[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 22564-22570]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Driehaus). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. 
Bachmann) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, the focus of my remarks over the next 
hour will be on the issue of health care. This is the issue that has 
really captured the attention of the American people over these summer 
months, and well it should. This for many States is one of the top 
spending priorities in their States and here for the Federal Government 
as well.
  We have learned, as we've looked through the budget this year, since 
President Obama has assumed the Presidency, under his leadership we 
have seen the Federal budget increase 22 percent at a time when the 
American economy is contracting. In one quarter alone we saw a 5 
percent contraction rate. The private sector is contracting in this 
current economy, and yet what's government's response? Government is on 
a party. It is growing. Growing to the tune of 22 percent. That's 
almost a one-fourth level of increase.
  Imagine if any of us, Mr. Speaker, in our own lives, in our own 
businesses, in our family situation would increase our spending 22 
percent when our income had fallen 6 percent. None of us would ever 
consider treating our own finances in that way. No business could 
consider treating its own finances in that way. It's only a government 
that looks to our pockets and to our resources to finance its party, 
only a government that's out of control, that has capitulated to 
practically fiscal hedonism, fiscal hedonism, to run up bills that are 
unconscionable for the next generation.
  I think we are looking at a time, Mr. Speaker, unlike any other in 
the history of the United States. That's why this health care debate 
plays into the center of where our economy is at.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm a former Federal tax litigation attorney, and I had 
done a study when I was in my post-doctorate program at William and 
Mary Law School down in Williamsburg, Virginia, back in the late 1980s. 
And at that time, the study came out that said the kids who are today 
about 22 years of age, when they get to be in their prime earning 
years, knowing what we know about the current demographics, the number 
of people who will be 65 or older, eligible for Medicare, those who 
will be 62 and older, eligible for Social Security, we know 
approximately how many Americans we have to support who will be age 62 
when today's current 22 years olds will be in their peak earning years.
  And what this study showed, Mr. Speaker, is those now-22-year-old 
children, those born back in about the year 1987, will look at an 
unprecedented debt load out of their paycheck. And here it is:
  Those kids will be looking at spending approximately 25 percent of 
their earnings just for Social Security. So imagine 25 percent of your 
earnings goes just to pay for Social Security.
  What else do we know? We know that Medicare is also an obligation 
that the Federal Government has made, a promise, if you will, that we 
have made to America's senior citizens. Medicare costs exceed those of 
Social Security. So if, then, America's young people, now 22 years of 
age, in their peak earning years have 25 percent of their income taken 
to support Social Security and if we know that Medicare is more than 
Social Security, those two components alone would consume 50 percent of 
the average person's paycheck in just a few years hence, 50 percent of 
the paycheck just going for Social Security and Medicare.
  That doesn't even contemplate Medicare part D, which is the 
pharmaceutical portion, a relatively new entitlement that has been put 
before the American people. So let's be very conservative and say 5 
percent of that young person's paycheck. That would be 25 percent for 
Social Security. Government would take another 25 percent for Medicare. 
Now we're up to 50. Let's say another 5 percent for Medicaid part D, 
and that's very conservative. Now we're at 55 percent.
  Well, what about the Federal income tax? That doesn't even 
contemplate what an individual would pay in Federal income tax. Federal 
income tax could easily be another 30 percent of that young person's 
income. Now we're up to 85 percent. For an American born in 1987, we 
are up to 85 percent of their income check going to the Federal 
Government just to pay for entitlement programs.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't include the State income tax program. 
In Minnesota, the State that I'm from, that could well be an additional 
8 percent, which would add up to 93 percent of an American's paycheck. 
An American born in 1987, when they get in their peak earning years, 
could be looking at a minimum of 93 percent of their paycheck going to 
pay just Social Security, Medicare, Medicare part D, Federal income 
tax, and State income tax.
  But, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't include property tax. Mr. Speaker, 
that does not include sales tax. So property tax, sales tax, gas tax, 
every-time-you-turn-around tax. There won't be enough money, Mr. 
Speaker, in the next generation of young people that are only now just 
beginning to earn their first W-2 wage withholding. Those young people 
are looking at a burden no other generation has ever yet contemplated.
  In the middle of this financial crisis that we are looking at, Mr. 
Speaker, now comes forward the health debate. And what is the solution 
put forward by President Obama and by the majority that controls the 
House of Representatives, the Democrat majority? We have one-party rule 
in Washington, D.C. One party controls every level of power. And what 
is the solution? Well, let's just have government take over the rest of 
health care. As if we already haven't obligated ourselves on health 
care, now the proposal being advanced is that the government would take 
over the rest of health care.

