6:39 PM EDT
George LeMieux, R-FL

Mr. LeMIEUX. So you are not going to be able to keep your health insurance, for a lot of Americans, if you like it, and the cost of health insurance is not going to go down. Those two myths have been busted.

Myth No. 3: This plan, the Democratic plan, will lower costs, lower the cost of health care overall. We have all heard about--and I said before the rising cost of health care, 130 percent in the past 10 years. There is an expression, ``bending the cost curve down,'' making sure that we can get control of costs. This plan is not going to do that. This plan does not have mechanisms, true mechanisms in it to really control costs.

In today's Washington Post, Robert Samuelson takes on the President's claim that his plan will control costs.

In this article, he talks about the fact that when people get insurance they use more health services; that spending rises and by the government's latest forecast health spending goes from 17 percent of the economy in 2009 to 19 percent in 2019.

According to the CMS Actuary, he estimates overall national health expenditures under this bill will increase by an estimated total of $222 billion during 2010 to 2019.

It is also going to increase the government's share of health care spending. According to the CBO, under the legislation, national outlays for health care would increase by $210 billion over the next 10 years. So we are just chasing our tails. We are going to put a lot more money into health care, but we are not going to reduce costs.

How could we reduce costs? How do we get at the problem of increased health care? Well, we could try to foster more competition among health insurance companies instead of creating these subsidies, which is going to plow more money into the insurance companies.

We could make the insurance companies compete across State lines. That is one of the ideas the Republicans have brought forward. We also could go after meaningful lawsuit reform. There is one estimate we would save more than $50 billion a year if we had meaningful lawsuit reform.

My colleague, Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, talks about the fact, being a practicing physician, that doctors are engaged in defensive medicine, and when thousands of kids across this country this year get hit in the nose with a baseball they are going to show up at the emergency room. Instead of just watching the patient and making sure the kid is going to be OK, they are going to order a CT scan even if one is not necessary because that has become the standard operating procedure in

order to protect the doctor from lawsuits.

The CBO says if we had real medical malpractice reform, we could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade. We also do not have transparency. Here is the essential problem with health care costs. We do not know what anything costs.

In the next couple of days my wife and I are going to be fortunate enough to have our fourth child. She is due any day now. When we go to the hospital, we are going to get back--after that baby is born, just like we have done with the last three kids, we are going to get back a bill. It is going to be page after page after page of things that we cannot understand.

At the bottom of the bill, we will pay some small fraction because we have good health insurance in the Senate. We will pay some small fraction of the total bill, and we will never question the pages and pages and pages of line items of information we do not understand.

We will not because we do not have to pay for it, and we, as consumers, have been removed from the transaction in health insurance because of third-party payers, whether it be Medicare, Medicaid, or insurance companies. We are not involved in that transaction.

Now, let me give you a different example. If we had to look at that bill because we were responsible for a portion of it because we were given, say, a tax credit to go out and buy insurance, and we were trying to get the most bang for the buck, and they tried to add $75 for a bedpan or gauze or for Band-Aids, Mrs. LeMieux would not pay for that. Mrs. LeMieux would be in there saying: Wait a minute. I can go to Target and I can get Band-Aids for $1.50, not $75.

I guarantee you that the men and women of this country, if they really had to look at those bills because they really had to pay them, we would not have these exploding costs. We also would not have all of the cost shifting that is going around.

The dirty secret about health care is that if I have insurance, my full payment on insurance or close to the full payment is going to pay for the Medicare patient and the Medicaid patient because Medicare and Medicaid do not pay enough for the services they render.

The hospitals cost shift all the money around. At the end of the day, we don't have a transparent system or a market-driven system. What we should do is give every American who needs it a tax credit to buy health insurance on their own. If they were out in the marketplace, that would lower cost, because competition would reign and they would insist on bang for their buck. But that is not in this bill. We know now that, one, you will not be able to keep, in a lot of cases, your health insurance,

if you like it. We know, two, it is not going to reduce your cost of health care. And we know, three, it will not lower the cost of health care in general. Those myths have been busted.

Let me go to the next one, myth No. 4: The Democrats' plan will reduce the deficit. We have heard this estimate that over $100 billion is going to be saved over the next 10 years. Not true. The way this is scored or evaluated by the CBO is that whatever you send them, they have to give you an answer back on the confines and the specifications of what you sent. So the Democrats' bill has 6 years of spending or benefits and 10 years of taxes. If they have 10 years of taxes and only 6 years of spending,

then they can get to a situation where the CBO will come back and say: It is going to reduce the deficit. But if you compare apples to apples, spending to deficit, if you compare spending to taxes, we know it is going to run a deficit. You cannot create a new

entitlement program and not run a deficit. It is going to cost us, by some estimates, more than $400 billion over a 10-year period, in the first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion in the next 10 years. We know that myth is busted. It is not going to reduce the deficit.

