[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[House]
[Page 18470]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




CALIFORNIA'S THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT'S PERSPECTIVE ON HEALTH CARE 
                              LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, last night I had a 
telephone town hall with constituents in my district. As I made the 
call, I informed them that we were going to discuss any subject they 
wanted, but I wanted to concentrate on health care. As a result, I had 
one of the largest responses I ever had. Thousands of people got on the 
line. Most times, there were no less than 1,400 people on the line. I 
didn't choose them by party. I didn't choose them by income. I didn't 
choose them by occupation. It was random, calling people in my 
district.
  The response was overwhelming, overwhelmingly negative with respect 
to the plans they hear about that are coming from the White House, the 
Senate and the House. Why were they negative? They were negative 
because the people in my district were concerned about whether or not 
the government was going to dominate health care in this country, and 
those who were satisfied with their plans--even though they had some 
imperfections, even though they had some desire to have them improved, 
but by and large had made choices with respect to their plans--wondered 
whether their freedom of choice would be taken away by the government 
plan presented by the President and by the leadership in both the 
Senate and the House. It was interesting, they also were very concerned 
about the cost. When they hear the word $1 trillion, they begin to 
think that this particular plan has real problems. As we discussed the 
various aspects of it, they referred me to the CBO, the Congressional 
Budget Office's report that disappointed the White House and the 
Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate because the report 
suggested that this program cannot pay for itself, that we're talking 
about at least $1 trillion to be imposed on the American people.
  The dialogue that I had with my constituents was very lively. They 
were also concerned about the fact that we have Medicare and Medicaid--
as we call it in California, Medi-Cal--that is on an unsustainable path 
to bankruptcy. This has been pointed out by the director of CBO as well 
as many others outside the halls of Congress and outside the Federal 
Government. So the American people are trying to tell us that they are 
concerned that we have an unsustainable program already that we have 
not faced up to; and on top of that, we're going to impose this new 
national health plan. It was interesting because the President and the 
Democratic leadership have said that, look, the public option is just 
that. It's not going to destroy the private sector. Yet constituents in 
my district were very, very clear as to their understanding of the 
necessary impact of this program. They also were concerned about the 
promises made in this plan. I guess you could sum it up in these words: 
First entitlement and then rationing. When government takes over a 
program like medical care, and when it promises everything, and when 
you see the track record with respect to Medicare and Medicaid, you 
understand that at some point in time, we're going to hit the fiscal 
wall, and government's only ability to control cost at that point in 
time--if you look historically at other government-centered health 
programs around the world--is through rationing.
  You can look at it in Canada. You can look at it in Great Britain. 
You can look at it in every country around the world. And frankly, I do 
not want--and my constituents told me last night they do not want the 
imposition of a government bureaucrat between them, as patients, and 
their doctors.
  Interestingly, last night in one of our committees marking up that 
case, that question was posed: Could we say in the plan that there 
would not be the intervention of a government bureaucrat to dictate to 
your doctor as to what your health care should be? That specific 
amendment was voted down almost on a party-line vote. Every Democrat on 
the committee, save one, voted against that prohibition; and every 
Republican voted for it. In other words, it was crystal clear. The 
amendment presented last night before that committee was: In this plan, 
can we at least promise the American people there will not be 
intervention by a Federal bureaucrat to dictate the care you will 
receive or not receive from your doctor? That specific public policy 
prohibition was voted down.
  If you believe that health care delivered by the Federal Government 
is superior to what you get now, go to your local DMV and see if you'd 
like them making the decision with respect to your medical care.

                          ____________________