Robert Menendez, Jon Kyl and Paul Ryan on Fox News Sunday
Bruce Drake
Contributing Editor
Posted:
02/28/10
"FOX NEWS SUNDAY"
FEBRUARY 28, 2010
SPEAKERS: CHRIS WALLACE, HOST
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ, D-N.J.
SEN. JOHN KYL, R-ARIZ.
REP. PAUL D. RYAN, R-WIS.
[*] WALLACE: I'm Chris Wallace, and this is "Fox News Sunday."
The great divide over health care reform just got wider. Now the president is ready to act.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions and then that's what elections are for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: we'll ask two key senators what happens next, Jon Kyl, the number two Republican, and Robert Menendez, who runs the Democrat Senate Campaign Committee.
Then, the GOP's point man on health care calls out the president on the price tag for reform.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL RYAN: This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: We'll take a look inside the numbers with Paul Ryan, top Republican on the House Budget Committee.
Also, was the health care meeting must-see TV or dog-and-pony show? We'll ask our very own critics to give it thumbs up or down.
And our Power Player of the Week, Nascar's number 88 gives some troubled teens a second chance, all right now on "Fox News Sunday."
And hello again from Fox News in Washington. The president is scheduled to announce this week how he wants Democrats to proceed on health care reform. But will Congress listen?
We're joined by two key senators -- from Phoenix, Jon Kyl, the Republican's number two leader, and from New York, Robert Menendez, who's in charge of getting Democrats elected to the Senate this year.
Gentlemen, it seems almost certain that the president and congressional Democrats are going to try to pass comprehensive health care reform by using the parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation, where they would need 51 votes in the Senate instead of 60 votes.
You're both professional vote-counters so, Senator Menendez, starting with you, do Democrats have the simple majority they will need in the Senate to pass it?
MENENDEZ: Well, Chris, our first hope is that we could actually get some movement from our Republican colleagues as a result of the summit. At the summit we heard a lot of Democrats, including the president, embrace many of the ideas of Republicans. Hopefully we could get some movement very shortly on that.
But in the absence of that, you know, there may be the ability to proceed on a simple majority vote that has been used many times by Republicans in the past, including for the passage of the Bush tax cuts and changes to Medicare that were some of the biggest cuts in Medicare.
So the opportunity is there. We'd really like to get a bipartisan bill. In the absence of that, the American people, I think, have said in the polls that they want to see move forward on health care reform.
WALLACE: So to answer my question, do you have the votes or not, Senator Menendez?
MENENDEZ: I think we will get to that point where we will have the votes. I believe that we will pass health care reform this spring.
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, do Democrats have the votes to pass what they will need to pass, which will basically be the fix to the Senate bill, through a simple majority? Will they have 51 votes?
KYL: It's unclear right now. As Bob said, they may do a lot of things in order to get those votes, some of the backroom deal-making that characterized the previous legislation that the American people didn't like so much.
I think their bigger problem is going to be in the House of Representatives where they basically don't have any votes to spare on a pure majority vote.
And when they took their vote in the House, it was many months ago before this legislation was well-known to the American people. Now that it is so unpopular with the American people, I doubt seriously that there will be enough House members, House Democrats, who will risk their careers to vote for this legislation the second time around.
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, while under reconciliation rules you could not filibuster, you can offer unlimited amendments. Is that what you would try to do?
KYL: Well, it's not really that simple. Robert Byrd, who actually wrote the reconciliation rule, has said that its application in this case would be an outrage that should be -- that must be resisted, he said.
He pointed out that it's not designed for this, because there is very limited debate, only 20 hours. And he said the opportunity to offer amendments is essentially meaningless when you don't have more than 20 hours to consider the bill. He said it's not designed for this purpose. It has been used several times before, but primarily to balance the budget. It is a budget procedure.
WALLACE: Well, but, Senator Kyl--
KYL: And you can either--
WALLACE: -- forgive me.
KYL: -- raise -- sure.
WALLACE: We're going to get into that in a second. But you could offer hundreds and hundreds of amendments, each of which would require quorum calls, votes. I mean, that -- you could -- you could tie the Senate up in knots if you want to.
KYL: Sure, but nobody wants to do that. And there is no debate on the amendments. See, that's the point. You could -- you could offer 200 amendments and nobody would ever have any debate on any of them. That is not a procedure designed to reach a good conclusion.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, are you as convinced that they won't try to tie the Senate up with a long list of amendments?
MENENDEZ: Well, look. I think Americans should know that when we hear the words about reconciliation, it is simple -- simply a majority vote. You know, we learned that all our lives, you know, 51 out of 100.
On certain budget elements -- that's the other thing. This whole bill cannot be passed on reconciliation. It would be the budget elements of the bill, with a simple majority vote, a procedure that Republicans used to pass the Bush tax cuts, which are about two times the size of this bill, and that were used in other health care issues like Medicare and Medicaid by Republicans in the past.
So I find it very interesting that our colleagues on the Republican side, many who defended the use of a simple majority 51- vote process on budget-related issues, now object to it.
The reality is -- is that when you see 40 percent premium increases in California, when you see people denied because of preexisting conditions, when you have lifetime caps, when you can't keep your child on your insurance to -- you know, through college, those are the things that Americans want to change.
And those are the things that we are seeking to change in our comprehensive health care reform.
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, I cut you off before.
KYL: Chris -- Chris, if I could just--
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, let me -- let me pose my question, because I think it's right on this very issue. KYL: OK.
WALLACE: Let's look at the record of what reconciliation's history is. First of all, it's been used 22 times, two-thirds of the times by Republicans, not Democrats.
And it's been used for such big-ticket items as the Reagan tax and spending cuts, the children's health program, welfare reform and the Bush tax cuts. Question: A lot of those go beyond simple budget measures, Senator Kyl.
KYL: Most of the time it has been used for simple budget matters. Other cases, you had large majorities. For example, on welfare there were 78 senators who voted for it, and a majority of Democrats. And on the Bush tax cuts, I believe the number is 12 Democrats supported it.
And that -- and those were revenue measures. Tax reductions or tax increases are one of the things that reconciliation is designed for. The American people, according to a brand new poll, oppose the use of reconciliation here by a vote of 52-39, I believe it is.