Let me also say this is going to be a budget buster for States. The States, unlike the Federal Government, have to make ends meet. The States have balanced budget requirements. As we increase the requirements of Medicaid, which this bill does, then we will be putting increased burdens upon our States. Our States are going to have to find more money to put into Medicaid. They can't print money like the Federal Government. They can't spend more than they take in. What is going to happen? They are

going to have to cut other programs, or they will have to raise taxes. What is going to get hurt? I can cite the example of Florida where they are suffering under a huge and emerging Medicaid problem. Medicaid and Health and Human Services is the No. 1 portion of the budget of the

State of Florida. It grows every year. So what loses out? Education, money for teachers and schools, law enforcement, protecting the environment, and economic stimulus. Florida has to live [Page: S1507]

within its means, unlike the Federal Government.

This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Governors of both sides of the aisle are very concerned about the increased mandates placed upon States. Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee called this bill the mother of all unfunded mandates. The head of Washington State's Medicaid Program believes that States facing severe financial distress may say they have to get out of the Medicaid Program altogether.

CBO released its first estimate of expected discretionary spending under this bill, confirming that $10 to $20 billion in discretionary spending over the next decade will be used to implement this legislation. We are going to spend $10 to $20 billion to implement this bill; $5 to $10 billion to the IRS and to Health and Human Services. Also in terms of this topic, of looking at how the plan will reduce the deficit, which it will not, we know this is going to be a $1 trillion program over time.

With rare exception, when this Congress creates a program, especially an entitlement program, it does not stay within its estimates. It grows and grows.

We have a debt. When I first came to the Senate and had the privilege to serve here back in September of last year, we were at something like $11.6 or $11.7 trillion. Now we are already at $12.4 trillion. It is unsustainable.

The fifth myth: Medicare cuts won't affect seniors. This bill cuts half of a trillion dollars out of Medicare. Some say this is savings. The money that is going to be saved is not going back into Medicare to prolong the life of Medicare. We had an amendment from my colleague Senator Gregg who said that any savings would have to go into Medicare. The majority party defeated that amendment.

It makes no sense to me that we would take half a trillion dollars out of Medicare to create a new entitlement program. I can't go back to my seniors in Florida, more than 3 million of them, and say: Your Medicare Program is already facing insolvency in about 7 years, but we are going to take a half a trillion dollars out of it now to create a new health care program.

This could not be good for seniors. On its effect on Medicare, there was a letter from the CBO Director to the majority leader, Senator Reid. He warned that while the effects of the cuts to Medicare remain unclear, they could reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care. Let's go through the cuts: $135 billion from hospitals; $120 billion from Medicare Advantage; nearly $15 billion from nursing homes; $40 billion from home health agencies, $7 billion from hospice. The CMS Actuary

says that many of the Medicare cuts are unrelated to the providers' cost of furnishing services to beneficiaries. That means it is not about savings. That means the money is being taken from Medicare, robbing Peter to pay Paul. He concludes it is doubtful that providers could reduce

cost to keep up with these cuts. The CMS Actuary also finds that because of the bill's severe cuts to Medicare, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program.

What does this mean in plain language? We are not paying these health care providers enough under Medicare, but we are going to take out still more money, and they will not be Medicare providers anymore. They will not provide health care for seniors. If you want to see the future of this, look at Medicaid. Medicaid is even one step worse in trouble than Medicare is. We know now that folks who are entering into the Medicaid system who are trying to find a specialist in a metropolitan area, half

of them can't find a specialist. We know in Medicare, according to a June 2008 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission Report, that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed had trouble finding a primary care doctor. That is up from 24 percent in 2007. If the doctor is not in, it is not health care reform.

How can I go back to my seniors in Florida and say: We are creating a new program by taking money out of your program, and you may not be able to find a doctor who is going to see you anymore? That is not conscionable.

Florida will be disproportionately affected by these cuts. It has the second highest population of seniors and highest concentration of seniors in the Nation at 19 percent. Let me tell you how it will specifically hurt one portion of health care for seniors, home health care. I talked to Ron Malone, vice president of Gentiva Health Services, one of the largest providers of home health services in Florida. He said: Look, it is not going to hurt us so much. We are a big company. We can spread costs.

We will get more market share. But it is going to hurt the smaller companies, and a lot of the smaller companies are going to go out of business.

How is that health care reform? Who do we owe an obligation to provide health care more than to our seniors?

I recently visited with the president of the Florida Medical Association, which is the largest physician association in Florida, with 20,000 members. They say:

..... this legislation does not adequately fix what's wrong with our current system. It contains many provisions that would allow government bureaucrats to interfere with patient care decisions and actually raises the cost of health insurance unnecessarily.