                              {time}  1515

  What would that mean?
  Well, we know at minimum, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, it would be an additional, perhaps, $990 billion in expenses. 
That's according to President Obama's figures. Yet what were the 
initial figures we were given when we were told of and were talked to 
about this government takeover of health care? Mr. Speaker, it was $2 
trillion, upwards of $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Why do we think that this isn't stretching things, $2 trillion?
  Well, because we know, when President Johnson implemented the modern 
welfare state in 1965, President Johnson and those here in Washington, 
D.C., estimated that the cost of Medicare to Americans would be about 
$9 billion, adjusting for inflation by 1990. What was the actual cost? 
The actual cost was $67 billion. The Federal Government only undershot 
its estimate by a factor of 7, but it wasn't just on Medicare. It was 
on hospitalization insurance. You can go down the list. One new 
revision of Medicare after another undershot the true cost to the 
American people of what Medicare would cost them down the road, 
sometimes by as much as 17 to 1. The Federal Government was off by that 
much.
  Well, what has that done to our budgets?
  That has caused us to go into a deficit mode so severe that now the 
Chinese are lecturing Americans. Chinese Communists are lecturing 
American free marketers on our out-of-control spending and on our debt. 
Why? Because China owns so much of our debt.
  Mr. Speaker, what are the options, if you will, that the Federal 
Government has in front of itself when it comes to paying for these 
government programs? Well, there are three:

[[Page 22565]]

  The Federal Government can either increase taxes or it can increase 
borrowing from countries like China, countries which are a lot more 
reluctant to purchase our debt. When we were a producing country--when 
we were making washing machines and irons and cars--other countries 
were only too happy to purchase our debt; but now that our new industry 
is producing more welfare, countries like China aren't quite so 
interested because they know we aren't actually producing a good. We're 
providing government welfare benefits. Now China is not quite so 
interested in purchasing our debt.
  So we can raise taxes on the American people--that's not going to 
work in a down economy--or we can issue more debt. That's not working. 
China is calling for throwing over the American dollar as the 
international currency and means of exchange. Now China, now the U.N., 
now Russia, now Brazil, now South America, now country after country is 
calling for a new international, one-world currency. This is a new 
event, Mr. Speaker. This is a new happening. Why? Because this is the 
greatest country that has ever been in the history of man. In 5,000 
years of recorded human history, there has never been a country greater 
or freer or more powerful than the United States of America. That is 
our richness and that is our legacy. Now, for the first time, we're 
hearing a call for the replacement of the U.S. dollar as the 
international means of exchange, to be replaced with a new 
international, one-world currency, probably regulated by a world 
regulator, perhaps under the International Monetary Fund.
  What would that mean for the dollar? What would that mean for the 
stability of our country economically? What would that mean for 
America's senior citizens who are dependent upon the Federal Government 
now for their health care through Medicare and for their Social 
Security/retirement? What does that mean for our senior citizens?
  Well, here is the third option that's available to the government 
when it comes to dealing with finances. Again, the government can tax 
our people. Ouch. That really hurt. The government is already whacking 
us a lot with our taxes.
  Then we talked about the area of borrowing. Well, other countries 
aren't too keen on that right now.
  What's the third option, Mr. Speaker? It's this: As a last resort, 
governments can do what the Weimar Republic did in the 1920s. They can 
print money. They can print money that's basically worthless. In some 
sense, the paper is worth more than what's printed on it. What that is 
and what that represents is the good faith, the hard work, the years, 
and the toil of the American people.
  Just this afternoon, I made a call to some constituents back in my 
district. One man named Richard told me that he was thinking about 
moving to Singapore. Richard said the reason he is moving to Singapore, 
Mr. Speaker, is that he spent his whole life working. He worked so 
hard. He took his American dollars, and he put them in the bank, and 
now he sees what our government has done. Our government has flooded 
the money supply with money that they've printed.
  From one of our leading financial papers, one gentleman told me that 
we had about $1 trillion in currency in circulation. We had about 1 
trillion U.S. dollars in circulation here in the United States. Last 
year, the Federal Reserve pumped an additional $1 trillion into the 
currency.
  Well, what does that mean?
  If you had a dollar in the bank when your government flooded the 
money supply with an additional $1 trillion on top of the $1 trillion 
we had with no more goods and services backing that money up, that 
meant that an American's dollar was only worth 50 cents.
  Well, that's why Richard was upset. He said to me, Congresswoman, I 
don't want to hold onto American dollars if my government is going to 
inflate its way out of this current problem. If they do that to pay 
their bills--to pay their Medicare bills, to pay their Social Security 
bills--then we're all poorer. We're not richer. We're poorer.
  That brings us to the context, Mr. Speaker, of our debate in health 
care, and that's why I believe we are seeing the American people 
soundly rejecting the Federal Government's taking over of health care--
yet one more area where it seems that it's wasting money.
  Again, a Gallup Poll was just released that showed, for the first 
time, the American people believe that this government wastes 50 
percent of every dollar it gets, which is why we should have an 
investigation. Truly, what amount of money does Congress waste? What 
actually goes to a true and a beneficial purpose? What are the 
alternatives for us as we look at health care?
  Today, 85 percent of Americans have health insurance. They like it. 
They enjoy it. One of our Democrat colleagues was on the floor here 
earlier this afternoon, and he said that the majority of doctors in our 
country support the government takeover of health care. Only he didn't 
call it the ``government takeover of health care,'' Mr. Speaker. He 
called it the ``public option,'' which is the government takeover of 
health care.
  Well, that isn't true. That isn't what doctors in this country 
believe. Surveys were sent out. There was a survey sent out by 
Investors Business Daily that has been reported for the last 7 days. 
They received surveys back from 28,000 physicians in the United States. 
They sent the surveys out to all physicians, and physicians responded 
back--28,000 physicians. Of those physicians, two-thirds of them said 
that they believe that the government takeover of health care will lead 
to diminished care in the United States. They believe that senior 
citizens will be worse off if the government takes over their health 
care.
  That's exactly what I'm hearing from my constituents as well and from 
senior citizens who don't care if it's a Republican plan or a Democrat 
plan. They don't care. They're very smart, Mr. Speaker. America's 
senior citizens are very smart. They're watching this debate carefully. 
They're watching. They're paying attention. They're listening to what 
the conversations are because they know they have the most to lose in 
this system.
  Why?
  President Obama was here, speaking to the 535 Members of Congress in 
a speech to the joint session of Congress. He spoke to all of America 
when he said he will be cutting the Medicare Advantage program. That's 
about $149 billion out of Medicare. He also said that he will have 
about $500 billion in savings from Medicare. Well, what does that mean? 
It means $500 billion that America's seniors will no longer be able to 
count on.
  That's not what we want to do to America's senior citizens. We can do 
so much better than this. We have a great option, great plans that do 
not put the government in charge. That is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that 
I would say to America's young people, to America's middle-aged and to 
our senior citizens. In the middle of the debate on health care, 
Americans really need to ask one question, and it is this:
  Once this health care bill goes through and is passed, will it give 
more power to the government and more control to the government over my 
health care or will it give me more control over my own health care? 
Will I have more options or will I have fewer?
  With every plan put forward so far by the Democrat majorities that 
run Washington, D.C.--whether it's our Democrat President or the 
Democrats who control the House or the Democrats who control the 
Senate--they've all run to the left, to the liberal option. They've all 
said there is only one way to handle this health care problem: Me. You 
need me. You need more government. That's what the liberals are saying 
in Congress, that government needs to be the one to take this over.
  Well, I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. The American people don't think 
so. They think this Congress wastes 50 cents of every dollar. They may 
be right. The American people are some of the sharpest people in the 
world, and they know when they've been had. We don't have to go down 
that road. There is a positive alternative which we can

