On the recordMarch 21, 2012
Thank you for yielding. Madam Chairman, did you notice something? The gentleman from Oregon-- and I took a note and I'm kind of paraphrasing, but he basically was arguing from the other side of the aisle that IPAB, this cost control board, will basically never come into play as long as Congress does its job. During the health care hearing that we had in the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin on the other side of the aisle characterized IPAB as a leap of faith, and now we just heard from the gentleman from Texas who acknowledged it's not the best solution, but let's stick with it. Here's the problem with sticking with this failed solution, Madam Chairman. They're asking seniors to bear the brunt of this. We had an expert witness, Madam Chairman, who came into the Ways and Means Committee, and I posed this question to him. I said: There's no rationing per se. It's defined out of the bill, although it's not defined in the bill. But the bill says there can't be rationing, but can there be per se rationing? In other words, if coverage is denied based on cost, is that rationing? And he said: Absolutely, Congressman. So think about what the other side of the aisle is asking. Take a leap of faith, a leap of blind faith, that somehow Congress is going to come up with the remedy and that seniors are not going to be held at risk. The gentleman from Texas said that we're only here criticizing things. Let me tell him, Madam Chairman, what we are for.…
