might decide she has a preexisting condition and then drop her from the 
policy. But if she doesn't go find out, Mr. Speaker, if she might 
develop breast cancer, she can't get treatment that she needs that may 
save her life one day. And she's a young mom. She's only about 37, 36 
years old, and she has kids whom she's trying to rear. So, Mr. Speaker, 
imagine being in the case where you can't go get the test to find out 
whether you have breast cancer because if you do, that's going to be a 
preexisting condition, and yet you can't afford not to do it because if 
you don't do it, like your mother and your sister, you may develop 
breast cancer.
  This is the system that these folks who are standing in the way of 
reform are trying to preserve. And, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong. It's time 
for reform to take place, and the time for reform is now.
  Reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering costs. 
Reform will alleviate the burden on our economy by creating more 
efficient insurance and a delivery system which will reduce waste and 
allow a more rational financing system where everyone contributes 
instead of shifting costs from some people onto others. Reform will 
alleviate the burden on business that has been hindered in their 
ability to compete because of these enormous health care costs.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got to have a public option. I explained the 
public option a moment ago. A public option is just one of other health 
insurance coverage programs that will be offered on the exchange. But, 
Mr. Speaker, the public option needs to be understood. What the public 
option is is giving the uninsured an option to enroll in a public 
health care plan that's like Medicare. The public insurance option 
would compete directly with health care insurers. Why are they afraid 
to compete? What are they scared of? The uninsured individuals would 
get to choose which plan is best for them, which could be a private one 
or the public option.
  Why is having a public option so important? A broad array of research 
has confirmed that a public health insurance option is a key component 
of cost containment because it will introduce more competition, 
something conservatives say they like whenever it makes them exorbitant 
money. It will lower administrative expenses. I talked about the 
medical loss ratio a moment ago of 85 percent. I have a bill personally 
that will raise it to 90, which I think would be better.

                              {time}  2230

  Medicare would still outcompete them because they can do better than 
that and drive cost-saving innovation. According to research from the 
Commonwealth Fund, the net administrative costs for Medicare and 
Medicaid were 5 percent and 8 percent respectively. That's why I think 
a medical loss ratio of 90 percent would be good. They should be able 
to do it. Mr. Speaker, if you look up the top five health insurance 
companies, their administrative costs were 17 percent, and the average 
administrative cost for private insurance is 14 percent. The fact is, 
they're inefficient, they like it that way, and they don't want to 
change. But a public option would make them change.
  Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus signed a letter to 
Speaker Pelosi and to the Democratic leadership, clearly stating that a 
robust public option must be in the mix. This year in the Congress we 
must act on health care reform, and that health care reform must 
include a public option. We believe that only a health care plan with a 
robust public option will provide more Americans with greater access to 
treatment and doctors with less interference and obstruction from big 
insurance companies and other profit-driven special interests.
  Mr. Speaker, if you listened to the hour just before I came on, you 
heard people spinning scenarios and imaginary ghosts and demons and 
goblins in the air in which a patient would have a government 
bureaucrat--their words--in between the doctor. Well, that hasn't 
happened. That's imaginary. It's not going to happen. But now today a 
patient has to deal with a bureaucrat in an insurance company before 
they can get the medical treatment that they need. Their claims have 
been excluded. Some bureaucrat has said, ``Oh, we're not going to 
approve that.'' ``Oh, we're going to deny that.'' ``Oh, we're not going 
to allow that procedure to happen,'' even though a doctor has 
recommended it. That's reality. What they were talking about an hour 
ago was fantasy, and it's kind of like on the Freddy Krueger order, 
nothing but a nightmare and a horror film.

[[Page H7936]]

  We urgently need to fix health care for American families. Every day 
Americans worry not simply about getting well but whether they can 
afford to get well. Millions of Americans wonder if they can afford the 
routine care to stay well. Premiums have doubled over the last 9 years, 
three times faster than wages. The average American family already pays 
an extra $1,100 in premiums every year for a broken system that 
supports 46.5 million uninsured Americans. We need the change for 
American business. Soaring health care costs put American companies at 
a competitive disadvantage in a global economy. Small businesses are 
forced to choose between coverage and layoffs. That's a choice they 
should never have to make. But what about the fiscal future of America? 
We have the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend 
almost 50 percent more per person on health care than the next most 
costly nation, and we're no healthier for it. We're spending all this 
money, but we're not healthier for it. If you look at national rankings 
of Americans' health and wellness, we're not at the top, although 
spending is at the top. We're at the bottom when it comes to diabetes, 
when it comes to heart disease, when it comes to cancer, when it comes 
to all these critical things. What are we going to do about it? We'd 
better step up and do something, and that something cannot wait. If we 
do nothing, in a decade we'll be spending $1 out of every $5 on health 
care. In 30 years it will be $1 out of every $3. Health care reform is 
necessary, and it's deficit reduction because reform will drive down 
costs.
  What we want to offer is cost reduction, choice, security and 
quality. President Obama and this Congress want to reduce health care 
costs and offer people a choice of doctors and plans and guarantee 
affordable quality health care for all. That's what we're trying to do. 
This is an American solution. You always hear people talking about what 
they do in Canada, what they do in the U.K., what they do in France. 
We're not talking about any of those countries. We're talking about a 
uniquely American solution. We are not trying to be like anybody else, 
Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, 36 other countries in the world 
and every industrialized country has national health insurance. We 
don't. That's why their outcomes are better and their costs are lower. 
But we're not comparing ourselves to some other country. We're not 
talking about what other countries do. We're talking about an American 
solution that will ensure every child in America is covered, that will 
invest in prevention and wellness, where we'll ensure that doctors and 
nurses get the information they need to provide individuals with the 
best care available and never again will your coverage be denied 
because of a pre-existing condition or your age or your gender or 
ending a system where profits come before people and millions go 
without vital health care. Never again. Never again should we make life 
or a job decision based on coverage, and never again should we let our 
families suffer financial catastrophe or bankruptcy because of these 
high costs.