[[Page 22566]]

embrace and which can immediately bring down costs.
  Again, 85 percent of the American people already enjoy health care, 
and they enjoy the health care that they have. For those who don't have 
health care today, a large percentage are illegal aliens. We have no 
business as American citizens being forced to subsidize and to pay for 
the health care of illegal aliens, of people who are in our country 
against our law. We have no obligation to pay for that health care. We 
also have a large segment of our population, Mr. Speaker, which makes 
over $75,000 a year. They could purchase their own health care. They 
simply choose not to. They choose to spend their money on other items. 
It's not their priority. We have a huge segment of our population which 
makes over $50,000 a year, which also chooses not to purchase health 
care. Many people in that category are between the ages of 18 and 35. 
They are, perhaps, without health care maybe for 4 months, so they roll 
the dice and think maybe they'll be healthy for the next 4 months and 
won't need it.
  Mr. Speaker, I've been in that situation. My husband and I were in 
that situation when we had children. We had a few months where we 
didn't have health care coverage, and we simply could not afford the 
very high rate that we would have had to have purchased by ourselves to 
have been able to cover ourselves and our children, so we rolled the 
dice. A lot of Americans do that.
  Yet there is a segment of our population which truly can't afford 
health care, and we have safety net after safety net after safety net 
that this body has put into place for people who truly, through no 
fault of their own, can't afford to purchase health care. There 
certainly are people in that category. We will always have that safety 
net. What can we do? We have a positive alternative. It's very simple. 
This is what we can do:
  Every American can purchase and own their own health care. Today, 
it's not that way, but we could be that way. Today, we have American 
employers owning most people's health care. So it's either our employer 
who owns our health care or it's the Federal Government or it's the 
State government--one of the two. It's either the government or an 
employer who owns our health care. Very few Americans actually own 
their own health care, but they would like to. It's the same way they 
own their car insurance. It's the same way they own their homeowners' 
insurance. It's the same way when they go out and purchase any other 
item. They would like to be able to purchase their own health 
insurance. We can make that possible for them. So this is where we 
start:
  We start by letting every American purchase and own their own health 
insurance coverage. How do we do that? We allow Americans to band 
together with anyone they want to. Maybe it will be with people who 
live in their communities. Maybe it's all teachers. Maybe it's farmers. 
Maybe it's Realtors. You can band together. Maybe it's other senior 
citizens. You can band together so you can have a large purchasing 
power. It's like a credit union would act. It's with people in the 
geographical area. Maybe you live in a rural area, Mr. Speaker. People 
could band together, and they could purchase health insurance as a 
pool. They own it. They purchase it as a pool, together in a big, large 
group so that they can have better purchasing power. It's just like if 
you go to Sam's Club or if you go to Costco. They're able to offer 
cheaper prices because they buy such a large volume of the product. 
Well, let's let American citizens do that.
  If it's good enough for Sam's Club, if it's good enough for Costco, 
why can't it be good enough for the average American person?