And the reason is because they appreciate that the comprehensive nature of it that Bob just spoke to is precisely what makes this not applicable here. It's not just a matter of adjusting a number here or a number there.
You've got a 2,500-page bill that in its first 10 years of full implementation is $2.5 trillion. It affects virtually everything having to do with health care in the country. That is a process that needs more than 20 hours of debate and an opportunity to provide amendments that you can actually debate--
WALLACE: But, Senator Kyl--
KYL: -- rather than just throw out.
WALLACE: -- I'm not quite sure I understand. If reconciliation was a proper tool to use for something as expansive as welfare reform, why isn't it OK to be used for the fix of the Senate bill?
KYL: First of all, I'm not sure that it should have been used for welfare reform. But again, 78 senators said that it was OK. So you didn't need to use reconciliation to get the number of votes.
WALLACE: But they did.
KYL: What they're trying to do here -- yes, but it wasn't needed for that purpose, is my point. And so here it is only being used because they cannot get the 60 votes that would ordinarily be required.
That's why Robert Byrd said to use it in this situation would be outrage. As he said in his letter, if you can't do it the usual way, then you shouldn't do it by reconciliation just because you can't get the votes otherwise. In the case of the welfare legislation, as I said, 78 senators were willing to do it. So it wasn't necessary to use it in order to pass it.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, Senator Kyl--
MENENDEZ: Chris, we already had -- we've already had--
WALLACE: Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: .. a majority vote--
WALLACE: Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: -- in the Senate of this issue.
WALLACE: -- let me ask a question, if I might, and then -- and then you can answer it. You know, the -- Senator Kyl keeps talking about public opinion. The fact is, as we mentioned, you're the man in charge of electing Democrats to the Senate.
In November -- the polls -- Senator Kyl's right -- are overwhelmingly against comprehensive health care reform. We had this Massachusetts election in which Scott Brown won campaigning as the 41st vote against health care reform.
If Democrats, against all of that, go ahead and pass comprehensive health care reform using reconciliation, this parliamentary maneuver, don't you risk tremendous voter backlash in November?
MENENDEZ: Chris, you know, the numbers I see -- I see the Washington Post poll just the other day that said 66 percent of Americans want to us move forward on comprehensive health care reform.
I see the numbers of 40 percent premium increases in California and other parts of the country. I see Americans and New Jerseyans who tell me, in fact, that they can't afford health insurance. And this bill is the biggest tax cut for health insurance that we have seen.
$500 billion goes to tax cuts to help individuals and small businesses be able to afford health insurance. And it does it in a way by eliminating the waste, fraud and abuse and stop overpayments to insurance companies.
WALLACE: But -- but, Senator, I'm asking--
MENENDEZ: -- that, in fact, are getting overpaid right now.
WALLACE: -- I'm asking--
MENENDEZ: So I don't know why Republicans would oppose a process that they have used in the past to accomplish exactly those goals.
WALLACE: But, Senator--
MENENDEZ: And that's what Americans want to see. They want--
WALLACE: But, Senator, I'm asking you -- Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: -- to end the preexisting conditions.
WALLACE: -- if I may, I'm asking you a--
MENENDEZ: They want to afford health insurance.
WALLACE: -- political question, not a policy question.
MENENDEZ: And they want to -- and they want to stop the insurance company abuses.
WALLACE: And the political question I'm asking is do you think that voters are going to reward Democrats for passing comprehensive health care reform through reconciliation when the polls indicate they oppose it?
MENENDEZ: I think Americans, when they see the final product that stops the preexisting conditions limitations, that gives them the biggest tax cut for health care in history, that gives them $500 billion to them and small businesses, that if you get your insurance at work, you're going to see reduction in cost, that if you buy insurance you're going to -- for the same exact type of insurance you might have right now, under the exchange we offer we'll see a 14 to 20 percent decrease -- that all of these things -- and fully paid for, reduce our deficit by $100 billion in the first 10 years, a trillion dollars in the next 10 years after that -- I think Americans want to see that. They want to see--
WALLACE: Senator--
MENENDEZ: -- progress.
WALLACE: Senator--
MENENDEZ: And they're tired of hearing no.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, please, let me -- let me get in here a little bit.
Senator Kyl, I want you to respond to that, but let me ask it to you in the form of another question, because you were involved in one of the more interesting exchanges with the president. And let's take a look at it right here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KYL: Do you trust the states or do you trust Washington? Do you trust patients and doctors making the decision or do you trust Washington?
OBAMA: OK. Any time the question is phrased as "does Washington know better," I think we're kind of tipping the scales a little bit there, since we all know that everybody is angry at Washington right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, do you think the president and Democrats ever really wanted to reach out to Republicans? Or do you think they just wanted to score a political point of appearing to reach out?
KYL: I don't know what was in the president's mind, but I think that little exchange actually was very valuable, because the president is right. People are not very crazy about Washington solutions these days.
A bill that spends about $2.5 trillion, 2,500 pages, massive government takeover here, big tax increases -- that's what folks are leery of. They don't want Washington making all of those decisions, especially if they think it might interfere between them and their doctor.
And that is a fundamental difference between us. It's one of the reasons it's very hard to reconcile our two approaches here. Just to give you an example, the tax cuts that my friend Bob Menendez talks about are really direct subsidies to the insurance companies. There was a deal made with the insurance companies.
We will force everybody to buy insurance and then we, the federal government, will pay you, insurance companies, directly. It's not a tax cut to people. The people never see the money. It goes directly to the insurance companies.
It's one of the things that we don't like. And the polls, by the way -- the most recent poll is a CNN poll about three days old. Twenty-five percent of the people support this plan, 25 percent say, "Absolutely stop working on it," 48 percent say, "Stop and start over."
So you've got nearly three-fourths of the American people saying stop or stop and start over.
WALLACE: Gentlemen, we've got less -- we've got less than two minutes, and I want to get in a couple of more quick questions to you.
Senator Menendez, your Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, was just able to pass a smaller jobs bill with 13 Republican votes. And one of the things he said afterwards is, "Look, we're not going to pass one big huge bill. We have a jobs agenda which is several smaller bills." And in this case you got a lot of bipartisan support.
Why not treat health care the same way?
MENENDEZ: Well, look, even Governor Schwarzenegger says, you know, starting all over again is really political speak for -- you know, and partisan speak for "my way or the highway," in essence.
