I wonder if the Senator knows whether this comprehensive health care bill--which is going to "save" the government money; not run up the deficit--includes the amount of money it costs the government to pay doctors to serve Medicare patients. If it does not include that amount--which I believe I heard the Representative from Wisconsin say was $371 billion in the President's budget over 10 years--would that not be like asking the Congressional Budget Office to tell you the cost of a horse farm without the horses? Can the Senator from Arizona imagine a comprehensive health care program that does not include the cost of paying doctors to serve Medicare patients? If it does not, does that not clearly mean that just that one provision will guarantee that the bill will increase the Federal deficit?
Editor's note · Context
The speaker questions the financial implications of a comprehensive health care bill regarding Medicare costs.
Share
More from Heidi Alexander
before the Senator from Colorado leaves the floor, I offer to him my congratulations for his inspired leadership of the Great American Outdoors Act. This is something that good people on both sides of the aisle have worked on, literally…
today, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and I have introduced the School Choice Now Act, which does two things: It protects students who have been attending private schools from the heartbreaking loss of scholarships, and it gives…
It’s something I think about quite a lot myself, in terms of this job being absolutely insane, in terms of the number of hours I have to work, and how do I build in a little bit of physical activity into my life.
I am glad I was here to hear the wise words of the Senator from Texas. I look at our region, in the Tennessee Valley, compared to California. California is moving ahead with a policy a lot like Vice President Biden's. They have got a high…





