[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 41 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1691-H1696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DAY OF RECOGNITION FOR LONG-TERM CARE PHYSICIANS
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 244) expressing support for the
designation of March 20 as a National Day of Recognition for Long-Term
Care Physicians, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 244
Whereas a National Day of Recognition for Long-Term Care
Physicians is designed to honor and recognize physicians who
care for an ever-growing elderly population in different
settings, including skilled nursing facilities, assisted
living, hospice, continuing care retirement communities,
post-acute care, home care, and private offices;
Whereas the average long-term care physician has nearly 20
years of practice experience and dedicates themselves to 1 or
2 facilities with nearly 100 residents and patients;
Whereas the American Medical Directors Association is the
professional association of medical directors, attending
physicians, and others practicing in the long-term continuum
and is dedicated to excellence in patient care and provides
education, advocacy, information, and professional
development to promote the delivery of quality long-term care
medicine; and
Whereas the American Medical Directors Association would
like to honor founder and long-term care physician William A.
Dodd, M.D., C.M.D., who was born on March 20, 1921: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) supports the designation of a National Day of
Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians; and
(2) supports the goals and ideals of a National Day of
Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. SPEIER. I now yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 244, a bill
recognizing the work of our Nation's long-term care physicians.
Millions of Americans with disabilities or chronic illnesses require
long-term medical care. The medical professionals who provide this care
commonly address multiple chronic conditions and develop strong,
compassionate, and trusting relationships with their patients. Long-
term care is often required by Americans in advanced age; and as this
population increases, the demands for these services will obviously be
increasing as well. However, all of us of any age are susceptible to
illnesses, injuries, and conditions that require long-term care, so we
all have a stake in this. All Americans should be grateful for the hard
work of these dedicated professionals.
In particular, H. Con. Res. 244 recognizes the work of the American
Medical Directors Association, the professional association for long-
term care physicians officially chartered in 1978.
H. Con. Res. 244 was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from
Georgia, Representative Phil Gingrey, on March 2, 2010. The measure was
referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which
reported it favorably by unanimous consent on March 18, 2010. The bill
enjoys the support of over 50 Members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself just a
few minutes here and then yield to our colleague from Georgia.
Long-term care physicians deserve to be commended for their expertise
and devotion to their line of work. As such, it is my great pleasure to
support the designation of a day to honor their committed and faithful
service to the population of truly needy individuals in our Nation. And
so I support H. Con. Res. 244.
I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady
from California (Ms. Speier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
I want to thank also my colleague in the Senate, Senator Saxby
Chambliss, who is introducing the companion legislation.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do rise in proud support of authoring H. Con.
Res. 244, expressing support for March 20 as a National Day of
Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians. And I want to give a loud
shout-out to one of my best friends. In fact, he calls, he says we are
pallbearer friends--now that's serious--Dr. Steve Jordan, who is a
long-term care physician in Statesboro, Georgia, and one of my
classmates in medical school.
Yet I support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart
because I fear that the Democrats' health reform bill will harm seniors
and their long-term care. Seniors and patients all across this country
have been telling our Congress that their health will suffer, their
health will suffer if this bill,
[[Page H1692]]
ObamaCare, passes, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare when the program is
already going broke. Seniors in my district know their health care
costs will go up if this bill, bought with backroom deals, is passed.
This Democratic majority, while promising the American people they
will reform insurance, will bring in billions of new profits to private
insurance companies and for liberal bureaucrats. Let me be very clear
about this, Mr. Speaker. If the Democratic majority jams this bill down
the throats of American patients, our health care, their health care
will suffer. It will not get better; it will get worse. And to top it
all off, the majority party wants to negate the votes of 300 million
patients in this country by not even allowing an up-or-down vote by
their Members on this backroom-deal bill. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the
worst deal of all.
Yes, of course, I stand in proud support of this resolution, and I
thank my colleague for making it possible to bring it to the floor.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
And I would like to just say to the gentleman from Georgia, as much
as we are talking about the great work of long-term care physicians, it
is important to note, as he expresses his disdain for the health care
reform measure, that the American Medical Association, made up of
thousands upon thousands of physicians across this country, stands in
strong support of the health care reform measure.