Basically, we have spent months on this. We have incorporated a whole host of Republican ideas. And to hear my friend Jon Kyl say that the insurance companies are going to get the benefit -- look, they're the ones fighting us the most.
And with all due respect, Jon took their positions on a whole host of amendments in the Finance Committee, basically supporting their views.
Democrats believe that there should be, you know, simple rules of the road in which insurance companies can't tell people who have insurance, when they make a claim, "No, you're denied." They can't stop people who have an illness--
WALLACE: We--
MENENDEZ: -- from getting insurance.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: And that also, we can make it more affordable, so--
WALLACE: OK.
MENENDEZ: -- you know, that's a fundamental difference. You know, hearing that--
WALLACE: Senator -- Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: -- you know, Washington knows best--
WALLACE: -- I have to break in here because we're--
MENENDEZ: -- it's not Washington knows best.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, I have--
MENENDEZ: We want insurance companies--
WALLACE: -- to break in here--
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: -- because we're running out of time and I want to ask Senator Kyl one quick question.
You have 30 seconds, Senator Kyl. One of your Republican colleagues, Senator Bunning, blocked the extension of unemployment benefits this past week. This coming week, will Republicans vote against Bunning and vote to extend unemployment benefits to millions of Americans?
KYL: I think the -- this is a temporary extension. It's over $10 billion. And all Senator Bunning was saying, quite correctly, is it ought to be paid for.
Congress just passed the so-called pay-go legislation which is supposed to require that we find offsets or other savings if we're going to spend money. And what's--
WALLACE: So -- so--
KYL: -- the first thing we do? We exempt this bill from it. It will pass, though, I -- because it's a temporary extension. The question for the longer term extension is a different issue, because that's well over $100 billion.
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, Senator Menendez, sorry for occasionally having to break in. But I wanted to get to a lot of ground, and we did. Thank you, both. And please come back, gentlemen.
MENENDEZ: Thank you, Chris.
KYL: Have a good interview with Junior.
WALLACE: All right, thank you.
Up next, we'll go inside the numbers on health care reform with the House Republicans' top expert, Congressman Paul Ryan. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: In the health care summit this week, there was one Republican President Obama didn't want to mess with, someone who knows as much about the issue as he does.
We want to go inside the numbers of health care reform with Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, the GOP's top man on the House Budget Committee.
Congressman, one of the big disagreements -- in fact, perhaps the first big disagreement at the summit -- was the question of whether or not the Democratic plan would raise or lower people's--
RYAN: Right.
WALLACE: -- health care premiums. Isn't it true, in fact, that most Americans would end up paying less?
RYAN: No, it's not true. The Congressional Budget Office says they will get higher premium increases, 10 to 13 percent. Private actuaries put those premium increase in the double-digit to triple- digit territory.
The Blue Cross plans are telling us they're going to see a massive spike in premiums for people. That's the problem. What we're hearing coming out of Washington, the rhetoric, doesn't match the actual facts that are underneath this legislation.
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that, because I want to put up -- you know, for lack of anybody better, we're dealing with the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan agency, and here's what they said. Let's put the numbers up on the screen.
It said that for those in large group policies there would be somewhere between no change and a 3 percent decrease in premium costs. And it said for those in the individual market, the average premium, as you said and as Lamar Alexander said, would go up 10 to 13 percent.
But the CBO added that those folks would get better policies, and well over half would get subsidiaries, quote, "that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law." Congressman?
RYAN: Well, if you add these -- if you add subsidiaries, sure. But let's get this point clear. We're not going to have more insurance competition under this new law. We're going to have less insurance competition. That's going to increase prices.
And if you put more mandates on insurance, as this does -- this federalizes the regulation of health insurance, displacing states' rights -- that's going to make it more expensive.
So what this bill attempts to do is, yes, make health insurance much more expensive and then just have Washington subsidize more of it to try and limit people's out-of-pocket costs. That's a deficit nightmare. It's a cost nightmare.
And so you will be putting more costs onto the backs of the taxpayers at the end of the day here.
WALLACE: All right. Well, let's talk about the question of costs, because that was something that you brought up with the president.
RYAN: Yeah.
WALLACE: Another big disagreement is whether, as you said, the Democratic package bends the cost curve of government spending--
RYAN: Right.
WALLACE: -- up or down, as the Democrats claim. And again, let's go to the CBO, which says that the Senate bill would cut the deficit by $132 billion over the first 10 years.
RYAN: OK, so the CBO has to score the legislation that's put in front of them. And the legislation that's been put in front of them is full of smoke, mirrors and gimmicks.
Let me give you an example. It double counts Medicare cost savings. It double counts increased taxes for Social Security, increased premiums for this new CLASS Act.
If you take all the double counting out of the bill, which the CBO can't do because that's the way it's put in front of them, this thing has a $460 billion deficit in the first 10 years, a $1.4 trillion deficit in the second 10 years.
WALLACE: Well, explain the double counting, because you made a--
RYAN: Right.
WALLACE: -- big point of that at the summit.
RYAN: OK. So two things. This bill looks like it reduces the deficit because they raise taxes a half a trillion dollars over 10 years and cut Medicare a half a trillion dollars over 10 years to pay for six years of spending.
So 10 years of tax increases and Medicare cuts with six years of spending makes it look as if this thing reduces the deficit. And then if you double count those tax increases, those Medicare cuts, which this does do-- WALLACE: Well, explain the double counting, though.
RYAN: -- that's the whole smoke and mirrors.
WALLACE: What do you mean, double counting?
RYAN: Right. So they're bringing in more money for premiums to pay for a new entitlement called the CLASS Act. You can't count that premium increase for deficit reduction.
They're taking more money in Social Security taxes, which is reserved for Social Security benefits. And if it's -- if you're not going to pay those benefits, then you can use it. But you can't count it both for paying benefits and reducing the deficit.
If you're going to say that all these Medicare cuts are improving the solvency of Medicare, which is what they say, then you can't use that money to spend on the creation of another government program.
So what they're doing is they're raiding a half a trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for a new government program. And you can't say that's going to improve Medicare, which is what they're saying. So--
WALLACE: But -- but--
RYAN: -- in each of these cases they're counting the numbers twice.
WALLACE: OK, but let -- but let me ask you this, because the CBO says -- let's -- again, we have to go back to them as the umpire in this whole deal--
RYAN: Right.