                              {time}  1530

  You have banded together with whoever you want, buy your own 
insurance. Then, Mr. Speaker, we let people buy whatever level of 
coverage they want. Maybe they want to buy a policy that is expensive 
that has all the bells and whistles on it. Or maybe, Mr. Speaker they 
only want a small amount of coverage.
  Maybe they only want hospitalization. So in case something happens to 
them, they have to go to the hospital for a heart attack or for cancer 
treatments or they get laid up somehow and they have to go to the 
hospital. They only want catastrophic coverage, truly catastrophic. 
That would be a very inexpensive plan.
  Why don't we allow people to do that? In my home State of Minnesota, 
Mr. Speaker, we are the most, if not the most, we are one of the most 
heavily mandated States in the country. In other words, our State 
legislature, where I used to be a State senator, we have about 70 
different mandates. In other words, 70 different requirements before 
any insurance company can sell an insurance policy.
  An insurance company might decide I would like to sell this low-cost, 
low-frills insurance plan. I think that maybe I could sell it for, oh, 
$60 a month.
  Well, in my State, an insurance company can't do that. Why? They are 
prohibited by law. Because my State mandates that an insurance company 
has to have 70 different requirements before they can sell the policy.
  In other words, they have to sell a Cadillac policy rather than a 
Kia. No offense to Kia owners, no offense to Cadillac owners.
  But the point is simply this. We should allow insurance companies to 
sell truly a wide variety of products. Isn't that what President Obama 
said when he was here in this Chamber? He said he wants choice. He 
wants competition.
  Well, his words don't line up with his actions. There is a little 
problem here with what the President has said. How is it choice and 
competition if government is the choice, if, after 5 years time, as the 
House bill has said, all insurance plans have to look exactly like the 
government plan?
  You could have 45,000 different insurance plans but so what? If they 
all look exactly the same, and if the Federal Government controls what 
you would spend on premiums for that policy, this is nonsense.
  The thing is, Mr. Speaker, the American people are too smart. They 
are seeing through the rhetoric from the President and from the 
majorities that dominate this Congress. That's why, Mr. Speaker, the 
American people are embracing our plan, which has rested on the 
groundwork of freedom, which is about the American people owning their 
own insurance policy, banding together with whomever they want to, to 
purchase whatever level of coverage they want from any State in the 
country.
  I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, you will see States all across this 
great country change the number of mandates that they require on 
insurance policies. Their State can be the go-to State for issuing 
insurance policies, and from there, as a former tax lawyer, I would 
recommend this: I would recommend that every American be allowed to set 
aside, tax free, in an account, money that every American believes that 
they want to set aside to pay for their own health care. It's 
completely tax free. No taxes paid on it.
  If they have a catastrophic event, where their expenses out-pace 
their tax-free money, they can fully deduct the cost of their premiums, 
of their copays, of their medicines, of their medical devices, of their 
surgeries, of their hearing aides, of their chiropractic care, of their 
acupuncture care. Whatever it is, they would be allowed to fully deduct 
that on their income tax returns. In other words, truly own and take 
responsibility for your own health care.
  Then from there, finally, true lawsuit reform. Everybody knows this. 
You ask a doctor what do we need to do? Lawsuit reform, without a 
doubt. Eighty-three percent of all doctors sued in this country today 
are found not liable for the alleged problem. What's happening?
  We are seeing now today people filing lawsuit after lawsuit. And 
rather than go through the hassle and worry about a jury award, doctors 
are settling, Mr. Speaker, when they don't want to settle, when they 
know they are innocent, when they know they didn't do anything wrong.

[[Page 22567]]