This is from the doctors association in Florida. They say it is going to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and increase costs. Why are we doing this?

The sixth myth I want to tackle is this idea that emergency rooms are going to be less burdened. You hear this justification. People now are uninsured. They go to the emergency room to get health care. If we give folks insurance or they have the ability to purchase insurance at a subsidized rate, they will stop going to the emergency room, and that will lower the cost of health care because emergency room procedures are expensive. It will free up the emergency room for its intended purpose, for

people who really have an emergency. But according to the Urban Institute, after Massachusetts adopted a somewhat similar plan, emergency use remained higher than the national average. More than two-fifths of the visits in these emergency rooms were nonemergencies and, of these, the majority of adult respondents said it was more convenient to check into the ER. More convenient?

We know we are going to be paying health care providers less. What does that mean? There is going to be less of them providing health care. That means your lines at the doctor's office, which are already too long, are going to get longer. So what are folks going to still do? They are going to still show up at the emergency room. If we look at the Massachusetts model, that has happened. We also know that ultimately we are going to have a severe doctor shortage. We have not prepared, nor does this

bill prepare, to make sure we will have sufficient health care providers to meet new demands.

Seventh myth: The Democrats' plan takes on the insurance companies. You have heard the President say we are going to fight against the insurance companies; we are going to make sure that we are putting the patient first. Basically what we are going to do, in reality, is create a lot of new business for the insurance companies. This subsidy plan is going to force a lot of new people into health care with an insurance company. That is why the insurance companies are for it. What we need to do is

empower individuals. What we need to do is give individuals money that is in their own pocket and let them go out and be consumers. If they were consumers, it would lower the cost of health care. What we need to do is let insurance companies compete across State lines so we as consumers have more choices. Look at auto insurance. It is so easy a caveman can do it. In 15 minutes, you can save 15 percent on your auto insurance. These folks are out there competing. We need that in

health care. Why do I only get to pick from the insurance companies that are in Florida? If there is an enterprising insurance company from South Carolina that wants to come into my State and offer cheaper prices, why should I not have that opportunity as a consumer? There are commonsense things we can do, market-driven things we can do that will lower the cost of health insurance and, by doing so, when it is less expensive, more people can afford it and you have more access.

The eighth myth: It has been said that this bill takes an unprecedented step to fight health care fraud. It is [Page: S1508]

going to go after waste, fraud, and abuse, and we will save billions of dollars. In fact, the $500 billion being cut from Medicare is often described as an elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse. It is not. It is just taking money out of that program and putting it in this program. To be fair, there are some provisions of this bill that go after

health care fraud. They are good, but they go around the margins. They are going to save a billion or two, which is a lot of money, I will grant you that, but it is not the kind of money we need to save. We believe there are $60 to $100 billion of fraud in

Medicare every year alone, not talking about Medicaid, not talking about veterans health care, just Medicare, $60 to $100 billion, $1 out of every $7 spent. What we need to do is implement a plan that is going to stop the health care fraud before it starts.

I have a bill, S. 2128, that has bipartisan support, has more than a dozen Senators who sponsor it. It would do three things. One, it would create a person at HHS who would be the No. 2 person at the agency for Health and Human Services, appointed by the President to be the chief health care fraud prevention officer of this country. No other job, not focused on worrying about H1N1, not focused on anything else that should be done in health, focused on stopping health care fraud, someone we could

measure against performance to make sure we are doing everything we can to stop wasting the people's money. The second thing it does is it takes a page from another business that exists in the marketplace that does an excellent job at stopping fraud. There is another business that is about the same size as health care,

about $2 trillion a year. That business, instead of having a $1-in-$7 fraud ratio, has a ratio of 7 cents out of every $100. That is the credit card industry. We have all had this experience. You go somewhere to use your credit card and you get a phone call or an e-mail that says: Did you mean to make that purchase?

If you do not say yes, they do not pay.

What we do in health care is we pay, and then if we think something is fraudulent, we chase. When we chase, the money is gone. The credit cards stop the fraud before it starts.

Now, why couldn't we implement that kind of computer technology? In health care, it is called predictive modeling. So when someone tries to sell a wheelchair 100 times in an hour, the bells go off, the phone call is made, and if it is not verified, we do not pay.

We have people--unfortunately, a lot of them in my home State of Florida--who are bilking the system for tens of millions of dollars a year because it is much easier to steal from Uncle Sam than it is to steal from anybody else because nobody is watching.

One group in town that has evaluated my bill with this predictive modeling system, where we would set up a computer program to stop the fraud before it starts and make people verify when there is a questionable transaction, has said it will save $20 billion a year.

