On the recordApril 28, 2010
I would urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit because the language of the recommit does what the gentleman's argument doesn't do. The language of this argument says we should have full, accurate transparency about the cost of the new health care bill as it applies to defense contracts. In other words, we ought to know the facts. We agree with that. With all of the respect of the gentleman's argument, the facts were kind of missing. Here is what the facts are: As to the report that he references from CMS, I would take due note of the fact that the ``M'' in CMS means ``Medicare.'' Here is what the report said: Before the President signed the health care law, the Medicare Trust Fund was due to run out of money in 2017. Because the President signed the health care law, the Medicare Trust Fund will live for at least 12 more years. The fact is that the report said that future forecasts of health care costs are, to quote the report: only a prediction, difficult to ascertain, subject to interpretation. Well, here are some interpretations that the American public are beginning to see: When sons and daughters under the age of 26 years old can be covered on their parents' policies, the American people support that. When people cannot be turned away from buying insurance or cannot have their premiums raised because they had breast cancer or asthma, the American people support that.