  This isn't helping anyone, not anyone, not even the trial lawyers. 
Because, why? It's bringing down this great country. We truly do have 
the finest health care that has ever been offered to people ever in the 
history of the world. From my State of Minnesota, we are a leader in 
medical ally and medical devices. We have Medtronic. We have Boston 
Scientific. We have Guidance. We have great companies in Minnesota that 
have contributed mightily to medical advances and breakthroughs.
  And now what? Now the government wants to impose a 10 percent tax on 
these medical devices? Why would we do this? Who gains? Who gains from 
all of this?
  We have a positive alternative. Rather than the government taking it 
over, rather than the government ramping up expenses, rather than 
taking away choice from America's most vulnerable citizens, we could 
instead embrace a positive alternative where Americans own their own 
health care, ban together with more people so they have purchasing 
power, purchasing any level of care they want from anyone they want in 
any State they want, putting aside tax-free money, deducting on their 
income tax return, their orthodontia, their hearing aids, their 
eyeglasses, truly owning their health insurance. Then they finally get 
rid of these evil lawsuits that are eating up so much of America's 
substance.
  This is a positive alternative. It won't break the bank. When our 
country is functionally bankrupt now, this won't break the bank. It 
will cause our country to turn itself right-side up so we can get back 
on track, get people back to work. We want to be able to see this 
positive alternative.
  Right now, Mr. Speaker, I am joined by two great physicians here in 
our body. One is Dr. John Fleming, and he is a new Member of Congress 
with great ideas.
  Another Member in our Congress is Dr. Phil Gingrey, who we are just 
so proud of for his courage. He offered an amendment in his committee 
that would keep illegal aliens from having access to taxpayer-
subsidized health care. President Obama told America that illegal 
aliens will not receive taxpayer-subsidized health care.
  That was after the Democrats in this body rejected Dr. Gingrey's 
amendment that would have denied taxpayer subsidized coverage to 
illegal aliens. We have a lot we can talk about.
  I want to now turn over to my colleague, Dr. John Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank my colleague, Gentlewoman Bachmann, for 
providing leadership in this hour and particularly on the subject of 
health care.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, there is really a fundamental economic, that I 
think we always have to go back to. I practiced family medicine for 
over 30 years, still practice from time to time.
  There is something very important that we all need to learn. That is 
that, yes, Medicare and Medicaid is government-run health care. If you 
ask the average person who has Medicare, they will say they are happy 
with it.
  But there is a very important reason why they say this. Medicare 
currently pays a fraction of the actual cost and delivery of Medicare 
care.
  So who pays the rest? The rest is paid for by private insurance. 
Private insurance today subsidizes Medicare and Medicaid. If you ask 
the average physician in practice, he or she will tell you that they 
can only have a certain number of Medicare and Medicaid patients in 
their office. Otherwise, they become insolvent.
  So when the President says, Well, we need to have this government-run 
option to pull the cost of private insurance down, that really defies 
reasoning. It's really upside down from what economically is going on.
  What is happening is, when you make your private insurance payment to 
the tune of about $1,800 per family per year, what you are really 
finding is that that is the subsidy that goes for Medicare.
  So, if you enlarge Medicare or government-run health care in general, 
and you artificially depress the price, which is what the President and 
H.R. 3200, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle call for, what 
will in fact happen is you will cause the cost of health care, private 
insurance premiums, to actually accelerate.
  Under this plan, the employers are given the option: They can either 
pay 8 percent as a fine, if you will, or a tax, and dump their 
employees into this plan, this government-run option, or they can try 
to continue to keep up with the growing cost of private insurance. Over 
time and through competition, employers will be forced to dump their 
employees into enlarging, if you will, a black hole, a public option or 
government-run medicine.
  What we end up with at the very end of the day is a very small 
flange, if you will, of private insurance, that which we all know and 
appreciate today. And everyone else, of course, is in this large 
government-run system.
  Who will be left in the private insurance market? Well, it will be 
the very healthy, it will be the elite and, of course, Members of 
Congress.
  I proposed House Resolution 615, and I have many of my colleagues, 
now, who have signed on to it and over a million Americans who have 
signed in support of it, that simply says that if a Congressman votes 
for the public option, he or she should be willing to sign up for it 
themselves. So far I have not had one person on the other side of the 
aisle who has also signed up for that.
  In closing, let me say that we also need to focus on who the insured 
group is. You have heard this number: 46 million Americans who are 
uninsured. Well, who is that group?
  About 10 million of them actually are not Americans at all. They are 
illegal immigrants. Ten to perhaps 17 million of them are young healthy 
adults, what we call the invincibles, who have opted out of the 
insurance, who have decided it's not worth the money because they are 
healthy anyway.
  We also have a number who are eligible for Medicaid but simply don't 
sign up for it. Really what we have is 10 million Americans who qualify 
for health insurance as Americans, but they can't afford it because of 
a preexisting illness or a current illness; the expense is too high. 
Perhaps they own a small business or they are employees of a small 
business. Because the risk pool is so small, they simply can't find 
affordable insurance. All of that is fixable for that targeted 10 
million Americans who want insurance but can't buy it.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, what our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle want us to do is totally dismantle the best health care system in 
the world and put in place a UK- or Canadian-style medicine, form of 
medicine, form of health care, which provides universal coverage but 
not universal care.
  What do I mean by that? Certainly, I think we can all agree that care 
delayed is care denied.
  In America today, those who are uninsured still can go to the 
emergency room and, by law, be treated for whatever ails them, even if 
they don't have the ability to pay for it. In fact, we are not even 
allowed to ask them, as providers, whether they can afford that.
  If someone has needed surgery, perhaps, or they need to be admitted 
to the hospital for lifesaving treatment, it's going to be done. Now, 
you take the UK, you take Canada and much of Europe, yes, they have 
coverage. But what good is coverage if it takes 4 years to get the 
treatment?
  The average waiting time in Canada today is a year to get an MRI 
scan. Then after the scan is done, you get in line for the needed 
surgery. Talking in my district, a lot of folks in my district have 
relatives back in Canada. One lady said, Well, my brother tore his 
rotator cuff, but it took a year to get an MRI. When he finally saw the 
doctor, it was too late to repair it. The definition of elective 
surgery in Canada is surgery that's not lifesaving. For us, elective 
surgery is surgery that you elect to have. You don't necessarily need 
to have it.
  Mr. Speaker, I really think that we on this side of the aisle have 
won the debate on this issue. The American people agree with us today, 
56 versus 32 percent, that the current health care we have today is 
better than this Obama care or this government-run option.
  The problem is, we still have Members of Congress, we have Members of

[[Page 22568]]

the Senate and even a President, who insist on going down that road and 
taking one-sixth of our entire economy and reforming it into a 
socialist government-run system. I think if we look back on what the 
government is doing today and what it has done in the past, whether you 
are talking about the post office, which has a $9 billion deficit, 
whether you are talking about Medicare itself, which will run out of 
money completely within 8 years, and all the fraud, waste and abuse 
that exists there, and the $350 billion that our President says he is 
going to save out of that, when after 40 years not one single 
politician has been able to find the solution to that problem. I think 
it's really the wrong decision to make, to have more government control 
of our health care.
  With that, I appreciate so much my good friend, Michele Bachmann, for 
inviting me and allowing me to participate in this discussion today.