WALLACE: -- that once revenue and spending have all kicked in, because you talk about 10 years of revenue, six years of spending, they're saying that once it's all kicked in, the revenue will still exceed the spending. And in fact, it says, "The CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not cause a net increase in deficits -- would not cause a net increase in deficits in excess of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning after 2019."
They're projecting out 50 years and saying that if it has any impact on deficits, it'll be only minimal.
RYAN: Now, there are a couple -- I can go great into the detail here, but one of the things they're saying is--
WALLACE: No, please -- please don't do that.
RYAN: OK. One of the things they're saying is we're putting this new commission in charge of Medicare that is not elected, unelected bureaucrats, to ration care and put the clamps down on spending.
And they're saying if this commission does its job, cuts Medicare even more across the board, then that will happen. Other point is the president's own chief actuary of Medicare and Medicaid is saying quite the opposite. He's saying this is going to increase health care costs by $222 billion over the first 10 years, and so instead of bending the proverbial cost curve down, it's going up.
So when you actually look at a real-life look at how these numbers add up, and you take out the smoke and mirrors that the CBO can't take out in their analysis, it reveals these things as not being true.
Let me just give you another point.
WALLACE: Can I -- well, let me just--
RYAN: OK, go ahead.
WALLACE: -- because I want to go on to another subject, malpractice, because in the summit, Republicans kept talking about malpractice reform, limiting doctors' liabilities.
And in fact, House leader, your leader, John Boehner said that medical malpractice and defensive medicine are the single biggest driver of medical inflation. That isn't true, is it?
RYAN: Well, it's one of the biggest drivers. I think there are other contributing factors which are not being addressed in this bill. But it's a huge contributing factor.
WALLACE: Well, let me -- let me just pick up on that, because again, the CBO says -- and let's put up the numbers -- that malpractice reform would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent. That's one-half of 1 percent, about $11 billion in 2009.
I mean, the fact is drugs, and technology, and an aging population are much bigger drivers of medical inflation than malpractice, aren't they?
RYAN: Right. What CBO measures is, you know, the cost of government. And they say, "We'll have $54 billion of savings with medical liability reform."
What they cannot measure -- and I understand why they can't measure this. They can't measure all of that defensive medicine. They can't measure all the additional tests that are being ordered by doctors, not because it's good health care, because it's good liability protection. They don't measure all of that.
So there's a lot of stuff that is not being measured that we would appreciate from if you actually did medical liability reform. So what John Boehner is saying is if we actually get rid of the process of defensive medicine by having real tort reform, that would give us a lot more cost savings. Those are cost savings that the CBO just can't measure. WALLACE: All right. Let's turn to another subject -- and there's certainly no disagreement about the numbers here -- which is the question of coverage.
The Democrats say that their plan would cover 30 million uninsured -- currently uninsured Americans, would give them health insurance coverage. The Republican plan would cover 3 million. What happens to the 27 million--
RYAN: Well--
WALLACE: -- other Americans?
RYAN: Well, there -- there's lots of Republican bills. That's one particular bill the president was talking about. The president referenced the bill that I have with Tom Coburn, Devin Nunes and Richard Burr which covers those 30 million people, which gets us toward full coverage in America without all these new tax increases, without all these Medicare cuts.
So we believe we can get to the same coverage numbers without having a government takeover of health care.
WALLACE: Well, how do you--
RYAN: So we've been--
WALLACE: Very briefly and generally--
RYAN: -- offering these ideas all year.
WALLACE: -- how do you do that? How do you get -- how do you cover 27 million other people?
RYAN: We propose to do it through refundable tax credits, to give people the ability to have tax credits by ending the discrimination against people who don't buy health insurance from their jobs. And we say there are better ways of doing this.
So there are lots of Republicans' ideas that have been offered all session long to get at this coverage number without massive tax increases, Medicare cuts and a government takeover of health care.
The point is we haven't -- we've been frozen out of this process, Chris. The only time we've had bipartisan discussion, you've seen it, because it's been on TV. We've been frozen out of this process all session long, and it's quite clear to us that they're really not interested in engaging in collaborating and bipartisanship. They want to jam this thing through.
WALLACE: All right. We have about two minutes left. I want to get into one last area with you, preexisting conditions. All sides agree that there needs to be reform that prevents insurance companies from keeping out people who have preexisting--
RYAN: Right. WALLACE: -- medical conditions. The White House says -- Democrats say, "Hey, look. The only way you can do that is by having an individual mandate that everybody get insurance so you have these big pools. Otherwise, people will game the system. They won't get health insurance until they get sick. And then they'll say, 'I want to buy a policy.'"
RYAN: That is not the only way to do it. And the Republican alternative says there's a better way to do it, which is well-funded high-risk pools in the states that make sure we target subsidies to those people who have preexisting conditions.
You accomplish two things by doing that. You make sure that that person who has a chronic disease gets the need -- gets the care they have and they need so that they don't go bankrupt when they get sick. And by subsidizing their coverage, you actually lower the price of health insurance for everybody else.
Unlike the Democratic plan -- it raises everybody's health care cost. So what we're saying is you don't have to unnecessarily raise everybody's premiums to help those with a preexisting condition. Let's target and focus our support to those with preexisting conditions to help them get affordable coverage.
And by doing it the way we're proposing to do it, you actually lower everybody else's premiums. We think that's a better idea and you can do it without making everybody buy health insurance.
Look, this is a new--
WALLACE: And--
RYAN: Let me give you this. They're saying you have to buy what the federal government defines. We've never done that before.
WALLACE: And real quickly -- we've got less than 30 seconds left -- Congress -- Speaker Pelosi is saying, "You know, we're going to push the Senate bill and a reconciliation, a fixed bill, through."
Does -- do the Democrats have a majority of votes to get the comprehensive health care plan through the House?
RYAN: They do not now have the votes from our best count. I wouldn't count her out, because she is very good at muscling votes. They were down 24 on cap and trade the night before. They passed it by eight.
So the speaker is very good at making deals behind closed doors and muscling votes, but right now they don't have the votes.
WALLACE: Congressman Ryan, we want to thank you. As always, it's a pleasure, sir.
RYAN: Thanks, Chris.
Feb 28, 2010 11:36 ET .
