to summarize, everybody around here is supportive of a plan which would fully fund what is necessary to take care of children whose families make 200 percent of poverty or less. But what we on our side don't want to see is an expansion of this program as a method of taking people out of private insurance and putting them on the public system, creating a single-payer plan and, as a result, moving down the road toward the nationalization of the entire health care industry. It would be at a cost of $71 billion to the American taxpayer, a cost which isn't accounted for in this bill and which is not paid for. The program has a fundamental flaw in it as to how they verify who is participating so we don't even know if we are going to have citizens participating in this program versus illegals. It is a bill which is flawed. It should be opposed, and it should be vetoed. I yield the floor.
Judd Gregg: “to summarize, everybody around here is supportive of a plan which would fully fund what is necessary to take care of…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing a health care program expansion during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Judd Gregg
The United States is one debt deal away from leading the entire world out of [its] economic doldrums.
I think Simpson-Bowles got it right on this point. We reduced deductions and exemptions so that we generated $1.1 trillion of revenue every year.
I would suggest that on issues that involve all Americans, where pretty much everybody is affected, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and tax reform, that if you push forward in a partisan way, at least 50 percent, maybe a little less…
But there is no question that if you are going to address this issue in a way that has substantive impact on the future of our Nation, the prosperity of our children, and our standard of living, it is the second 10 years, and the third 10…