                              {time}  1545

  Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman so much for his remarks 
and for his comments. It is tremendous credibility to be able to come 
here on the floor and speak as a physician. You've had years of service 
treating and healing patients all across the United States. You look 
into the eyes of your patients and know the fear that they feel, 
knowing that they may lose some of the finest health care ever. And we 
don't want to see our physicians have their hands bound.
  As a matter of fact, I just want to refer to, again, Investors 
Business Daily, which did a seven-part series, and they have said that 
45 percent of American doctors may leave the profession if government 
takes over health care. As a matter of fact, doctors, more than anyone, 
detest the current status quo and the role played by insurance 
companies.
  They want to see us change health care, which we agree. But this is 
not the route to go. And physicians are telling us that. As a matter of 
fact, two-thirds of practicing physicians said that senior citizen care 
will suffer under the government's plan. Three of five doctors think 
that drug development of new drugs will also be thwarted. Also, they 
see that fewer doctors will be entering the new profession of medicine.
  Before I hand this over to my colleague, Dr. Gingrey of Georgia, I 
would like to just add something that we saw happen. There was an 
article in The Wall Street Journal. This just happened. Now we have a 
directive last week from one of our Senators, Mr. Baucus. He has 
ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana for 
trying to educate their enrollees in their Advantage plan about the 
fact of the Medicare Advantage.
  This is very concerning. We're seeing a United States Senator calling 
for an investigation of a company that is communicating with its 
enrollees in its companies. So a company with its customers is simply 
communicating material and now a company is given a gag order by the 
government?
  Well, this didn't occur with the AARP. The government isn't telling 
the AARP, which also offers Medicare Advantage plans. They aren't 
putting a gag order on them.
  This is really concerning, Mr. Speaker, because we can't have the 
Federal Government engaging in censorship. That's what this is, pure 
and simple.
  The Obama administration and Democrat Senators are calling for 
censorship. They want to stop insurance companies from communicating 
with their customers about what government takeover of health care 
might mean for them. This is unconscionable. Who would have ever 
thought we would live in a time when government would be calling for 
censoring a company because the company is not communicating the 
message that government wants it to communicate.
  Well, with that, I want to hand the next few minutes over to my 
colleague from Georgia, the great Dr. Phil Gingrey, who courageously 
has offered amendment after amendment after amendment in committee to 
try and make it clear that no bureaucrat should ever come between you 
and your doctor, and also that no illegal alien should ever receive 
taxpayer-subsidized health care.
  These issues were all brought up by the President in his joint 
session speech. Dr. Gingrey put Members of Congress on record. And 
that's why the American people are concerned--and rightly so.
  Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the 
gentlelady from Minnesota for carrying this hour of important 
information in regard to the health care reform proposal, H.R. 3200, 
and also my good friend and colleague, physician colleague from the 
great State of Louisiana, Dr. John Fleming.
  As the gentlelady has said, before coming to Congress from the State 
of Georgia, I spent something like 32 years practicing medicine; 26 as 
an OB/GYN physician. The physician Members in this body--and there are 
about 17 of us; 5 on the Democratic side, 12 on the Republican side--
probably have over 400 years of clinical experience combined in regard 
to health care.
  We bring to this issue, I think, a fund of knowledge that needs to be 
listened to--and listened very carefully to. Not that we're necessarily 
the experts on the last word, but I think we are a very important word.
  As Representative Bachmann was saying, the President right here, Mr. 
Speaker, 2 weeks ago, as he spoke to the Nation about the need for 
health care reform and he had a joint session here--the Senate, the 
House of Representatives, his Cabinet, the Supreme Court Justices--the 
President was talking about promises that he had made to the Nation in 
regard to health care reform.
  You remember, Mr. Speaker, that was when one of the Members on our 
side of the aisle in a moment of extreme passion and emotion suggested 
that the President was guilty of serial disingenuity.
  But as we look at the speech and we look at the things that the 
President said about health care reform and you go through it almost 
line by line, certainly there are some statements that need to be 
questioned. And we will continue to question, and I think the American 
people will continue to question, Mr. Speaker. And they deserve 
answers. They deserve straightforward and accurate answers.
  I have a little chart, Mr. Speaker, that I want my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle this afternoon to pay close attention to. It's 
called the Obama Health Care Test. This is just sort of an abstract, 
really, of a much larger test. But I think it gives the Members and 
their constituents an idea of where this test is going and what the 
likely grade would be.
  The President said, ``The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to 
those who are here illegally.'' Well, quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 
3200, that bill that has passed three committees of this body, 
including the committee that I serve on, Energy and Commerce, well, 
H.R. 3200 fails in regard to the President's pledge that the reforms 
would not apply to those who are here illegally because in this bill, 
while it says no one in this country illegally will be eligible for any 
government subsidies in this health reform plan to help them purchase 
health insurance, it takes out the provision that currently exists in 
law that says if you are going to be a beneficiary of a safety net 
program such as Medicaid in the 50 States, or the CHIP program, the 
Children's Health Insurance Program--a great program, but it's heavily 
federally funded with taxpayer dollars--in those programs you have to 
show verification: a Social Security card, a verifiable number; in some 
cases in some States, a photo identification. All of that is taken out 
in H.R. 3200.
  So, quite honestly, that first statement the President makes, H.R. 
3200 fails on that pledge.
  The second quote I would like to have my colleagues be aware of, the 
President said--and this, again, is in his speech 2 week ago: ``Nothing 
in the plan requires you to change what you have.''
  H.R. 3200 fails miserably in regard to the President's pledge of: if 
you like what you have, you can keep it. That certainly is not true for 
those 10 million of our Medicare recipients--that's