Source: CQ Transcriptions
© 2010, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved
FEBRUARY 28, 2010
SPEAKERS: CHRIS WALLACE, HOST
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ, D-N.J.
SEN. JOHN KYL, R-ARIZ.
REP. PAUL D. RYAN, R-WIS.
[*] WALLACE: I'm Chris Wallace, and this is "Fox News Sunday."
The great divide over health care reform just got wider. Now the president is ready to act.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions and then that's what elections are for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: we'll ask two key senators what happens next, Jon Kyl, the number two Republican, and Robert Menendez, who runs the Democrat Senate Campaign Committee.
Then, the GOP's point man on health care calls out the president on the price tag for reform.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL RYAN: This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: We'll take a look inside the numbers with Paul Ryan, top Republican on the House Budget Committee.
Also, was the health care meeting must-see TV or dog-and-pony show? We'll ask our very own critics to give it thumbs up or down.
And our Power Player of the Week, Nascar's number 88 gives some troubled teens a second chance, all right now on "Fox News Sunday."
And hello again from Fox News in Washington. The president is scheduled to announce this week how he wants Democrats to proceed on health care reform. But will Congress listen?
We're joined by two key senators -- from Phoenix, Jon Kyl, the Republican's number two leader, and from New York, Robert Menendez, who's in charge of getting Democrats elected to the Senate this year.
Gentlemen, it seems almost certain that the president and congressional Democrats are going to try to pass comprehensive health care reform by using the parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation, where they would need 51 votes in the Senate instead of 60 votes.
You're both professional vote-counters so, Senator Menendez, starting with you, do Democrats have the simple majority they will need in the Senate to pass it?
MENENDEZ: Well, Chris, our first hope is that we could actually get some movement from our Republican colleagues as a result of the summit. At the summit we heard a lot of Democrats, including the president, embrace many of the ideas of Republicans. Hopefully we could get some movement very shortly on that.
But in the absence of that, you know, there may be the ability to proceed on a simple majority vote that has been used many times by Republicans in the past, including for the passage of the Bush tax cuts and changes to Medicare that were some of the biggest cuts in Medicare.
So the opportunity is there. We'd really like to get a bipartisan bill. In the absence of that, the American people, I think, have said in the polls that they want to see move forward on health care reform.
WALLACE: So to answer my question, do you have the votes or not, Senator Menendez?
MENENDEZ: I think we will get to that point where we will have the votes. I believe that we will pass health care reform this spring.
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, do Democrats have the votes to pass what they will need to pass, which will basically be the fix to the Senate bill, through a simple majority? Will they have 51 votes?
KYL: It's unclear right now. As Bob said, they may do a lot of things in order to get those votes, some of the backroom deal-making that characterized the previous legislation that the American people didn't like so much.
I think their bigger problem is going to be in the House of Representatives where they basically don't have any votes to spare on a pure majority vote.
And when they took their vote in the House, it was many months ago before this legislation was well-known to the American people. Now that it is so unpopular with the American people, I doubt seriously that there will be enough House members, House Democrats, who will risk their careers to vote for this legislation the second time around.
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, while under reconciliation rules you could not filibuster, you can offer unlimited amendments. Is that what you would try to do?
KYL: Well, it's not really that simple. Robert Byrd, who actually wrote the reconciliation rule, has said that its application in this case would be an outrage that should be -- that must be resisted, he said.
He pointed out that it's not designed for this, because there is very limited debate, only 20 hours. And he said the opportunity to offer amendments is essentially meaningless when you don't have more than 20 hours to consider the bill. He said it's not designed for this purpose. It has been used several times before, but primarily to balance the budget. It is a budget procedure.
WALLACE: Well, but, Senator Kyl--
KYL: And you can either--
WALLACE: -- forgive me.
KYL: -- raise -- sure.
WALLACE: We're going to get into that in a second. But you could offer hundreds and hundreds of amendments, each of which would require quorum calls, votes. I mean, that -- you could -- you could tie the Senate up in knots if you want to.
KYL: Sure, but nobody wants to do that. And there is no debate on the amendments. See, that's the point. You could -- you could offer 200 amendments and nobody would ever have any debate on any of them. That is not a procedure designed to reach a good conclusion.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, are you as convinced that they won't try to tie the Senate up with a long list of amendments?
MENENDEZ: Well, look. I think Americans should know that when we hear the words about reconciliation, it is simple -- simply a majority vote. You know, we learned that all our lives, you know, 51 out of 100.
On certain budget elements -- that's the other thing. This whole bill cannot be passed on reconciliation. It would be the budget elements of the bill, with a simple majority vote, a procedure that Republicans used to pass the Bush tax cuts, which are about two times the size of this bill, and that were used in other health care issues like Medicare and Medicaid by Republicans in the past.
So I find it very interesting that our colleagues on the Republican side, many who defended the use of a simple majority 51- vote process on budget-related issues, now object to it.
The reality is -- is that when you see 40 percent premium increases in California, when you see people denied because of preexisting conditions, when you have lifetime caps, when you can't keep your child on your insurance to -- you know, through college, those are the things that Americans want to change.
And those are the things that we are seeking to change in our comprehensive health care reform.
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, I cut you off before.
KYL: Chris -- Chris, if I could just--
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, let me -- let me pose my question, because I think it's right on this very issue. KYL: OK.
WALLACE: Let's look at the record of what reconciliation's history is. First of all, it's been used 22 times, two-thirds of the times by Republicans, not Democrats.
And it's been used for such big-ticket items as the Reagan tax and spending cuts, the children's health program, welfare reform and the Bush tax cuts. Question: A lot of those go beyond simple budget measures, Senator Kyl.
KYL: Most of the time it has been used for simple budget matters. Other cases, you had large majorities. For example, on welfare there were 78 senators who voted for it, and a majority of Democrats. And on the Bush tax cuts, I believe the number is 12 Democrats supported it.
And that -- and those were revenue measures. Tax reductions or tax increases are one of the things that reconciliation is designed for. The American people, according to a brand new poll, oppose the use of reconciliation here by a vote of 52-39, I believe it is.
And the reason is because they appreciate that the comprehensive nature of it that Bob just spoke to is precisely what makes this not applicable here. It's not just a matter of adjusting a number here or a number there.