I reserve my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to my
distinguished colleague from the State of Illinois, Congressman
Shimkus.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing
down this resolution. Long-term care is very, very important, as are
the physicians involved in taking care of our seniors. The primary
payer of long-term care is Medicaid. And regarding the Democratic
health care bill, what happened to Illinois is that the mandated
increase in Medicaid forces a $2 billion additional cost in the State
of Illinois, another unfunded mandate in a State that is already $11
billion in debt. And I think my colleague from California would
understand that because of the indebtedness in the State of California.
We are both, our States are both, in serious problems.
The Medicare cost cuts in this bill, in the Democratic health care
bill, is $463 billion for Medicare, which means that doctors are going
to stop providing and giving access. My colleague talked about the AMA.
We have physicians here on the Republican side who are members of the
AMA who are adamantly opposed to the health care bill.
The third thing is that in this economy we cannot afford a $569
billion tax increase to pay for this. Caterpillar today just announced
that this health care bill will add another $100 million of cost to
their service. Now how are we going to increase jobs in the economy by
increasing taxes that much? And I would like to end with this quote
from the Catholic bishops: ``Notwithstanding the denials and
explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the
House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately
excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands Federal funding
and the role of the Federal Government in the provision of abortion
procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an
act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate
destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be
born.''
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, as we again debate this health care reform
measure, which is not the measure that is before us presently, but a
resolution to promote long-term care physicians, I would just like to
point out that while the bishops may not support the language in the
Senate bill, the network which is comprised of tens of thousands of
Catholic nuns across the country does support the language. So maybe
it's the nuns versus the priests, and I would side with the nuns.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SPEIER. I yield.
Mr. SHIMKUS. The true response to that is that 55 nuns signed that
letter, 10,000 nuns have come out against this position by those 55.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I recognize my distinguished
colleague, Dr. Broun from Georgia, for 2 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
today in support of H. Con. Res. 244 expressing support for the
designation of March 20 as the National Day of Recognition for Long-
Term Care Physicians and to honor an esteemed long-term care Georgian
physician, Dr. William A. Dodd. As a primary care physician for almost
four decades, I understand the important role long-term care physicians
play for an ever-growing elderly population.
We as a body have spent the last year debating health care reforms.
It appears that a weekend vote on government takeover of the entire
health care system is the best Congress can come up with. It is a shame
that we have lost an opportunity to debate real reforms that will help
millions of Americans either continue with or obtain affordable,
quality and accessible health care for their families, reforms that
many in Congress can agree on, such as allowing the purchase of health
care insurance across State lines, developing associations and State
high-risk insurance pools to help lower insurance premiums, allowing
medical providers to receive tax credits for providing free services
for those who are unable to afford care and for full deductible of
health care costs, tax fairness.
We in Congress can do much better than what the current discussion is
yielding. For the sake of all long-term care physicians, as well as all
Americans, the health care debate needs to move away from our current
path and start over with commonsense reforms.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the
distinguished colleague from Alabama, Dr. Griffith, for 2 minutes.
{time} 1445
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, the long-term care physicians of America
are unsung heroes. Many of you have never seen them, many of you have
never met one, but yet they work with some of the most difficult
patients in the world.
Imagine, if you will, walking into a room of 20 or 30 Alzheimer's
patients, walking into a room of 20 to 30 young men or women with
closed-head injuries who will live in a vegetative state for 20 to 30
years. Imagine, if you will, a physician who has three to four nursing
homes to take care of, patients on five and six medications. Very, very
difficult medicine and very, very hard to find these individuals. Less
than 2 percent of our medical school classes are going into primary
care; 35 percent of our physicians are trained overseas.
The health care bill that is being proposed for America today is
going to accentuate the physician shortage. We will have a very
difficult time finding long-term care physicians. We have a hard time
even today having people be seen who have Medicare coverage but still
no access, Medicaid coverage but still no access. And our long-term
physicians, long-term care physicians who are unsung and our heroes in
medicine will become a fewer and fewer number under this present bill.