  Mr. Speaker, I'm coming to the point where we're probably going to 
wind up in not too long; but I do want to just make a few more points 
before I take my seat. One of the things I want to do before we take 
our seats is just to point out the fact that scare tactics and fear 
tactics have not served the American people well, not back in 1994 when 
health care was defeated then, and they won't work now. We've learned a 
lot since 1994, and we're not going for it. The fact is, health care is 
a social imperative. It's an economic necessity. And the new study by 
the President's Council of Economic Advisers demonstrates that the 
current health care system is on an unsustainable path. Without reform, 
escalating health care insurance premiums will continue to cause 
American workers and families to experience eroding health care 
benefits and stagnating wages while rising spending on health care and 
Medicaid will lead to massive unsustainable Federal budget deficits. 
The fact is, we need change.
  I just have a few more points to make, and then I will hand it over 
to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I don't know what 
they're talking about; but if they talk about health care, I want you 
to remember what I said, Mr. Speaker, because these facts are critical, 
and we cannot allow anyone to scare us away from the reform that is 
necessary today. The fact is, the American people want change, and 
they're going to get change, and they're going to be much, much better 
for it. The fact is that we do need this public option. We do need 
health care reform. The fact is that we do need the change, and we 
can't allow it to be denied. It's time for the American people to raise 
their voices, Mr. Speaker, if they want to be heard. I talked about my 
friend Ann--whose name isn't really Ann--but I talked about her fear of 
going to get that test to determine whether she has breast cancer or 
not because, as I said, if she gets the test, she could be denied for a 
pre-existing condition or dropped from her insurance. And if she 
doesn't get the test, she won't be able to get the treatment that she 
needs to fight off that breast cancer. She's in a terrible position. 
But she's not the only one.
  I want to talk about a few other folks before I yield the microphone. 
I want to talk about Mary from Minneapolis. Mary says, ``My daughter 
needed her wisdom teeth out. At the time with insurance we were told to 
pay $375, which we did. Then I got billed for over $1,000, resubmitted, 
and eventually the amount was reduced to $750. Meantime, my husband had 
no paycheck. I have calcium deposits in my back which make it difficult 
to walk. I can't afford the copays, so I'm waiting until it is so bad 
that I can't walk.'' That's what Mary from Minneapolis said which is 
the status quo, which some people in this body want to preserve.
  Denise from Minneapolis says, ``I find more and more often that my 
family and I are skipping doctor visits for preventive care or when we 
would have made a visit to the doctor in the past, but now can't afford 
the copayment to be seen. This is especially true for childhood 
illnesses as well as allergy visits and medication, dental problems 
that could potentially be very serious, and injuries that, in reality, 
should be checked out by a doctor.

                              {time}  2240

  ``My family is insured, yet because of our current employment 
situation combined with rising health care costs, it has become out of 
our reach to have the kind of care that we have enjoyed in the past. I 
feel we are being left behind for an inability to be able to bear the 
burden of the cost. This may mean that we will pay dearly in the future 
for things that could have been prevented or less serious had we been 
able to see a doctor initially.'' That is Denise from Minneapolis.
  Here is Janice from Golden Valley, Minnesota, also in my district: 
``I have worked every day since the day I turned 15, and I am currently 
51, married with two teenage children. I have a college degree. We have 
always lived a balanced and frugal life. We do not take exotic trips 
and mostly buy generic groceries and thrift or discount store clothing. 
I do not and never have smoked or drank. And I have been in my job for 
over 20 years, yet I bring home less and less each year due primarily 
to health care premiums and costs. Health care premiums and copays cost 
about 25 to 30 percent of my income. Health care premiums cost me more 
than my Federal, State, Social Security, union dues and retirement plan 
deduction combined from each paycheck. The increase has been so great 
that we have stopped being able to contribute to savings for about 4 
years ago. The one thing I fear more than anything is me or a family 
member getting sick because of what treatment will cost even beyond the 
premium costs. When I have a strange new sensation in my eye, or vein 
hurting in my leg, or dull pain in my chest, I just pray it will go 
away on its own because I'm afraid of what it will cost me. We pay out 
so much for health insurance, yet we cannot afford to really even use 
it. And I feel even worse for those who have no health care insurance 
at all. This reflects so badly on what America has become, a place 
where only the wealthiest survive and the profit by the few takes 
priority over the basic needs of all.''
  Janice, I want you to know that we are fighting for patients before 
profits today.
  I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, about Anita from Roseville, which is

