I mean, if it is such urgency, I do not know because it seems to me we are bringing it up without the responsible procedure of seeing whether the bill is indeed any good. A closed rule does not permit any changes, and, except in some of the tax bills, I do not know what this urge, this rush, to judgment. If it is so good, why would it not stand the scrutiny of some discussion? I really do not--have no understanding of that, and I have heard precious little response from the majority side as to what they are scared of. What is it they are afraid of that will be offered? I am puzzled. I begin to--I would not say smell a rat--but why we would rush to jam this down the throats of unsuspecting seniors? My mother is perfectly happy right now with Blue Cross, and she has got Aetna--or she has got AARP's MediGap. Why? She is happy.
Pete Stark: “I mean, if it is such urgency, I do not know because it seems to me we are bringing it up without the responsible…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the urgency and process of a bill affecting seniors during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Pete Stark
I think we have to ask ourselves, how do we do more good than harm in eliminating the compensation arrangements.
I dislike the notion that we need to increase costs for beneficiaries in order to fix the physician payment system.
Medicare is one of our Nation's best programs, but it has always been a work in progress, and it needs ongoing fine-tuning and changing to keep it relevant.
I don't think I look much like Bill Murray, or have his wit, but I sure feel like him in his role in ``Groundhog Day.'' There are pressing issues facing our country--mainly the need to get our economy back on track and start creating jobs…