We are very concerned about that. Because of that, we have voiced our
opposition, but we are proud to sponsor this resolution.
Ms. SPEIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to
Dr. Gingrey, our colleague from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me, and of course I continue to support this great
resolution recognizing March 20 as National Long-Term Care Physician
Day.
As my colleague from Alabama, the gentleman from Huntsville, Dr.
Parker Griffith, just spoke, Madam Speaker, as a medical oncologist he
knows of what he speaks. And he talked about the long-term care
physicians, many of us who have not yet needed their services but
indeed we will. We will.
As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, I have great concerns. I have great
concerns about their ability should this H.R. 3590, patient protection
health care reform bill--I call it ObamaCare.
[[Page H1693]]
Should that pass, I have great concern about our long-term care
physicians and what they can do, how they can help, how much in control
they will be of the health and well-being of our senior citizens.
You know, the economic stimulus package of last year talked about
shovel-ready projects. Well, that didn't have much effect, I don't
think, on our senior citizens. But if this bill passes, if ObamaCare
passes, Madam Speaker, then all of a sudden these senior citizens in
our country will become shovel ready, and this bill will concern them.
My great fear is they will be first in line to get thrown under the bus
when we start rationing health care.
So as I support this resolution, as I said earlier, I have a very
heavy heart and much concern. When you cut $500 billion out of a
Medicare program that has $35 trillion, Madam Speaker, of unfunded
liability over the next 50 years, and you are going to cut it 10
percent a year, Madam Speaker, for the next 10 years? How is that good
for our senior citizens?
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, as we discuss this resolution on
recognizing the long-term care physicians, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle keep wanting to debate the health care reform
measure, so I feel it is incumbent on me to at least shed some light
from our perspective on why this is so very important to the American
people. And as we look at the health care professionals who are
supporting the health care reform measure, I would like to just list a
few of them.
The American Medical Association, the AARP, the Catholic Health
Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the National
Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, the American
College of Physicians, the National Hispanic Medical Association, and
the list goes on and on. All of these health care professionals can't
be wrong.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I would just respond to the
comments from the gentlelady from California that one group she left
out was the American people. Every single poll done over the last year
shows the American people don't want the health care legislation. She
can name every group she wants--I am sure she has got a longer list--
but go talk to the American people. Time and time again, they have said
they don't want this bill.
So while you have every special interest group that she wants to lay
out there, that is fine. Think about it. They were going to pass this
bill in September; the American people said ``no.'' Oh, we are going to
pass it in October; the American people said ``no.'' We are going to
pass it by Thanksgiving; the American people said ``no.'' We are going
to get it done by Christmas, we promise; the American people said
``no.'' We are going to get it done by the State of the Union; the
American people said ``no.'' And now, they are going to try to get it
done by Easter.
What part of ``no'' don't they get?
So sure, there are all kinds of special interests who want this
special deal, but the American people know what it is about, and that
is why they are opposed to it.
And I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Jordan is exactly right; the American people are not being taken
into consideration. They are being overlooked. But I want to remind the
gentlelady from California, and the American people for that matter,
the AMA only represents a very, very small fraction of physicians in
this country, a very small group. All these groups that she named off
have cut their own special little deals with the President and with the
leadership here in the House and the Senate. They have cut out their
special deals for their own parochial interests, but they haven't
considered the American people.
I will tell the gentlelady from California, the vast majority of
medical doctors who are practicing medicine, like I have for almost
four decades, deplore this government takeover of the health care
system, the vast majority, and what it is going to do if it is passed
into law. It is going to mean that patients can't make health care
decisions for themselves; doctors can't make health care decisions for
their patients. Government bureaucrats here in Washington, DC, will be
making those decisions.
And the people who are going to be hurt most are those people on
Medicaid and Medicare, the poor people in this country and the senior
citizens. The reason that they are going to be hurt the most, we
already see it happening as doctors are having to not accept any more
Medicaid patients, any more Medicare patients because of reduced
reimbursement; and that is going to get much worse if this bill is ever
passed into law.
