[Page: E1999]
---

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2506) to amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research:

• Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. TIERNEY, for offering this amendment today to focus on the need for universal health care in the United States. Our amendment clarifies that the Agency for Health Research and Quality should allow for studies that would compare the effect of a single-payer plan on national health expenditures with the health expenditures under the current system.

• Our Nation spends more per capita on health care than any other Western nation. And yet, we have 43 million Americans with no health coverage. This is absurd.

• We know that a universal, single-payer system will save the United States billions of dollars a year. Now let's prove it.

• Earlier this year, a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Medical Society reported that in Massachusetts alone, a single-payer system could save over a billion dollars and eliminate more than 80 percent of patients' out-of-pocket costs. Not to mention covering hundreds of thousands of uninsured residents of that state. Imagine what the savings could be on a national basis.

• Specifically, cutting the bureaucratic overhead by creating a single-payer system would have saved about $3.6 billion in Massachusetts. The added cost savings under this model would add up to a $5 billion reduction in the $36 billion the state spends on health care each year. The report further states that it would then only cost $4 billion of the $5 billion in savings to cover all of the uninsured in the state and expand health benefits to those who have insurance. While this is the high-end estimate, the low-end estimate still finds the state saving $170 million while increasing coverage for its residents.

• The group that commissioned Massachusetts study, its state Medical Society, has traditionally not been a supporter of a single-payer system. And yet they had the insight to at least study how much their state could save under the program. That is what we are asking under the Tierney amendment today.

• Should we live in a society in which all people, because they are human beings, have access to the best quality health care that the society can offer, or do we live in a society where health care is a commodity offered to people on ability to pay--with the wealthy in this country getting, probably, the best health care in the world--while middle class, working class and poor people receive a lower quality of health care or none at all?

• At a time when our health care costs continue to skyrocket while the availability of care declines, single-payer is becoming an even more attractive option and the best, most cost-effective solution to insuring all Americans.

• I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment.

  END