[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H236-H237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IN SUPPORT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are having debates about health care
because Americans are nervous about changing something so important to
their families, and that, of course, makes politicians nervous about
reform.
This skepticism is understandable. Attempting to adjust policies and
programs that comprise now 17 percent of our economy, the biggest
driver of the Federal deficit that literally touches every American
family, poses daunting challenges. Yet, as people begin the analysis,
the appropriate comparison is not some idealized, magical state but the
comparison to the path we are on, which everybody agrees is
unsustainable.
Medical costs, left unchecked, will literally bankrupt the country.
The Department of Defense will spend more on health care this year than
China uses to run its entire military operation for 7 months. Every
objective, independent expert acknowledges and laments the fact that
the United States is the world's health care underachiever. We pay more
for health care than our major allies and competitors in Europe, Japan,
and Canada, but our people get sick more often; they die sooner, and
unlike any other country, people are bankrupted by medical costs--about
2,000 people per day. All the while, we have a record number of
uninsured Americans--now over 50 million.
Sadly, we are getting exactly what we paid for: more procedures,
multiple providers, an emphasis on specialty care rather than someone
who can help us with our own efforts to negotiate this complex,
fragmented health care system. America actually spends more
administering our health insurance system and finding ways to deny care
than any other country in the world spends on providing care.
Starting from scratch, we could give better care for less money, but
we are not starting from scratch. We are starting with an economic and
structural behemoth, encompassing, as I said, 17 percent of the
economy. It is the largest employer in most communities, and it has
evolved over two-thirds of a century of public and private investment
and government legislation. Today, our hybrid system is largely
administered through hundreds of agencies, programs, and large
providers, with the Federal Government paying half the bill directly.
The good news is that we have proven that we can get better results
for less than we are spending, and the health care reform legislation
provides this framework. First, we don't need more money. In fact, if
we implement the existing legislation, it can be a source of savings in
the future.
The good news is we don't have to deal with unproven techniques or
technologies. We know what to do. We don't even have to look at foreign
models that are more successful than ours. We can look right here in
the United States. My community of Portland, Oregon, delivers better
health care for Medicare, for instance, to its recipients than other
communities where costs are twice as high. It's not just Portland. This
can be found in areas in the
[[Page H237]]
West and the upper Midwest. There are also innovative health care
practices in the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and Gunderson
Lutheran.
The government, itself, has proven how to be more efficient. The
Veterans Administration has a practice model for older citizens with
complex health problems that face our veterans. The VA has automated
its medical records system. It pays its doctors for performance, not
procedures, and they figured out a way to get better prescription drug
costs for millions of our veterans.
Many of the techniques for reducing the number of unnecessary
hospital admissions, for bundling services, for having accountable care
organizations are known and actually supported by my Republican
friends. They've been embraced by Republican Governors.
This is not foreign territory. We know it can work. The path forward
is clear. It is important not to lose 2 important years in reforming
our medical system, giving better health care, and starting to reduce
these massive future deficits.
After having identified weak spots in the implementation, let's work
to hold people accountable. Don't attack the CBO for scoring the bill
as written, which is their job. Attack efforts to undermine the cost-
saving elements of the bill. If States can more creatively provide
health care envisioned in the exchanges, let them do it. Give them the
waivers, and encourage them to experiment as long as they meet minimum
national standards.
Absolutely allow people to purchase insurance across State lines to
improve competition and choice, but only after everybody agrees to
provide insurance according to the same quality standards of
accountability. That prevents gaps in coverage. We don't want massive
marketing budgets while denying the money for essential treatment. We
need not to have long protracted battles over if we understand and
agree upon the terms.
We've reached a critical point where we cannot continue on the path
that we've been headed. We do have reform legislation that encourages
much of what has bipartisan support. We are spending more money than we
need to and there are huge opportunities to improve the quality of
service. I would hope that this exercise would be the last of the
political ritual on health care. Instead let's turn to working with the
Administration to figure out how to achieve the objectives, so critical
for our citizens.
____________________