So they may have an insurance card provided for them by the Federal
Government in their pocket, but that insurance card is going to be
worth the same amount that a confederate dollar was after the war
between the States, worth nothing, because they can't get access. And
that is exactly where the Democratic leadership is taking us. Access is
going to be much worse than it is today. But we have some commonsense
solutions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Watson). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. We have some solutions. I have challenged
Democrats to introduce a bill that would do four things: across-State-
line purchasing for businesses and individuals, association pools to
give people multiple options, develop State high-risk pools, and have
tax fairness so everybody could deduct 100 percent of their health care
costs and insurance off their income taxes. I've had many Democrats say
they would love to support it but their leadership won't let them. We
can have some commonsense solutions that would give people what my
Democratic colleagues keep asking for--lower costs, more accessibility.
But the program we are seeing on the floor and that is going to be
forced down the throats of the American people is actually going to be
adverse to the people who can afford it the least, the poor people and
the senior citizens in this country. It's going to put millions of
people out of work. The cost is going to skyrocket. It is going to be
disastrous.
We can find commonsense solutions. We can do some things that will be
in the best interests of patients, doctors, businesses, and everybody,
if we just do it.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey) such time as she may consume.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I was just doing a crossword puzzle
waiting for my turn, because I am going to work with Congresswoman
Speier on the next resolution, and there was a clue. I was doing a
crossword puzzle, and the clue was ``emotion evoked by pathos.'' The
answer was ``pity.'' And I thought, oh, my gosh, that is exactly what I
am feeling about what I am hearing from other side of the aisle.
It is such a pity that for 8 years the Republicans did nothing to fix
health care. It is such a pity that you must be so afraid of what is
going to come out of the health care bill when we pass it this weekend,
that it is going to be so popular when 32 million people will be
covered, because 38 million people in this country have no coverage
right now. And what did you do about it over the last 8 years? Nothing.
What a pity.
What a pity that you have to say that we are rationing care when
there is absolutely no question that American care is not going to be
rationed. But care will be rationed today if we do nothing by the
insurance companies, which are rationing care every day as I speak.
They are making the coverage of care based on their profits. It is
being rationed for those who have insurance but can't afford the care,
and those who have lost insurance because it simply cost too much.
Those who want to defeat reform are essentially defending rationing
care.
Under the House and Senate bill and the President's proposal, there
is not one provision that gives the government the ability to determine
what treatments an individual can receive. More specifically, the
comparative effectiveness research provisions in the House and Senate
bills that are supported by the administration have been
[[Page H1694]]
funded by the Federal Government--already funded by the Federal
Government for years.
This research has absolutely nothing to do with rationing. This
research is to improve quality of care, it is to give doctors
information they need and what they want so that they can treat
patients better. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for
treatment. We are looking for coverage. We are looking for access.
And what a pity that you folks couldn't work with us so we could get
where we are getting this weekend, so we can bring care to the people
of this country that is affordable, that they won't have to fear losing
their coverage if they get sick. If they are sick, they get sick, they
lose their jobs, they will still be able to be covered. That is what
the people of America want.
You ask them point blank with these scare tactics--what a pity that
you need them on the other side of the aisle. You ask anybody if they
like those scare tactics. Of course they will say ``no.'' You ask them
about the individual parts of this health care reform bill, they are
absolutely glad to embrace it.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the gentlelady said the Federal
Government won't be influencing the type of care Americans get. There
is not a person outside this town who believes that statement. This is
a 2,700-page bill, more boards, commissions, panels, bureaucrats
between you and your doctor than you can imagine. No one outside of
Washington believes that statement. Of course the Federal Government is
going to be influencing the type of care you get. That is why it takes
2,700 pages of legislative language in this bill.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we have to respond to those comments that
are being made.
Republicans did nothing? We did a lot. We opened up HSAs, health
savings accounts, for Americans. We passed three bills in my first 2
years here that would allow for associated health plans. But what
happened? They get over to the Senate and they can't get passed because
the Democrats bottled them up.
The Democrats have over 250 Members in this body. Republicans never
had more than 232. They are trying to blame us for this health care
bill not passing?
