[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 164 (Thursday, November 5, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H12431-H12432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, we have been waiting for 10 months for 
the Republican health care plan. All we hear is the Party of No--no, 
no, no; go slow; don't do anything. That's all we've heard. But, 
finally, they came out with a plan, and I thought we ought to take it 
seriously and read it, so I did.

                              {time}  1830

  Sadly, the proposal from my Republican colleagues was not worth the 
wait, and CBO agrees.
  The Congressional Budget Office indicated that the Republican bill 
will not--will not--significantly decrease the ranks of the uninsured. 
Instead, under the Republican proposal, the ranks of the uninsured will 
decrease by only 3 million people, leaving 52 million people without 
coverage.
  Contrast that with the Democratic proposal, which covers 96 percent 
of all Americans.
  The Republican proposal would not address the ability of insurance 
companies to exclude individuals based upon preexisting conditions. 
According to the Republican leadership, they purposely failed to 
address this issue because it supposedly cost too much.
  The Democratic proposal would prohibit insurers from excluding 
individuals from purchasing health insurance based on preexisting 
conditions by 2013.
  The Republican proposal would allow insurance companies to sell 
insurance across State lines. Sounds like a good idea. But most experts 
agree that that would create a ``race to the bottom,'' where insurers 
will set up shops in States with the fewest consumer protections.
  Contrast that with the Democratic proposal, which will allow 
insurance companies to sell insurance across State lines so long as the 
States involved have set up interstate compacts. Under these interstate 
compacts, participating States would ensure consumer protections would 
be followed and monitored at all times.
  Now, the Republicans got this one pretty close to right. They will 
allow dependents to remain on their parents' insurance until they are 
age 26.
  Contrast that with the Democratic proposal, which keeps them on until 
age 27. So they copied us at least on that point.
  The Republican proposal will cut the deficit by $68 billion over the 
next 10 years. Sounds great, right?
  Contrast this with the Democratic proposal, which will cut the 
deficit by $104 billion over the next 10 years. For the Republicans who 
sound off about fiscal responsibility all the time, the Democratic 
proposal is clearly the more responsible for deficit reduction.
  The Republican plan purports to end ``junk lawsuits.'' However, the 
focus is solely on capping certain damages for pain and suffering. This 
is an old approach, and it will help insurance companies flaunt State 
consumer protection laws.
  The Democratic proposal, on the other hand, would ensure providers 
are accountable for providing quality care by developing payment 
policies that have quality as a central tenet of reimbursement. The 
Democratic proposal seeks to recognize the autonomy of States.
  The CBO found that the Republican plan would have virtually no effect 
on reducing premiums in the large group market in which most Americans 
are involved, where most people purchase their health insurance.
  Contrast this with the Democratic proposal that seeks to increase 
transparency with regard to insurance premium increases and decrease 
the amount insurers can dedicate to profits.
  The Democratic proposal ends the antitrust exemption for insurers, 
which has caused a significant lack of competition in the insurance 
marketplace whereby one or two insurers provide virtually all of the 
coverage for enrollees in some markets. This is focused insurance 
reform rather than business as usual, which the Republicans seek to 
promote.
  The Republican plan was introduced to the world on November 4, 2009, 
after being slapped together because they realized that something was 
going to happen out here and they had no alternative to saying no. It 
has all the failures I have described relative to the Democratic 
proposal.
  Contrast this with what has been a deliberative, thoughtful process 
that has created a bill that has been reported out of three committees 
and is at the precipice of enacting the most far-reaching, 
consequential health reform in a century.
  The American people have been waiting for 100 years. They got the 
Republican proposal a day or so ago, and it is totally inadequate. 
Despite claims of my Republican colleagues to the contrary, in all 
aspects, the Democratic proposal is simply better. It will provide 
universal coverage, and I hope that the Republicans can see the wisdom 
of voting for it this Saturday.
  It provides nearly universal coverage, deficit reduction, and reforms 
designed to effectuate cost control over the next decade.
  My Republican colleagues have tunnel vision and are focused on what 
they believe to be the one positive about their bill: it costs less 
than the Democratic proposal. Well, it still costs $8 billion, and 
insures virtually no one according to multiple media outlets as well as 
the CBO.

[[Page H12432]]

  The Republican plan ensures that insurance companies maintain the 
status quo in the insurance market, and provides no consumer 
protections. Sometimes, you get what you pay for.

                          ____________________