[[Page 22569]]

25 percent, by the way, of everybody that's on Medicare that gets their 
coverage through Medicare Advantage. And they pick Medicare Advantage 
because it covers so much more. And I think Dr. Fleming spoke about 
that.
  Under traditional fee-for-service Medicare, you can't even, Mr. 
Speaker, go to the doctor for a routine annual physical and have it 
paid for, other than that first entry level when you turn 65. But under 
Medicare Advantage, certainly you do; and you can on an annual basis. 
You don't have to be sick to be seen.
  You can get coverage for things like hearing aids, and you have the 
opportunity when you get your prescriptions filled that a nurse will 
call and make sure that you're taking those medications.
  So wellness and prevention, two aspects of improving health care in 
this country that the President, the Democratic majority has continued 
to stress. That is a huge part of Medicare Advantage. That's why we 
created Medicare Advantage and that's why 25 percent of our seniors 
choose that as the delivery system that they get.
  In this bill, to help pay for it, $500 billion, Mr. Speaker, $500 
billion, is ripped out of the Medicare system, and $170 billion for 
Medicare Advantage. That is a 17 percent cut per year over the next 10 
years, each and every year, cutting that program by 17 percent.
  It's estimated now by the Congressional Budget Office that at least 3 
million people--that's 30 percent of those who are on Medicare 
Advantage--will lose that coverage because of the plan to pay for this 
massive new government takeover of our health care system.
  Again, going back to the test, nothing in the plan requires you to 
change what you have. That is just absolutely, Mr. Speaker, not true. 
H.R. 3200 fails on that account.
  I'm going to skip down to the last question on my little mini-test in 
the interest of time. The President says, I will not sign a plan that 
adds one dime to our deficit. I will not sign a plan that adds one dime 
to our deficit.
  Well, again, Mr. Speaker, let's go back to what the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office says--and the director, Mr. Elmendorf, is 
chosen by the Speaker of the House and by the Democratic leadership. 
And he says this bill is not fully paid for. In fact, $260 billion are 
not paid for. That's a little bit more, Mr. Speaker, than one thin 
dime, isn't it, $260 billion?
  So I could go on and on and on. But the Obama health care test, quite 
honestly--my colleagues may have trouble seeing this--but we have a 
grade in the left-hand corner, and it's a big old fat F.
  The American people understand that, and the American people are not 
happy with it. They're not happy with this idea also of a public option 
that they know and that we on this side of the aisle know is going to 
lead to a government takeover.
  I'm going to close out, Mr. Speaker, so I can yield the time back to 
the gentlelady from Minnesota so she can yield to other speakers. But I 
want to close out with this: in our committee yesterday, as we 
continued to mark up some amendments to H.R. 3200, one of the most 
powerful members of that committee on the Democratic majority side made 
this statement: ``When there is a marked failure in this country, the 
government must step in.''
  Now let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. One of the most powerful members 
of the most powerful committees drafting and writing this health care 
legislation made this statement: ``When there is a marked failure, the 
government must step in.'' I guess just like they did with Government 
Motors, just like they did with AIG, just like they want to do now with 
health care.
  That's not the American way. And I don't think the American people 
want that. We should have the freedom under our Constitution to succeed 
or fail and not have the government come in and take over. That sounds 
like some other country that, thank God, I was not born and raised in.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I yield back to the gentlelady from Minnesota 
for a question from the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you to the gentleman from Georgia.
  I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota and the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Dr. Gingrey, I wanted to just step in and reinforce your statement in 
looking at your poster. As ranking member of the Immigration 
Subcommittee, I want to reinforce the analysis that you've laid out, 
especially on that first point. The President said, The reforms I'm 
proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
  H.R. 3200, not only has it been the vote in your committee, a vote of 
29-28 that voted down the Deal amendment, which would have required 
proof of citizenship, which has been a consistent standard in Federal 
law under Medicaid, that pattern is played out here. Democrats want to 
fund illegals in this program and many others.
  There is also a vote in the Ways and Means Committee that is 
consistent. That was a straight party-line vote on a very similar 
amendment that would have required proof of citizenship.
  And the third piece of proof that you were right and your critics are 
wrong and my critics are wrong would be the Congressional Budget 
Office's estimate of the cost of funding illegals in this. Their 
estimate leaves as many as 5.6 million that would qualify under the 
language of H.R. 3200--5.6 million illegals.
  The fourth reinforcement of your statement would be Congressional 
Research Services, who reached a similar conclusion, although from a 
different approach and a little bit different language.
  So there's four ways that says that this bill will fund illegals. The 
President has denied that, and now he wants to simply legalize the 
illegals in order to be able to maintain his statement that he's not 
proposing anything that will fund illegals. That's a pretty deft 
maneuver, if you can get by with it. But this is a modern world, and we 
see it happening.
  Then I drop down to the statement that the President said, which is, 
I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits.