If it is such a wonderful bill, how come you are having to break arms
and bribe people to vote for it? That is the problem. The Democrats
themselves can't agree on this bill.
We set up HSAs so that people aren't tied to their employers to keep
their insurance. You all have ruined the economy and you are destroying
jobs. People are losing their jobs; they are losing their health care.
That is what is happening. And Medicare rations more health care than
the worst of the insurance companies does.
{time} 1500
Look at the chart. Medicare turns down more people with preexisting
conditions than the insurance companies do. And what's going to happen
is you're spreading Medicare out. You're forcing people into Medicaid.
They will have no choice as to whether to be in Medicaid or have
private insurance. That's what the majority is doing here.
Don't talk to us about our doing nothing and about your giving access
to people and coverage. You're raising the cost of health care. You're
going to destroy at least 5 million jobs with this bill because of the
taxes on businesses. This is not the way to go. This is not what
Americans want. Americans deserve a better life. Americans deserve
their freedom.
Ms. SPEIER. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker, this is getting
to be like a broken record. And I know there are a lot of people out
there younger than I am who don't know what a broken record is, but it
used to be something we played music on, and when it got a scratch on
it, it skipped, and you had the same notes time after time after time.
Well, we've been listening now for a year to the same talking points
that Frank Luntz wrote a year ago and handed out and said, This is the
recipe for defeating health care reform. And we need to defeat health
care reform because if we don't defeat it, and the Democrats succeed
and President Obama succeeds, then we will be in the minority for the
foreseeable future. That's been the strategy from day one, and things
like government takeover and job killing and rationing are the same
words we have heard time and time again. The reason we keep hearing
those is because our colleagues from across the aisle don't want to
discuss the substance. They don't want to discuss the benefits. They
don't want to discuss the protections and the security that we're
providing for virtually every American.
Now I've heard a lot of this stuff about the burden on small
businesspeople and job-killer. Well, I don't know how many of my
colleagues from the other side have a lot of experience in the business
world. I was a small businessman. I have two brothers who run
considerable-sized businesses. I have a sister who runs a small
business. And my father was an entrepreneur who developed a business.
Not once, not once, did ever any of them, or I, my father included,
ever say the tax rate, their personal tax rate, made a difference in
how they operated. And you know why? Because entrepreneurs aren't in it
just to make money. They're in it because they want to be their own
bosses and they're doing something they love. If the tax rate goes up,
they just say, Hey, that's okay. I may have to work a little bit
harder, but that's not why I'm in it. That's not going to change my
business strategy, particularly when you're talking about a 2 or 3
percent tax increase on somebody who makes over a quarter of a million
dollars a year.
Let me tell you what that means. Let's say you're making a million
and a half dollars. Small business person, entrepreneur, making a
million and a half dollars, and this bill is enacted. Now here's the
way I look at it. Somebody comes to me and says, I'm going to make you
a deal. You're a charitable guy. For $30,000 I'm going to allow you to
say that you insured 32 million people; that you saved 18,000 lives a
year; that you prevented 700,000 bankruptcies in this country; that you
allowed small businesses to provide insurance for your employees and
employees of small businesses around the country, because they are 60
percent of all the uninsured in the country. And I'd say that's a
pretty good deal. I make charitable contributions that were a lot less
effective than that.
This is a good deal for small business people. And let me tell you
why. A small businessperson right now is facing premium increases
across the country, 20, 30, 40 percent. Those are the types of things
that really impede a small business--not a small incremental tax
increase on their personal income. When you're talking about premium
increases of 30 and 40 percent, you're dramatically changing the way
you do business. Plus, you're being put in the position of forcing your
employees to pay more for their coverage or else dropping their
coverage altogether, which means some of those employees aren't going
to be able to continue to work for you. They're going to have to find a
job with a big company that has a group plan. No. This is the greatest
step forward for small businesses in the country's history.
I tell you, I was in a small business with about 25 employees. We had
a very young, very healthy group of employees, except for one person.
We had a woman who had cancer. What happened to our insurance premiums?
Every year, 15, 20 percent, because of her misfortune. Everybody else
in the company suffered. That's what we face now.
