Larry Bucshon

Based on your budget, would you agree that HRSA needs more authority to create clear and enforceful standards for the 340(b) program?

Do you think that we should have a minimum charity care level met across all hospital networks at the main hospital, but also within their network?

I was proud to sponsor a bill last Congress that would introduce common-sense data collection for 340(b) entities previously facing no oversight.

My constituents do need relief, but it is from the high deductibles and premiums created the ACA.

Medicare for all would accelerate our movement down this path.

Under Medicare for all, what company would spend tens of millions of dollars developing the latest medical breakthrough, only to see the federal government take it away?

Medicare for all would also authorize a government takeover of health care treatments by allowing the federal government to steal a company's intellectual property if the company and the federal government cannot come to an agreement on…

The result of this total government takeover of Americans' health care would place Washington bureaucrats, and not doctors and patients, completely in charge of the health care decisions of Americans.

Medicare for all would establish a government-run, single-payer health care system that would completely upend the health care system as Americans know it today.

The only thing that Medicare for all would get us... is the health care decisions of Americans, centralizing them with Washington bureaucrats.

I want to make sure that whatever we do here in this committee it includes audio data and also considers location data based on hardware within a device.

If you have a preexisting condition, don't choose a short-term health plan that is cheap. They don't discriminate at all, because it is a consumer choice.

I keep telling people if you continue to debate how to pay for a product that is too expensive, you are not going to catch up.

We should be talking about the fact that people with preexisting conditions really don't have protections.

We all support protections for preexisting conditions.

I don't see this as particularly partisan.

If everyone out there is following the intent of the program, either original intent or in its current goals, then no one, I repeat, no one has anything to worry about with increasing oversight of the program.

I am a strong supporter of the 340B program. It's critical to many of the rural hospitals in my district.

I would just remind everyone, 1992, no internet, and the Cold War was just ending. Times have changed, and the original intent of the program is important.

Those of you who are opposing more transparency, the lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

How do we begin to get a national legal standard for impairment?

I think you're going to start seeing more impaired driving.

I personally oppose that based on medical grounds.

I honestly believe unless Congress sets hard deadlines that the reality is, this is probably not going to change in any substantial way.

10, 12 years to get--to secure a license, and this is on projects on existing dams.