You've got a 2,500-page bill that in its first 10 years of full implementation is $2.5 trillion. It affects virtually everything having to do with health care in the country. That is a process that needs more than 20 hours of debate and an opportunity to provide amendments that you can actually debate--
WALLACE: But, Senator Kyl--
KYL: -- rather than just throw out.
WALLACE: -- I'm not quite sure I understand. If reconciliation was a proper tool to use for something as expansive as welfare reform, why isn't it OK to be used for the fix of the Senate bill?
KYL: First of all, I'm not sure that it should have been used for welfare reform. But again, 78 senators said that it was OK. So you didn't need to use reconciliation to get the number of votes.
WALLACE: But they did.
KYL: What they're trying to do here -- yes, but it wasn't needed for that purpose, is my point. And so here it is only being used because they cannot get the 60 votes that would ordinarily be required.
That's why Robert Byrd said to use it in this situation would be outrage. As he said in his letter, if you can't do it the usual way, then you shouldn't do it by reconciliation just because you can't get the votes otherwise. In the case of the welfare legislation, as I said, 78 senators were willing to do it. So it wasn't necessary to use it in order to pass it.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, Senator Kyl--
MENENDEZ: Chris, we already had -- we've already had--
WALLACE: Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: .. a majority vote--
WALLACE: Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: -- in the Senate of this issue.
WALLACE: -- let me ask a question, if I might, and then -- and then you can answer it. You know, the -- Senator Kyl keeps talking about public opinion. The fact is, as we mentioned, you're the man in charge of electing Democrats to the Senate.
In November -- the polls -- Senator Kyl's right -- are overwhelmingly against comprehensive health care reform. We had this Massachusetts election in which Scott Brown won campaigning as the 41st vote against health care reform.
If Democrats, against all of that, go ahead and pass comprehensive health care reform using reconciliation, this parliamentary maneuver, don't you risk tremendous voter backlash in November?
MENENDEZ: Chris, you know, the numbers I see -- I see the Washington Post poll just the other day that said 66 percent of Americans want to us move forward on comprehensive health care reform.
I see the numbers of 40 percent premium increases in California and other parts of the country. I see Americans and New Jerseyans who tell me, in fact, that they can't afford health insurance. And this bill is the biggest tax cut for health insurance that we have seen.
$500 billion goes to tax cuts to help individuals and small businesses be able to afford health insurance. And it does it in a way by eliminating the waste, fraud and abuse and stop overpayments to insurance companies.
WALLACE: But -- but, Senator, I'm asking--
MENENDEZ: -- that, in fact, are getting overpaid right now.
WALLACE: -- I'm asking--
MENENDEZ: So I don't know why Republicans would oppose a process that they have used in the past to accomplish exactly those goals.
WALLACE: But, Senator--
MENENDEZ: And that's what Americans want to see. They want--
WALLACE: But, Senator, I'm asking you -- Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: -- to end the preexisting conditions.
WALLACE: -- if I may, I'm asking you a--
MENENDEZ: They want to afford health insurance.
WALLACE: -- political question, not a policy question.
MENENDEZ: And they want to -- and they want to stop the insurance company abuses.
WALLACE: And the political question I'm asking is do you think that voters are going to reward Democrats for passing comprehensive health care reform through reconciliation when the polls indicate they oppose it?
MENENDEZ: I think Americans, when they see the final product that stops the preexisting conditions limitations, that gives them the biggest tax cut for health care in history, that gives them $500 billion to them and small businesses, that if you get your insurance at work, you're going to see reduction in cost, that if you buy insurance you're going to -- for the same exact type of insurance you might have right now, under the exchange we offer we'll see a 14 to 20 percent decrease -- that all of these things -- and fully paid for, reduce our deficit by $100 billion in the first 10 years, a trillion dollars in the next 10 years after that -- I think Americans want to see that. They want to see--
WALLACE: Senator--
MENENDEZ: -- progress.
WALLACE: Senator--
MENENDEZ: And they're tired of hearing no.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, please, let me -- let me get in here a little bit.
Senator Kyl, I want you to respond to that, but let me ask it to you in the form of another question, because you were involved in one of the more interesting exchanges with the president. And let's take a look at it right here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KYL: Do you trust the states or do you trust Washington? Do you trust patients and doctors making the decision or do you trust Washington?
OBAMA: OK. Any time the question is phrased as "does Washington know better," I think we're kind of tipping the scales a little bit there, since we all know that everybody is angry at Washington right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, do you think the president and Democrats ever really wanted to reach out to Republicans? Or do you think they just wanted to score a political point of appearing to reach out?
KYL: I don't know what was in the president's mind, but I think that little exchange actually was very valuable, because the president is right. People are not very crazy about Washington solutions these days.
A bill that spends about $2.5 trillion, 2,500 pages, massive government takeover here, big tax increases -- that's what folks are leery of. They don't want Washington making all of those decisions, especially if they think it might interfere between them and their doctor.
And that is a fundamental difference between us. It's one of the reasons it's very hard to reconcile our two approaches here. Just to give you an example, the tax cuts that my friend Bob Menendez talks about are really direct subsidies to the insurance companies. There was a deal made with the insurance companies.
We will force everybody to buy insurance and then we, the federal government, will pay you, insurance companies, directly. It's not a tax cut to people. The people never see the money. It goes directly to the insurance companies.
It's one of the things that we don't like. And the polls, by the way -- the most recent poll is a CNN poll about three days old. Twenty-five percent of the people support this plan, 25 percent say, "Absolutely stop working on it," 48 percent say, "Stop and start over."
So you've got nearly three-fourths of the American people saying stop or stop and start over.
WALLACE: Gentlemen, we've got less -- we've got less than two minutes, and I want to get in a couple of more quick questions to you.
Senator Menendez, your Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, was just able to pass a smaller jobs bill with 13 Republican votes. And one of the things he said afterwards is, "Look, we're not going to pass one big huge bill. We have a jobs agenda which is several smaller bills." And in this case you got a lot of bipartisan support.
Why not treat health care the same way?
MENENDEZ: Well, look, even Governor Schwarzenegger says, you know, starting all over again is really political speak for -- you know, and partisan speak for "my way or the highway," in essence.
Basically, we have spent months on this. We have incorporated a whole host of Republican ideas. And to hear my friend Jon Kyl say that the insurance companies are going to get the benefit -- look, they're the ones fighting us the most.
