You know what we are trying to do. How would you design what we should do at this point?

This hearing today is really about serving the greater good.

From a patient's standpoint you walk into the emergency room or whatever, and you get put in one of these statuses or the other.

The three midnight rule is a problem considering how medicine is practiced today.

The idea of that is, in fact, to make people pay more out of pocket on the assumption that they will be more careful healthcare consumers.

Unlike some of my Republican counterparts, I believe some level of regulation is necessary to ensure that we protect Medicare's finite resources for future generations.

So then the difference is in the payment that is received by the hospital or that the patient has to make depending on which category they are in; is that correct?

From a revenue standpoint. Because we said it doesn't make any difference how they are treated as people and as patients, so the only difference is how much money the hospital makes off of it; is that correct?

I think everyone in this room would agree that protecting Medicare as a bedrock institution of American life, thereby serving the greater good, does require some sacrifice.

the RACs operate like the fishermen in my district. They go out and throw a great big net.

Simplifying the program, a complex Medicare program would be helpful.

Only 7 percent are overturned.