I talked to a businessman in my district not too long ago. He has 110
employees. I said, What's going on with your health insurance? He said,
Well, funny you should ask. Last year, we had two people that had
pretty serious illnesses. Our first quote for renewal was a 75 percent
increase. We negotiated that down to 38 percent, but we had to increase
everybody's copays and everybody's deductibles, and we had to ask
everybody to come out of pocket a little more money.
[[Page H1695]]
So here's the situation. Two employees get sick and 108 others have
their standard of living diminished. That shouldn't happen in America.
That's not the law of supply and demand which we rely on in many other
areas. This is the problem with our health care system. These are the
problems that we're trying to solve in our health care reform. This is
a great step forward for small business, it's a great step forward for
America, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. I know it will be
the best vote I've ever cast in Congress.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, can I inquire of the amount of
time on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pingree of Maine). The gentleman from
Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes. The gentlewoman from California has 7\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. We'd like to reserve, if we could, Madam Speaker,
the balance of our time.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I find this discussion somewhat
hypocritical, to say the very least. We are here discussing the long-
term care physicians and elevating them and talking about how necessary
they are for the aging population in this country, and many of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle took the opportunity to start
talking about the health care reform measure. Well, guess what, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle? The long-term care
physicians of America have endorsed health care reform. So don't use
them as some means by which you can debate health care reform when
they're the very physicians that support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, if the majority party has
additional speakers, in the interest of keeping time relatively equal,
we would continue to reserve the balance of our time.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady, and I appreciate the
opportunity to come here. My friend from Ohio, we have been through
this routine before. We were in the State Senate many years ago
together, except I was arguing against his proposals and he was passing
them. This time, he's arguing against ours and we're going to pass
ours.
The issue really, here--and I think the gentlelady from California
brought it up. Our friends on the other side, Madam Speaker, like to
say, Well, seniors are against it. But then AARP endorses it. Our
friends on the other side say doctors are against it. But the American
Medical Association endorses it. You say that this is pro-abortion, and
you have 59,000 Catholic nuns from across the country endorsing this
bill, 600 Catholic hospitals, 1,400 Catholic nursing homes endorsing
this bill. So you're not calling anybody over here pro-abortion. You're
calling 59,000 Catholic nuns pro-abortion, which I think really brings
this debate to a head.
We are doing something that we've not been able to do in this country
for a hundred years. We all go back to our districts and with this bill
alone we're going to make sure--I know in my congressional district--
that over 9,000 people can go back on the rolls because they've been
denied because of a preexisting condition. We had 1,700 families in my
congressional district last year go bankrupt.
I know this is difficult. And nobody on this side is saying that this
hasn't been a difficult process. It has been. But nothing good happens
without it being a little bit difficult and challenging. And that's the
point we are at now in our country. We cannot get to the point where we
are afraid to do bold things in our country. We have to do this.
Small businesses all over our State--to the gentleman from Ohio--all
over our State can't get enough money to reinvest back into the
capital, the technology, the wages that we need in order to get our
businesses jump-started because it keeps going over to health care. If
you're a small business, you're going to get a tax credit up to 50
percent of your health care costs. This is a tax cut for small
businesses. And we're going to make sure that people are healthier and
more productive.
I know our friends on the other side want to say, Well, let's start
over. Let's get the blank piece of paper out and let's start all over.
Let the insurance industry start all over. Let them go back to 1993 and
1994, revoke all of their increases that they gave to the American
people over the last 15 or 20 years. Let them start over. Put all the
people who have been denied because of a preexisting condition back on
the insurance rolls; all the people who got sick when they had
insurance and were kicked off insurance. Put them back on, and then
maybe we'll consider starting all over. But we've got to make this bold
move to make sure that everybody's in the tent. This is a moral issue
on so many levels. We can't keep telling citizens in the wealthiest
country that this globe has ever seen that we have the ability to care
for you, but we can't afford it. It's time to pass this bill. We're
going to do it this weekend. And we're going to look back, just like on
Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and civil rights. We did the right
thing, the moral thing.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I would yield 90 seconds to a good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, let me get to the point here. In this
bill we have the other side says there's $500 billion that's going to
be taken out of Medicare without one word of explanation how they're
going to do it. They're going to take it to extend the life of
Medicare. And they're going to count it to subsidize private insurance.
