W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. My good friend from California would like to jump in here.

Mr. AKIN. It violates the law of supply and demand, doesn't it, Doctor?

Mr. AKIN. So it runs the cost up on the system so the incentive for the doctors is, take the fallback, it's safe. I don't care. Let the cost go up. I'm not going to stick my neck out, right?

Mr. AKIN. If you do order the test, what does that cost you?

Mr. AKIN. You have a big liability because if you don't do the test, then what could happen?

Mr. AKIN. Even though it doesn't make any sense at all to do it?

Mr. AKIN. Let me ask you a specific question, Doctor. You picture yourself--and maybe you're the emergency room doctor that night or you're practicing medicine--and somebody comes to you and they say, I think I need this such test, and it's vaguely related to something that might have happened to them. You look at them and in your medical opinion, there isn't one chance in a thousand that they need that test. So if you deny them getting that test, then do you have some risk?

Mr. AKIN. In the State of Missouri we have the same sort of principle. It may be not quite as much defined by engineers, and we say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' And you've got a hundred million people with health care that they like pretty well, everything is chugging fine, and you want to destroy and throw the whole thing overboard because you may have at the most 10 or 12 or 15 million that aren't getting the care that you think they ought to get. That's one of those, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' And that really does raise a question. It almost seems that we're starting with the premise that we want the government to run all of health care and just looking for an excuse to try to do that. We got a little bit off track. The question was, are there really legitimate savings and costs through some reform in terms of tort reform? We have a doctor here. He's practiced medicine 20-some years. Dr. Broun, what do you think about tort reform? Does it make sense? Do we have some savings there? And can we improve the quality of medicine in America by making some adjustments in that area?

Mr. AKIN. Well, we appreciate very much your good work on the Rules Committee, and Congresswoman Foxx it's just a treat to have you. And I yield to my good friend, Congressman Hoekstra.

Mr. AKIN. So, in other words, another proposal would be that if you got a bunch of small businesses, if they want to pool their employees and get a better deal on health care, they can create these health care pools. Now that's an idea. Do you know any Republicans that are opposed to that?

Mr. AKIN. So that's usually called by the word ``portability,'' isn't it? And that's something that Republicans largely support; is that your understanding?

Mr. AKIN. And so our good friend from California, who is an attorney who came in here and warned us about this, there's one. Okay, now why don't you name another one or two.

Mr. AKIN. Congresswoman Foxx, let's just hold right there for a second. What you just said is so very, very important. We've already mentioned one Republican alternative that is not in any single Democrat plan, which is tort reform, isn't it?

Mr. AKIN. Well, gentleman, as a way of trying to answer that question, I do recall the President saying earlier, and repeatedly, that the Republicans don't have any ideas on this. And so this must be one of those ideas that's not an idea because that's why they didn't put it any of their plans. Of course most people that know anything about medical care know that some of the excessive costs are created by things that are done just for the purpose of attorneys. Actually, I would like to defer your question to the good doctor from Georgia who's here, who has had 20 years or so in practice. Well, we've got two doctors actually. Just a second, now. Congresswoman Foxx, are you trying to escape on us here? We've got two doctors. I'm going to go to my most beautiful doctor who's here joining us this afternoon. Would you please share for a minute, and then I am going to go to you, Dr. Broun.

Mr. AKIN. You're admitting to being a lawyer here on the floor. I appreciate that.

Mr. AKIN. Oh, litigation reform box. It's got to be here somewhere. Could it possibly be forgotten?

Mr. AKIN. We are joined by your good friend from California. I see he has a little something he wants to say. But, Congressman Lungren, I would just be delighted if you'd join our conversation here.

Mr. AKIN. Well, I think somebody's getting their fist in some of that Federal money. You know, you talk about free enterprise. One aspect is in free enterprise you can fail, and we even allow some of our States to fail. You talked about their examples, Massachusetts and Tennessee have been pioneers in this system. And what have we learned from them? It's like Thomas Edison making light bulbs. He made 100 light bulbs. The first hundred, none of them worked. Well, these light bulbs don't work either. They not only have mercury in them, you turn them on, they just cost you money and don't work.

Mr. AKIN. He's looking too happy over there.

Mr. AKIN. Gentleman, I don't accept that and I know you don't accept that, that we just roll over and say we're going to have this government takeover of everything. I don't accept that.

Mr. AKIN. You're talking about freedom.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Thursdays on 2 hours. So get in line. That's incredible. We are about at the end of our hour. I would very much like to thank my good friends representing a host of different States, people with a great deal of common sense, and particularly Pennsylvania, with 25-plus years of being in the medical business. You see this thing, it's like a train wreck that you're seeing in slow motion. What we're trying to say is Americans, pay attention. We cannot afford to go this deal about taking 18 percent of our economy and giving it to the Federal Government to run. It doesn't make sense. It's going to be expensive. It's going to destroy health care. And in every other regard, this is just a bad deal for everybody. Thank you so much for joining me, gentlemen.

Mr. AKIN. The thing that concerns me is that it's possible for us jumping in haste to some kind of a solution like this because of all the political hubba-hubba that's going on, to jump into something which is going to permanently damage American health care. It's going to irreparably move us in a direction where it's going to be almost politically impossible to recover from. It's a little bit like when you get on the gunwale of a canoe, you put enough weight on it, and you're going to dump it over. We have a very good health care system, but can it take this kind of a hit? $400 billion in new taxes. Guess who is going to pay those? Do you think those are rich guys that are going to pay those? That's going to be every plain old working person in this country that is going to be part of that $400 billion. $500 billion out of Medicare. Guess who's going to pay that? That's going to be the seniors. And the delays and denied care. Who's going to pay that? That's people with heart problems, people with cancer problems. People will be waiting in line. People will have some bureaucrat controlling their health care. One of the things that really scares me about this, and maybe I'm thinking of it a little too personally, but we are Congressmen, and one of the things that we do in our office is we try to help our constituents that have a problem with the Federal Government. And so if somebody needs to get a passport, we go hurry up and try and help them get their passport quicker. If somebody has a problem with a permit or something, WE go call the bureaucrats up and say, Can you help out? What form have we not done? How can we help this? And we try to help our constituents out. Now, I'm picturing I'm on the phone and we've got this kind of system, and I'm getting the phone call that says, You've got some government bureaucrat that just told my dad he can't get a heart bypass. What am I supposed to do? I yield.

Mr. AKIN. So what you're saying, gentleman, is you're going to kill R&D. You're going to kill the development. There are all kinds of people that have cancer that is ticking away slowly. They want some innovation. They are hoping some new drugs or some new procedures are going to come along. We're going to kill that. We're going to get rid of that, and we're going to go to a system that has never worked historically. Here is a chart. This kind of got my attention, because as I mentioned, I was diagnosed with cancer, but take a look at the cancer survivor rates when you go to the U.K. compared to the U.S., and what you see is that big waiting time and that lack of innovation. You don't live as long when you are over in the U.K. In fact, I was told that when you add up all the cancer times, U.K.'s is a 50 percent survival rate if you're diagnosed with cancer. In the States, it's supposedly considerably higher. So why do we want to destroy a system that is producing this level of innovation? What you are talking about is free enterprise. And free enterprise needs, first of all, to have people have enough money to be able to invest; and second of all, have that competition and that hub of technology that you're starting to drive and one guy is thinking, Hey, I see what they did. That was a cool device. But I think I could up it one. I could do it even better. And that American process is what has allowed us to enjoy the best health care in the world. If you're a rich sheikh from Bahrain and you're sick, guess where you're going to go? The good old U.S.A. My good friend from Iowa.

Mr. AKIN. They come here?