And with all due respect, Jon took their positions on a whole host of amendments in the Finance Committee, basically supporting their views.
Democrats believe that there should be, you know, simple rules of the road in which insurance companies can't tell people who have insurance, when they make a claim, "No, you're denied." They can't stop people who have an illness--
WALLACE: We--
MENENDEZ: -- from getting insurance.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: And that also, we can make it more affordable, so--
WALLACE: OK.
MENENDEZ: -- you know, that's a fundamental difference. You know, hearing that--
WALLACE: Senator -- Senator Menendez--
MENENDEZ: -- you know, Washington knows best--
WALLACE: -- I have to break in here because we're--
MENENDEZ: -- it's not Washington knows best.
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, I have--
MENENDEZ: We want insurance companies--
WALLACE: -- to break in here--
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: -- because we're running out of time and I want to ask Senator Kyl one quick question.
You have 30 seconds, Senator Kyl. One of your Republican colleagues, Senator Bunning, blocked the extension of unemployment benefits this past week. This coming week, will Republicans vote against Bunning and vote to extend unemployment benefits to millions of Americans?
KYL: I think the -- this is a temporary extension. It's over $10 billion. And all Senator Bunning was saying, quite correctly, is it ought to be paid for.
Congress just passed the so-called pay-go legislation which is supposed to require that we find offsets or other savings if we're going to spend money. And what's--
WALLACE: So -- so--
KYL: -- the first thing we do? We exempt this bill from it. It will pass, though, I -- because it's a temporary extension. The question for the longer term extension is a different issue, because that's well over $100 billion.
WALLACE: Senator Kyl, Senator Menendez, sorry for occasionally having to break in. But I wanted to get to a lot of ground, and we did. Thank you, both. And please come back, gentlemen.
MENENDEZ: Thank you, Chris.
KYL: Have a good interview with Junior.
WALLACE: All right, thank you.
Up next, we'll go inside the numbers on health care reform with the House Republicans' top expert, Congressman Paul Ryan. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: In the health care summit this week, there was one Republican President Obama didn't want to mess with, someone who knows as much about the issue as he does.
We want to go inside the numbers of health care reform with Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, the GOP's top man on the House Budget Committee.
Congressman, one of the big disagreements -- in fact, perhaps the first big disagreement at the summit -- was the question of whether or not the Democratic plan would raise or lower people's--
RYAN: Right.
WALLACE: -- health care premiums. Isn't it true, in fact, that most Americans would end up paying less?
RYAN: No, it's not true. The Congressional Budget Office says they will get higher premium increases, 10 to 13 percent. Private actuaries put those premium increase in the double-digit to triple- digit territory.
The Blue Cross plans are telling us they're going to see a massive spike in premiums for people. That's the problem. What we're hearing coming out of Washington, the rhetoric, doesn't match the actual facts that are underneath this legislation.
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that, because I want to put up -- you know, for lack of anybody better, we're dealing with the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan agency, and here's what they said. Let's put the numbers up on the screen.
It said that for those in large group policies there would be somewhere between no change and a 3 percent decrease in premium costs. And it said for those in the individual market, the average premium, as you said and as Lamar Alexander said, would go up 10 to 13 percent.
But the CBO added that those folks would get better policies, and well over half would get subsidiaries, quote, "that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law." Congressman?
RYAN: Well, if you add these -- if you add subsidiaries, sure. But let's get this point clear. We're not going to have more insurance competition under this new law. We're going to have less insurance competition. That's going to increase prices.
And if you put more mandates on insurance, as this does -- this federalizes the regulation of health insurance, displacing states' rights -- that's going to make it more expensive.
So what this bill attempts to do is, yes, make health insurance much more expensive and then just have Washington subsidize more of it to try and limit people's out-of-pocket costs. That's a deficit nightmare. It's a cost nightmare.
And so you will be putting more costs onto the backs of the taxpayers at the end of the day here.
WALLACE: All right. Well, let's talk about the question of costs, because that was something that you brought up with the president.
RYAN: Yeah.
WALLACE: Another big disagreement is whether, as you said, the Democratic package bends the cost curve of government spending--
RYAN: Right.
WALLACE: -- up or down, as the Democrats claim. And again, let's go to the CBO, which says that the Senate bill would cut the deficit by $132 billion over the first 10 years.
RYAN: OK, so the CBO has to score the legislation that's put in front of them. And the legislation that's been put in front of them is full of smoke, mirrors and gimmicks.
Let me give you an example. It double counts Medicare cost savings. It double counts increased taxes for Social Security, increased premiums for this new CLASS Act.
If you take all the double counting out of the bill, which the CBO can't do because that's the way it's put in front of them, this thing has a $460 billion deficit in the first 10 years, a $1.4 trillion deficit in the second 10 years.
WALLACE: Well, explain the double counting, because you made a--
RYAN: Right.
WALLACE: -- big point of that at the summit.
RYAN: OK. So two things. This bill looks like it reduces the deficit because they raise taxes a half a trillion dollars over 10 years and cut Medicare a half a trillion dollars over 10 years to pay for six years of spending.
So 10 years of tax increases and Medicare cuts with six years of spending makes it look as if this thing reduces the deficit. And then if you double count those tax increases, those Medicare cuts, which this does do-- WALLACE: Well, explain the double counting, though.
RYAN: -- that's the whole smoke and mirrors.
WALLACE: What do you mean, double counting?
RYAN: Right. So they're bringing in more money for premiums to pay for a new entitlement called the CLASS Act. You can't count that premium increase for deficit reduction.
They're taking more money in Social Security taxes, which is reserved for Social Security benefits. And if it's -- if you're not going to pay those benefits, then you can use it. But you can't count it both for paying benefits and reducing the deficit.
If you're going to say that all these Medicare cuts are improving the solvency of Medicare, which is what they say, then you can't use that money to spend on the creation of another government program.
So what they're doing is they're raiding a half a trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for a new government program. And you can't say that's going to improve Medicare, which is what they're saying. So--
WALLACE: But -- but--
RYAN: -- in each of these cases they're counting the numbers twice.
WALLACE: OK, but let -- but let me ask you this, because the CBO says -- let's -- again, we have to go back to them as the umpire in this whole deal--
RYAN: Right.