During the health care debate we had last December, I asked to amend my bill on to the main health care bill, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected. Why we wouldn't implement real waste, fraud, and abuse reform is beyond me. But this bill we are talking about does not have it. That myth I, too, believe is busted.

The third part of my bill is, it will require background checks for all health care providers. Can you believe we do not do background checks on people who bill Medicare and Medicaid in this country? We have folks who are convicted felons who are billing alleged ``health care'' providers. It is so bad that in reimbursements for AIDS treatment under Medicare, while south Florida only has 7 percent of the AIDS population, they bill 78 percent of the treatment--only 7 percent of the population and

they bill 78 percent of the treatment. It is just fraud, and it should stop today.

The ninth myth I want to tackle is that this Democratic health care reform bill will not impact the doctor-patient relationship. In fact, it will. I agree with my colleague, Dr. Barrasso, who supports a patient-centered approach. Real health care reform should ensure a doctor and a patient can work together to the best efforts in the health of the patient. As I said before, we are still going to have third-party payers. We have to put the patient back in charge of their health care.

That is the only way we are going to reduce costs.

There is a common thread throughout our governmental programs that has led entitlements to expand and expand and expand; that is, people do not have what is called skin in the game. If I am not paying, I do not care. But if I have to go out as a consumer, if the government would give me a tax credit to go buy health insurance, all of a sudden I am in the game. If I have a reasonable deductible where I have to pay a little when I go to the doctor, all of a sudden I am in the game and I am not

going to ask for a procedure I do not need. I am going to sit there and talk with my health care provider about whether this is something I really need. Now, if you tell me it is free, I will take it. And if you advertise to me on television every drug in the world, I will go to my doctor

and say: Sign me up for that because I get it for free. We have to change the whole structure of how we do health care because this will just continue to expand. Medicare will continue to expand. Medicaid will continue to expand. If this program passes, it will continue to expand.

While it might be great to throw all this money into these programs, we cannot afford it. We cannot afford the programs we have, let alone the programs the majority in this Chamber want.

The tenth and final myth I want to tackle tonight is that taxes will not go up. This is a jobs bill for the tax collector. We already said there is going to be $5 billion to $10 billion to the IRS and HHS to implement this bill. Remember, if you do not buy health insurance for yourself, you are going to have to pay a tax, a fine, a penalty to the IRS--$750 a person. Small businesses that do not provide certain levels of health insurance will be fined. And what do you think they are going to do?

Pay that fine or drop to under 50 employees so they do not have to pay the fine anymore, which will cause more people to be out of work.

Can you believe that in the United States of America, we are going to tax you if you do not buy health insurance for yourself because the government cares more about you than you care about you? If the government can tax you for not buying health insurance, what else can they tax you for not doing? Not working out? Not eating your spinach? That cannot be what our Founders intended.

Remember, we give up our rights to the government. Our institution was created that it governs with the consent of the governed, that we have the inalienable rights. In our social contract, we give those rights up to the government. It is not the other way around. How is it the government can fine me for not doing something?

So at the end of the day, when this entitlement program increases beyond its means, when it is more than we can afford, and when the $500 billion we take out of Medicare starts to put Medicare in insolvency even quicker, what is going to happen? Is the majority in this Chamber really going to cut Medicare? Probably not. So what are they going to do to help pay for this new program without their cuts? They are going to raise your taxes--raise your taxes to levels that are going to be hard to imagine

when you factor in what we are going to have to do for all the other entitlement programs we cannot afford, when you factor in what we are going to have to do with our $12 trillion debt that is estimated to be $10 trillion higher by 2020.

That is why the National Federation of Independent Businesses has said:

When evaluating health care reform options, small business owners ask themselves two specific questions. First, will the bill lower insurance costs?

We know the answer to that is no.

Second, will the bill increase the overall cost of doing business?

The answer to that is yes.

They say:

In both cases, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act fails the small business test and, therefore, fails small business.

It has been my goal tonight to present facts. I know others have a differing view.

As a Senator from Florida with more than 3 million folks in Medicare, as a Senator who cares about health care reform and wants to create more access but also wants to lower the cost of health care, I cannot support this bill. [Page: S1509]

I hope my colleagues in the House who are being faced with this option of voting for this bill and then passing something on reconciliation will do the right thing. I hope they will not be pressured politically to change their votes from ``no'' votes to ``yes'' votes. I hope they will stand for the people of their State and for the American people.

We could get this right. We could work together on a bipartisan way, as all of the other big, important bills over time have been done, with 70 or 80 Senators working together to do the right thing for the American people. I sign up for that. I am standing ready to do that if that opportunity presents itself. But I cannot vote for this bill that will not lower the cost of health insurance for most Americans, nor will it put us in a situation financially that is tenable going forward.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[Page: S1510]

Insert offset folio 705 here ES15MR10.001