[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15843-15844]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. KYL. I wish to commend the Senator from Tennessee because he has 
been a leader in pointing out the problems that these new health care 
expenditures would impose upon our States. It is important to have the 
Governors of the States and the State legislators to begin to let 
Washington know what they think about these new costs that they are 
somehow going to have to bear.
  Let me begin at the outset here, on the same subject, to make it 
clear that Republicans are very eager for serious health care reform, 
just as I think the American people are.
  That is why we support new ideas that would actually cut health care 
costs and make all health care more affordable and accessible. 
Republicans want to reform our medical liability laws to curb frivolous 
lawsuits. We want to strengthen and expand wellness programs that 
encourage people to make healthy choices about smoking, diet, and 
exercising. All those have huge impacts on the cost of health care.
  We also wish to address the needs of the unemployed, those who work 
for or own a small business, those with preexisting conditions, all of 
these we can address. And this can and must be done without imposing 
job-killing taxes and regulations. In short, we favor innovation, not 
just regulation.
  Our Democratic friends would like to take a different route. Many of 
them would like to impose a one-size-fits-all Washington-run 
bureaucracy that we believe, ultimately, would lead to the kind of 
delay and denial of care we have heard about in Canada and Great 
Britain. I have spoken at length about the trouble with health care 
rationing, so today I would like to talk about the cost of a new 
Washington-run health care system.
  The administration often argues that we need Washington-run health 
care to help the economy. Well, ``Washington bureaucracy'' and 
``economic growth'' are not phrases that tend to have a positive 
correlation. Is it realistic to think that adding millions of people to 
a new government-run health insurance system will somehow save money or 
help the economy?
  As the Wall Street Journal recently editorialized about the so-called 
plan:

       In that kind of world, costs will climb even higher as far 
     more people use ``free'' care and federal spending will reach 
     epic levels.

  One wag quipped: ``If you think health care is expensive now, just 
wait until it is free.''

[[Page 15844]]

  In fact, the first estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office shows that just a portion of the Democratic plan, covering only 
one-third of the uninsured, will cost over $1 trillion--$1 trillion to 
cover 16 million more people.
  That is just for one part of the proposed plan. That works out to 
about over $66,000 per person.
  The administration said last weak it wants to rework the plan to 
bring the cost down below $1 trillion. Well, that will help. They have 
not provided a specific number. But what I would like to know is: Do 
they consider anything below $1 trillion acceptable--$999 billion, $800 
billion? What is acceptable here? Is it trying to get it down below $1 
trillion so the sticker shock is not quite so great?
  The American people are very worried about our increasing national 
debt. This only makes the problem worse, not better.
  As the Republican leader mentioned in his radio address Saturday, the 
President used this same economic argument to sell the $1.3 trillion 
stimulus package: ``We have to move quickly to pass new government 
spending to help the economy.'' Four months later, unemployment has 
risen to 9.4 percent, much higher than the 8-percent peak the 
administration said it would be if we quickly passed the stimulus 
legislation. Now the administration is asking for billions more for a 
Washington-run health care plan.
  As the New York Times noted last Friday, while the Democrats' bill 
outlines massive amounts of new spending, it does not explain how it 
intends to pay for it. That is an important detail. Congress would 
either have to run up more debt on top of the historic debt already 
produced by the President's budget and the stimulus bill, or it will 
have to raise taxes. That is one area in which our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have actually offered a lot of new ideas: Taxes 
on beer, soda, juice, and snack food, along with new limits on 
charitable contributions have all been proposed. But actually, they are 
a drop in the bucket relative to the amount of new taxes that would be 
required to fund their plan.
  I would like to know: When will we draw the line and try something 
other than new taxes and massive new government spending to solve the 
problem?
  Americans want health care reform, but most of them don't want to be 
saddled with mountains of new debt. As a June 21 New York Times article 
reported, a new survey shows--and I am quoting--``considerable unease 
about the impact of heightened government involvement on both the 
economy and the quality of respondents' own care.''
  The American people are very worried that their own care, which they 
are generally satisfied with, will be negatively impacted as a result 
of the so-called ``reform'' that is being proposed. That same survey, 
which was an NBC New York Times survey, also showed that while 85 
percent of Americans want serious reform, only 28 percent are confident 
that a new health care entitlement will improve the economy. So as the 
President is trying to sell this on the basis that we need it for the 
economy, only 28 percent of Americans believe that is the case. 
Frankly, I share their skepticism. It is going to hurt, not help.
  We need to reform health care right. I think there is much more 
virtue in doing it correctly over doing it quickly. President Obama 
promised change, but there is nothing new about dramatically increasing 
government spending and adding even more to our national debt. I hope 
some of my friends on the Democratic side, as well as Republicans, can 
agree that when it comes to health care reform, we should embrace real 
changes that support medical innovation and put patients first. That is 
the answer. That is what the American people want.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________