[[Page H7937]]

not in my district, but it is very close by. Anita says, ``I work for a 
public school and my husband stayed home with our daughter. We started 
paying family health insurance in 2002 at $10,000 out of pocket. This 
year, we are paying over $12,000 out of pocket, and our copays are $40 
and $50 per visit. Our daughter is school-aged now, but my husband 
started looking for work when the economy took its downturn last summer 
and still does not have a job. Health insurance costs severely limit 
our quality of life by using up our disposable income.''
  Let me talk about Priscilla from Minnesota. Priscilla says this: ``I 
got on my husband's insurance after the job I had discontinued coverage 
for me. We paid over $500 a month for this coverage. I had health 
issues that came on suddenly with breathing problems. It took several 
hospitalizations and ICU care before they finally figured out what the 
problem was. My husband's insurance refused to pay for any of it, 
calling it a ``preexisting condition.' ''
  And by the way, these would be banned under the plan offered by 
Democrats.
  ``And we were left with a medical bill over $25,000 to pay ourselves. 
This was at the same time we were spending $500 per month on premiums. 
The provider sent our bill to collections. It has been a nightmare. My 
husband is now disabled, and we have no coverage, yet his condition 
requires regular CAT scans and nine different medications to make sure 
his condition is stable.''
  I urge my colleagues who stand in the way of reform to listen to 
these good, decent people. They deserve better. They deserve better. 
Let's not worry about what the Chamber of Commerce and what PhRMA want. 
Let's worry about our constituents and the patients of America.
  I'm going to just read one more story from Doug, Mr. Speaker. And 
then after that I will make some closing comments.
  ``I recently refilled my mail-order prescriptions. I get as many 
generics as possible. However, I am a diabetic, and both types of my 
insulin are not generic, neither are blood pressure medication nor a 
cholesterol medication and glucose test strips. My insurance company in 
a bid to force generic drugs have made them `free' for mail-order while 
nongenerics doubled in price. So I had to choose which ones I didn't 
need. I chose the glucose test strips because I can buy them over the 
counter for the same price and `ration' them by testing less than I 
should. I'm still spending more money than I can afford, and I am 
afraid that my bank account will be overdrawn. If that happens, I will 
not be able to afford food or gas for myself and my son. I could borrow 
from my elderly mother, but it looks like they will be losing their 
insurance coverage from a failing car company. I have a good job with 
good benefits.'' That is what Doug said.
  His last line was: ``I have a good job with `good' benefits.''
  Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more stories, and I hope none of the 
constituents will be disappointed because I wasn't able to get to every 
story. But we got a bunch of stories on our Web site and stories people 
submitted to us, Mary from Minneapolis, Denise from Minneapolis, Janice 
from Golden Valley, Anita from Roseville, Minnesota, Verona from Mora, 
Minnesota, Mary from Minnesota, Priscilla from Minnesota, Maria from 
Minnesota, Cynthia from Minnesota, Doug from Minnesota all calling in, 
sharing very courageously their health care nightmare that they need to 
be relieved of.
  They need reform, Mr. Speaker. And the time for change is now. They 
need reform, Mr. Speaker, and the time for change is now.
  Let me wrap up my comments by just saying that it is wrong that in 
the first 3 months of 2009 that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and PhRMA 
paid lobbyists to combine $22.5 million to promote their interests 
which is to thwart reform of health care. And it is also very 
disturbing that The Washington Post had to report recently that the 
Nation's largest insurers have hired more than 350 former government 
staffers and retired Members of Congress in hopes of influencing us to 
thwart reform. And it is actually disgusting that the health care 
industry is spending more than $1.4 million a day lobbying to thwart 
health care reform.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Progressive Caucus who has a vision 
of an America where people who are sick can go to the doctor, Mr. 
Speaker, as a member of the Progressive Caucus that has a vision that 
we all can have decent, affordable health care, I urge my colleagues, 
Mr. Speaker, to think about these decent people, Anita, Janice, 
Priscilla and others, because surely in their districts they have 
people just like these good people who need change.
  Let's say ``yes'' to the American people, Mr. Speaker.
  It has been an hour appearing here on the House floor with the 
progressive message and with the Progressive Caucus message. Mr. 
Speaker, people can communicate by going to this Web site, 
cpc.grijalva.house.gov to let us know how they really feel.

                          ____________________