Totally dishonest.
Now I have here a memo from the Democratic Caucus, and just to quote
in talking about this giddy CBO score that's supposed to show savings:
Do not allow yourself to get into a discussion of details of CBO scores
and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and
number of Americans covered. Do not give them ground by debating
details. For example, the March 11 letter has some estimates of
discretionary cost not accounted in the total. Again, instead focus
only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered.
Finally, with regard to SGR, we know that that was carved out of this
bill, $250 billion, so let's add that to the trillion that's not being
accounted for, and I quote: ``Most health staff are already aware that
our health proposal does not contain a `doc fix' . . . The inclusion of
a full SGR repeal would undermine reform's budget neutrality. So,
again, do not allow yourself . . . to get into a discussion of the
details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the
deficit reduction and number of Americans covered.
`` . . . Leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to
rally physicians' support for a full SGR repeal.''
So now we understand why the AMA is supporting this.
Ms. SPEIER. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would like to respond to that, Madam Speaker,
because if we want to talk about memos, let's talk about the memo that
the pollster and the consultant for the Republican Party put out last
spring saying, No matter what you do, do not let President Obama pass
health care. It will put you in the minority for another decade or two.
It will make his Presidency. That was before we had any bill ready to
go. It was socialism, it was this--the other side, Madam Speaker, was
told by their consultants not to support this bill. And as for the
Medicare costs, why are we going to save $500 billion? Because there is
waste in the Medicare program, and this is something that they've
proposed on the other side for a long, long time. In addition to that,
if those people 55 to 60, before they go onto Medicare, actually have
health insurance, they're going to cost less when they get into the
Medicare program because they're not going to be as sick.
{time} 1515
When you come from an old industrial area like ours, there are sick
people who have lost their jobs, don't have health insurance. They wait
until they get into Medicare. They are chronically ill, and they cost
more money. That's how we're going to save money.
[[Page H1696]]
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time
to our distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this
resolution to designate tomorrow as National Day of Recognition for
Long-Term Care Physicians. And ironically the same weekend we're
honoring these physicians, House Democrats are simultaneously
destroying their ability to practice medicine by enacting a Washington
takeover of the patient's decision-making power.
Let me just give you the short and sweet of it. We started health
care reform in Tennessee 17 years, and I know what I am talking about
here because we've experienced this. We wanted to control cost and
increase access, and we began a plan called TennCare. What's happened
during that plan is that it has decreased our access because of the
payment to physicians and to providers. This year our plan has begun to
ration the care. And how it's done that is, it's limited the number of
patient visits and the amount of money that TennCare will pay for a
hospitalization, no matter how much money the bill is. So those costs
are shifted over to the private sector. I've seen this with my own
eyes, as I have paid $10,000 for a visit to the hospital, no matter
what the bill is.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, you know, there's something very ironic
about the fact that when we are honoring long-term care physicians,
that they have become the pawn by the Republicans to have a discussion
on health care reform and--oh, by the way, the long-term physicians
that they want to applaud are endorsing the health care reform
legislation.
I have a story I want to share with my colleagues. It's about a
constituent who has two children, a family of four. Their health
insurance premium was $560 a month 4 years ago. Their health insurance
premium today is $2,008 a month. The irony of this particular story is
that the father is an emergency room doctor, and he gets his health
insurance from Anthem Blue Cross. And, oh, by the way, Anthem Blue
Cross negotiated a contract with him as an emergency room doctor where
they require that he take a 60 percent discount in the fees that he was
charging.
So what that should say to all of us is that the Anthem Blue Crosses
of the world aren't spending the money on health care. They're spending
the money on CEOs' salaries and bonuses and Wall Street; and that's why
health care reform is so critical today. So I urge my colleagues to
join me in recognizing the work of our Nation's long-term care
physicians who endorse health care reform by supporting this measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 244, as
amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________