                              {time}  1600

  All I need to say about that is the President said he will not sign a 
bill that has earmarks. We know he has signed bills that had thousands 
of earmarks in them, so I don't make that statement at face value. And 
I don't make allegations about labels of the President.
  No Federal tax dollars will be used to fund abortions. We know 
historically if there is not a specific prohibition, Federal funds will 
be used to fund abortions, 300,000 of them in the first couple years 
alone after Roe v. Wade.
  Nothing in the plan requires you to change what you have. No, 
probably not specifically requiring you to change what you have, but 
there are certainly many threats as to the viability of the health 
insurance companies and the existence of the policies after the new 
health choices administration czar gets done writing new rules.
  So this is ambiguous language designed to cause people to believe 
what they want to hear. But upon analysis, I rise to support your 
analysis, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I think that is 
something that we wanted to consider when the President was here was 
speaking to the joint session of Congress. He made it clear there were 
some large details that had yet to be worked out. Essentially what that 
is is the President saying to the American people, Trust me. Trust me. 
Not only the American people, but to the Senators and the Members of 
Congress that were here serving as representatives of the people in 
this Chamber. Trust me. Because the details aren't worked out. There 
are so many vagaries. We don't know, for instance, how the bill will be 
paid for. Trust me, the President says.
  Then the President talks about various commissions that will be set 
up. We know another health care czar will

[[Page 22570]]

be set up in the bill. A czar? The American people are already saying 
government is wasting too much money. The American people's opinion is 
that 50 percent of every dollar we spend is wasted, and now we are 
supposed to give authority to a health care czar to basically write the 
bill over a 4-year period because as the current bill, H.R. 3200, is 
written, it is very interesting, who is the enforcer of this bill? 
Well, none other than the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. That's the 
enforcer of this bill. Loads of new taxes larded onto the backs of the 
American taxpayer. Loads of new taxes enforced by the IRS. My goodness, 
Mr. Speaker, could we add insult to injury to the American people? It 
is amazing.
  And the taxes would be scheduled to go in place January 1. In just a 
few months, the taxes will go into effect on insurance companies, on 
individuals, on businesses. The taxes will go into place January 1, 
2010. Well, what about the care? What about all of the new care that 
people are going to get? Oh, that doesn't go into effect for another 3, 
4 years down the road. What?
  So we are paying for this with larded new taxes to the Federal 
Government for 3 or 4 years, and then the care comes down? And we are 
supposed to trust this administration? We are supposed to trust this 
Democrat majority that they will figure it all out and somehow it won't 
cost any money and we won't have to worry about it. We are going to 
bring another 47 million people into the system, not add any new 
doctors, and we are going to actually cut costs? That is like saying 
you can eat a chocolate cake and it has no calories. This doesn't add 
up. That's why there is no credibility on the government takeover of 
health care, which is why our colleague, Dr. Gingrey, offered his very 
simple amendments, put up or shut up.
  Will illegal aliens be covered or not? Oops, Democrats apparently 
think they will.
  Will abortion be covered by taxpayers? Our colleague, Joe Pitts, put 
that in. Oops, I guess that it will because they didn't take it out.
  What about bureaucrats? Will bureaucrats be able to substitute their 
decisions for you and those of your doctor? Will a bureaucrat get 
between you and your doctor? That was offered by Dr. Gingrey. Oops, I 
guess it is up to a bureaucrat now, not a doctor.
  There is a reason why the American people are panicking on this 
issue, and we are right there with them. Because we think you deserve 
better than that. Because, Mr. Speaker, this is the American people's 
money; and because, Mr. Speaker, this is about life and death. That's 
why we have such a great alternative. That's why we say to the American 
people, you own your own insurance policy. You band together with 
whoever you want to buy that policy. You buy it from anyone you want to 
buy it from. You buy it in any amount you want to buy it, and you buy 
it anywhere in the United States. And that's why we say buy it with 
your own tax free money and deduct the rest on your income tax return. 
And then let's truly have lawsuit reform. That is 95 percent of the 
problems; done just like that. What does it cost the Treasury? I 
guarantee it doesn't bankrupt it, not the way that this $2 trillion 
monstrosity will do.
  That is why we are here this afternoon, because we have a positive 
alternative to the government takeover of health care. We can do far 
better.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I just want to refer back to the other night and the President's 
speech and the issue of whether or not illegal immigrants were covered. 
That was the point at which my good friend, Mr. Wilson, Joe Wilson from 
South Carolina, made his comment, and it kind of upset the applecart a 
little bit, if you will.
  But, Mr. Speaker, after the speech was over with and the President 
was back at the White House, I don't know, possibly talking with Rahm 
Emanuel or David Axelrod and they went through the speech, went through 
H.R. 3200 and said, Mr. President, the gentleman from South Carolina 
was a little bit on the rude side, but by golly, maybe he was a little 
bit on the right side as well and we need to do something about this 
verification, because if we don't, then illegal immigrants are going to 
be able to take advantage of our hardworking taxpayers across this 
country.
  And so the President in subsequent speeches, and on Sunday morning he 
was on a number of shows and he is continuing to give speeches, he made 
the comment, you know, we absolutely do need a verification system very 
similar to what we currently have with our safety net programs that I 
referenced earlier, Medicaid and the SCHIP program.
  So I think the President is certainly paying attention and is maybe 
getting a little more careful about understanding and reading those--
how many pages are in the bill, 1,200?
  Mrs. BACHMANN. There are 1,018.
  I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman from Georgia and 
the gentleman from Iowa. Clearly, the American people know we can do 
better. That is what we will do.

                          ____________________