WALLACE: -- that once revenue and spending have all kicked in, because you talk about 10 years of revenue, six years of spending, they're saying that once it's all kicked in, the revenue will still exceed the spending. And in fact, it says, "The CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not cause a net increase in deficits -- would not cause a net increase in deficits in excess of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning after 2019."
They're projecting out 50 years and saying that if it has any impact on deficits, it'll be only minimal.
RYAN: Now, there are a couple -- I can go great into the detail here, but one of the things they're saying is--
WALLACE: No, please -- please don't do that.
RYAN: OK. One of the things they're saying is we're putting this new commission in charge of Medicare that is not elected, unelected bureaucrats, to ration care and put the clamps down on spending.
And they're saying if this commission does its job, cuts Medicare even more across the board, then that will happen. Other point is the president's own chief actuary of Medicare and Medicaid is saying quite the opposite. He's saying this is going to increase health care costs by $222 billion over the first 10 years, and so instead of bending the proverbial cost curve down, it's going up.
So when you actually look at a real-life look at how these numbers add up, and you take out the smoke and mirrors that the CBO can't take out in their analysis, it reveals these things as not being true.
Let me just give you another point.
WALLACE: Can I -- well, let me just--
RYAN: OK, go ahead.
WALLACE: -- because I want to go on to another subject, malpractice, because in the summit, Republicans kept talking about malpractice reform, limiting doctors' liabilities.
And in fact, House leader, your leader, John Boehner said that medical malpractice and defensive medicine are the single biggest driver of medical inflation. That isn't true, is it?
RYAN: Well, it's one of the biggest drivers. I think there are other contributing factors which are not being addressed in this bill. But it's a huge contributing factor.
WALLACE: Well, let me -- let me just pick up on that, because again, the CBO says -- and let's put up the numbers -- that malpractice reform would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent. That's one-half of 1 percent, about $11 billion in 2009.
I mean, the fact is drugs, and technology, and an aging population are much bigger drivers of medical inflation than malpractice, aren't they?
RYAN: Right. What CBO measures is, you know, the cost of government. And they say, "We'll have $54 billion of savings with medical liability reform."
What they cannot measure -- and I understand why they can't measure this. They can't measure all of that defensive medicine. They can't measure all the additional tests that are being ordered by doctors, not because it's good health care, because it's good liability protection. They don't measure all of that.
So there's a lot of stuff that is not being measured that we would appreciate from if you actually did medical liability reform. So what John Boehner is saying is if we actually get rid of the process of defensive medicine by having real tort reform, that would give us a lot more cost savings. Those are cost savings that the CBO just can't measure. WALLACE: All right. Let's turn to another subject -- and there's certainly no disagreement about the numbers here -- which is the question of coverage.
The Democrats say that their plan would cover 30 million uninsured -- currently uninsured Americans, would give them health insurance coverage. The Republican plan would cover 3 million. What happens to the 27 million--
RYAN: Well--
WALLACE: -- other Americans?
RYAN: Well, there -- there's lots of Republican bills. That's one particular bill the president was talking about. The president referenced the bill that I have with Tom Coburn, Devin Nunes and Richard Burr which covers those 30 million people, which gets us toward full coverage in America without all these new tax increases, without all these Medicare cuts.
So we believe we can get to the same coverage numbers without having a government takeover of health care.
WALLACE: Well, how do you--
RYAN: So we've been--
WALLACE: Very briefly and generally--
RYAN: -- offering these ideas all year.
WALLACE: -- how do you do that? How do you get -- how do you cover 27 million other people?
RYAN: We propose to do it through refundable tax credits, to give people the ability to have tax credits by ending the discrimination against people who don't buy health insurance from their jobs. And we say there are better ways of doing this.
So there are lots of Republicans' ideas that have been offered all session long to get at this coverage number without massive tax increases, Medicare cuts and a government takeover of health care.
The point is we haven't -- we've been frozen out of this process, Chris. The only time we've had bipartisan discussion, you've seen it, because it's been on TV. We've been frozen out of this process all session long, and it's quite clear to us that they're really not interested in engaging in collaborating and bipartisanship. They want to jam this thing through.
WALLACE: All right. We have about two minutes left. I want to get into one last area with you, preexisting conditions. All sides agree that there needs to be reform that prevents insurance companies from keeping out people who have preexisting--
RYAN: Right. WALLACE: -- medical conditions. The White House says -- Democrats say, "Hey, look. The only way you can do that is by having an individual mandate that everybody get insurance so you have these big pools. Otherwise, people will game the system. They won't get health insurance until they get sick. And then they'll say, 'I want to buy a policy.'"
RYAN: That is not the only way to do it. And the Republican alternative says there's a better way to do it, which is well-funded high-risk pools in the states that make sure we target subsidies to those people who have preexisting conditions.
You accomplish two things by doing that. You make sure that that person who has a chronic disease gets the need -- gets the care they have and they need so that they don't go bankrupt when they get sick. And by subsidizing their coverage, you actually lower the price of health insurance for everybody else.
Unlike the Democratic plan -- it raises everybody's health care cost. So what we're saying is you don't have to unnecessarily raise everybody's premiums to help those with a preexisting condition. Let's target and focus our support to those with preexisting conditions to help them get affordable coverage.
And by doing it the way we're proposing to do it, you actually lower everybody else's premiums. We think that's a better idea and you can do it without making everybody buy health insurance.
Look, this is a new--
WALLACE: And--
RYAN: Let me give you this. They're saying you have to buy what the federal government defines. We've never done that before.
WALLACE: And real quickly -- we've got less than 30 seconds left -- Congress -- Speaker Pelosi is saying, "You know, we're going to push the Senate bill and a reconciliation, a fixed bill, through."
Does -- do the Democrats have a majority of votes to get the comprehensive health care plan through the House?
RYAN: They do not now have the votes from our best count. I wouldn't count her out, because she is very good at muscling votes. They were down 24 on cap and trade the night before. They passed it by eight.
So the speaker is very good at making deals behind closed doors and muscling votes, but right now they don't have the votes.
WALLACE: Congressman Ryan, we want to thank you. As always, it's a pleasure, sir.
RYAN: Thanks, Chris.
Feb 28, 2010 11:36 ET .
Source: CQ Transcriptions
© 2010, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved