Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010--Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the Senate returns to give a doctor's second opinion of the health care law. As the Presiding Officer knows because he has been here for so many of these speeches every week since this bill was signed into law, I have come to the Senate floor as a physician, an orthopedic surgeon, as someone who has taken care of families in the State of Wyoming since 1983, to give a doctor's second opinion of the new health care law and what I view is the impact it is going to have on health care in this country.

The Presiding Officer knows that during the debate and discussions at the time of the health bill and now the health care law, I had many reservations. My concern was that it was going to be bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for payers, the people paying their health care costs, as well as the taxpayers of this country.

When the health care bill was signed into law, Democrats were extremely proud of it, and they were actually eager at that time to tell all of America about their vote. As a matter of fact, the Senate majority leader, Senator Reid, said:

This is a happy day. We are going to hear an earful, but it is going to be an earful of wonderment and happiness that people waited for a long time.

Here we are just 6 months later, but the new law is not greeted with happiness. It is not greeted with wonderment. Now the Democrats of this country are singing a very different tune. In fact, 56 percent of Americans want the law repealed. Each week, as I have given my second opinion, I have said it is time to repeal and replace this health care law. Now Democrats are completely changing their message about the new law. Now they no longer say the law will lower costs. They no longer say it will improve care. Instead, they now admit the law has some shortfalls, and they are talking about how they are working to improve it. This law needs to be repealed and replaced.

I think that now the people of America know what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said, ``First we have to pass the law before you get to find out what is in it.'' That is what she said. Well, now the people of this country have found out what is in it, and they recognize that it is not good for the country.

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal last Friday. Kimberly Strassel talked about the health care law, and she said:

A total of 279 House and Senate Democrats voted for ObamaCare. Now not one is running an ad touting that vote. How can they, given the headlines?

But she does quote a number of Democrats who are running for election this year, and those Democrats are talking about why they voted against--against--the bill that the President claimed would be good for the country. These are Democrats voting against what they call ``massive government health care.'' That was one Member of the House. Another said she voted against the ``trillion-dollar health care plan.'' A former Governor of Georgia, a Democrat, said:

Not only is ObamaCare ``financially devastating,'' it is ``the greatest failure, modern failure, of political leadership in my lifetime.''

While Congress was out of session in August, Politico ran a story entitled ``Dems Retreat on Health Care Cost Pitch.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I thought it was so important that more Americans should know about this. The article explains that:

Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to ``improve it.''

Well, this new Democratic message strategy on health care was developed by key Democratic strategists and pollsters, and it was detailed in a 24-slide PowerPoint presentation. The language in the presentation is remarkable, and it is radically different from what President Obama and the Democrats on this floor promised during the debate about health care. This new Democratic spin demonstrates that people who voted for this bad law now recognize how unpopular it is with the people of this country and how it will never live up to the grand promises. That is why people all around the country were saying, ``Don't vote for this'' as people in this body were cramming this bill--and now law--down the throats of the American people.

Well, rather than walk through all 24 slides, I wish to hit some of the highlights of the new Democratic health care message.

Let's take a look at what they call ``Challenging Environment.'' They say:

Straightforward policy defenses fail to be moving voters' opinions about the law.

They say:

The public is disappointed, anxious, and depressed by the current direction of the country--not trusting.

Voters are concerned about rising health care costs and believe costs will continue to rise.

That is in spite of promises made on this floor that it wouldn't happen.

They say:

Women in particular are concerned that the health care law will mean less provider availability--scarcity an issue.

They say:

Many don't believe health reform will help the economy.

Well, there is a reason people don't trust Washington. There is a reason the policy defenses in the new law fail to move voter opinions, and it is because the new law is not good for patients; the new law is not good for providers--the nurses, the doctors, the hospitals, the home health aides, hospice care; and the new health care law is not good for the people who are going to be paying the bill.

Let's take the next slide and make it personal. It says:

Use personal stories coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual level to convey critical benefits of reform.

Well, there are a lot of personal stories they won't tell you, and those are the personal stories including the small business owners all across this country who are being strangled by the redtape in this law, strangled by rules and regulations and expense. That is why we are looking at 9.6 percent unemployment in this country--because of the lack of certainty for small businesses and the increased expenses they are having to deal with as a result of this law.

They won't tell you the stories about patients with preexisting conditions who did have insurance but now have been penalized by the new law because they played by the rules.

Let's look at another slide. It says ``improve the law.'' The recommendation of the pollsters to the Democrats is ``use transition or bridge language to meet public where they are and relax their defenses.'' The American people know what they are talking about. Then they say:

The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we'll work to improve it.

The question is, does this new law help you, the American citizen, at home? That is the question. That is what people ask themselves. What is the impact of this going to be on my own health care? Is the new law helping you? Is the new law helping small businesses that can't seem to qualify for the tax credit the administration and the congressional Democrats promised, in spite of the fact that 4 million postcards were sent out to small businesses, and only a very small percentage of those could qualify for any of these tax opportunities? Were those people willing to cut the salaries of the employed and lay off others? That is why we voted against this bill.

Is this new law helping individuals who, thanks to the new administration grandfathering rules and regulations, will lose their employer-sponsored health insurance plan? Is the new law helping seniors, who will see more than $500 billion robbed from Medicare--seniors on Medicare Advantage, a program they signed up for intentionally because they know there is an advantage to being on that program, because it works with preventive care and it coordinates care? That is all gone.

Is the new law helping the 18 million people who will find themselves locked into the Medicaid Program? Is the new law helping the millions of Americans who will see their health insurance premiums go up next year to comply with benefit mandates in the law?

Instead of working to improve the law now, those on the other side of the aisle should have improved it before it was passed. Members of my party repeatedly wanted to work with Democrats to improve this legislation. Unfortunately, we were shut out of the process.

Let's look at the next chart. It says ``blunt'' the mandate. Part of the new Democratic spin is to blunt the mandate. It says:

Tap into the individual responsibility to blunt opposition to the mandate to have health insurance.

Mandate? What is this mandate? It is a mandate that everybody in America has to have insurance. All individuals have to have it. All employers have to offer it. People either must buy insurance or employers must provide insurance. There is a mandate. Currently, 20 States are suing the Federal Government about the mandate. It also says:

Those who choose not to have insurance and use the emergency room for routine care are increasing costs for the rest of us who have insurance.

Well, let's look at a report from the Centers for Disease Control, which came out in May. It confirms that, as opposed to what this slide says, the uninsured don't visit the emergency room more often. Do you know who does? It is Medicaid patients. It shows that more than 30 percent of Medicaid patients under the age of 65 visited emergency rooms in this country at least once in 2007. This health care law locks 18 million more Americans into Medicaid, forcing them into the emergency rooms, because doctors frequently cannot afford to see them in their offices. So the question is: Will these 18 million more Americans who have been locked into Medicaid be able to find a physician to treat them? If not, how will the emergency rooms of this country cope when these patients use the ER as their primary care provider?

We all know that the health care law was modeled after the Massachusetts State health reform plan. The Boston Globe reported on July 4 of this year that recent State data proved emergency room visits rose in Massachusetts by 9 percent, from 2004 to 2008--about 3 million visits a year. According to the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and their policy plan, providing insurance coverage may have actually contributed to the ER visit increase. But the goal was to lower the number of visits to the emergency room.

Let's look at another chart that talks about what health care coverage Members of Congress have. It says:

Supporters of the law and those campaigning need to highlight that Members of Congress will participate in the same plan.

It is important to remember that the only reason Members of Congress are on the same plan is because Senators Coburn and Grassley fought for this. It is also important to remember that members of the congressional leadership, their staffs, White House employees, and other Federal employees will not be on the plan. Then let's look at the new head of Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. Berwick, who is someone named to that post in a recess appointment. His name didn't surface during the entire debate of the health care bill. Nobody was in charge of Medicare and Medicaid during the health care debate. Why? Because the President chose to not even name someone. When he finally named someone, this is someone who is in love with the British health care system. He made a number of quotes about rationing of care and ways that he envisioned the British health care system to be so much better than the U.S. health care system.

Yet, Dr. Berwick has, as a result of his contract, from the group he worked with in Boston before taking this new job--a job that the President made a recess appointment for--somebody who never came to Congress to testify, never presented himself to the American people--I don't know what he is hiding. He doesn't have to live under the plan forced down the throats of the American people because his contract, when he left Boston, said that he will get care under them for life. So will his wife. So he is making rules and regulations that apply to the rest of the country but not to him.

Let's look at another slide having to do with Medicare cuts. The new Democratic spin says:

It is critical to reassure seniors that Medicare will not be cut.

Then it says:

Free preventive care.

This is absolutely absurd and untrue. It is clear that the new law cuts $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare. It is not to save Medicare. It doesn't just start a whole new government program for someone else, but when I talk to seniors--and I have done this all over the last month, traveling around the State of Wyoming, visiting parades, picnics, fairs, and rodeos--the seniors say: If you want to change Medicare to save Medicare, we can deal with that, but not to start a whole new government program for someone else.

The final slide I think is most telling. It is a slide that is a list of the don'ts. The new Democratic spin says:

Don't assume that the public knows the health reform law passed, or if they know it passed, understand how it will affect them; don't list benefits outside of any personal context; don't barrage voters with a long list of benefits; don't use complex language or insider jargon; don't use heated political rhetoric or congratulatory language.

And believe it or not, it also says on the slide the Democrats' pollsters put out:

Don't say the law will reduce costs and deficit.

Well, let's take a look at some of the quotes we heard leading up to passage of the law--promises by the President of the United States, by House Speaker Pelosi, and by Majority Leader Reid. The President met with Senate Democrats in December of 2009, before a vote in the Senate. He said:

We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care.

He says:

Families will save on their premiums.

He said:

This will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.

Now the Democrats are being told:

Don't say the law will reduce costs and the deficit.

Isn't that what the President said to the Democrats in December of 2009?

The American people have been misled. They can see through this. That is why they were screaming: Do not pass this law. Yet what the President said and now what the American people know to be the truth is the exact opposite.

Let's look at what House Speaker Pelosi said. In March of this year she said:

This is a triumph for the American people in terms of deficit reduction.

This isn't going to reduce the deficit. Now, finally 6 months after it has been passed into law, the Democrats are admitting that this is not a triumph for the American people in terms of deficit reduction.

Then Senator Reid, from that desk on the Senate floor, in November of last year, said:

One of the major goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is to lower Federal health care costs and reduce the deficit.

He then said:

Our bill does that.

The bill signed into law does not do that. And now even the Democrats, with their new spin, are saying that we better not keep saying it because the American people don't believe it. That is why 56 percent of the American people want this law repealed and replaced.

The American people are sick of the spin. They deserve the truth about the new law and how it will impact their lives. It is clear that this law is not good for patients, it is not good for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of the patients--and it is not good for the payers--the taxpayers of this country and the people who pay their own health care costs. We need to repeal and replace this new law with a plan that will actually help our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source