HEALTH RESEARCH AND QUALITY ACT OF 1999 -- (Extensions of Remarks -
October 01, 1999)
[Page: E1999]
---
SPEECH OF
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
OF VERMONT
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
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