Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
WHO IS HELPED BY THIS REPEAL?
ONLY THE BIG INSURANCE
COMPANIES.
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING
TO BENEFIT.
I KNOW YOU WERE THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER SO I KNOW YOU KNOW
WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I DO HAVE SOME
EXPERIENCE ON THAT.
IT'S CALLED THE MEDICAL LOSS
RATIO AND THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES HAVE CUT A FAT CHECK
FOR THEMSELVES OVER THE YEARS BY
TAKING A BIG PREMIUM AND THEN
PAYING A SMALL AMOUNT OF IT OUT
FOR THE MEDICAL CONFERENCE.
AND THE PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS
AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT,
THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL POLICIES, 80% AND FOR
THE GROUP POLICIES, 85% FOR
MEDICAL SERVICES.
SO WHAT WAS THE VERY FIRST THING
THEY DID AFTER THIS BILL WAS
SIGNED INTO LAW?
WE PASSED IT LAST YEAR AND THE
PRESIDENT SIGNED IT.
THE VERY FIRST THING THEY DID
WAS TO RUN DOWN TO THE HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AND SAY, OH, BUT OUR ADVERTISING
OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED AS A
MEDICAL EXPENSE.
AND OH, THESE EXPENSES FOR THESE
KINDS OF EMPLOYEES, MOSTLY
STATISTICIANS, WE THINK THAT IS
A MEDICAL EXPENSE.
WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT
WHEN WE PAY A DOLLAR AT LEAST WE
GET 80 CENTS BACK IN MEDICAL
SERVICES.
OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE
WOULD REPEAL THAT AND ALLOW THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES TO TAKE THAT
MONEY OR A LARGER PORTION OF
THAT MONEY, PUT IT IN THEIR
POCKETS, GIVE IT TO THEIR
C.E.O.'S, WHATEVER, BUT NOT USE
IT FOR MEDICAL SERVICES.
MEDICAL LOSS RATIO IS IMPORTANT.
AND THE OTHER THING THAT NEEDS
TO BE UNDERSTOOD IS THE ABILITY
OF THE GOVERNMENT TO REVIEW, NOT
TO SAY NO, BUT TO SHINE THAT BIG
BRIGHT SPOTLIGHT ONTO THE
INCREASES.
INSURANCE COMPANY PREMIUM
IS IT JUSTIFIED, YES, NO, WHAT
ARE YOUR COSTS, WHAT RATIOS ARE
YOU USING FOR MEDICAL LOSSES AND
THE LIKE.
SO THAT SPOTLIGHT OF INFORMATION
IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW.
MANY, MANY THINGS IN THE LAW.
MR. COHEN, I SEE YOU STOOD UP,
ANXIOUS TO MAKE A COMMENT HERE
AND I NOTICE BEHIND YOU OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM MARYLAND HAS
JOINED US AND I WANT TO START
TALKING ABOUT SENIORS.
SO, PLEASE, MR. COHEN, I WANT
YOU TO GO FOR IT.
I WANT TO ASK A
QUESTION, THE FIRST THING THAT
THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO DO IS
REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH
CARE BILL.
BUT THE FIRST THING THEY DID WAS
TODAY AND WE JOINED WITH THEM
AND BIPARTISAN WAS TO CUT 5%
FROM OUR MEMBERS'
REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES, A
SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE BIG
PICTURE.
BUT THE DEFICIT WAS THE ISSUE
THEY WERE HIGHLIGHTING.
WHAT WOULD THE REPEAL OF THE
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT DO TO
THE DEFICIT, THAT'S THE ISSUE,
BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF OUR BIG
ISSUES?
WELL, IT JUST
HAPPENS WE PREPARED THIS LITTLE
BLUE CHART HERE AND IT OUGHT TO
BE IN THE RED.
THE REPEAL OF THE AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE ACT, OBVIOUSLY DEALS
WITH THE PATIENTS' BILL OF
RIGHTS BUT ALSO DEALS WITH THE
DEFICIT.
THIS WEEK, THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE, NOT REPUBLICAN,
NOT DEMOCRAT, THEY ANSWER TO
NEITHER PARTY BUT TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC.
THEY SAID THE REPEAL OF THE
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT WILL
INCREASE THE DEFICIT BY $230
BILLION, $230 BILLION IN THE
NEXT NINE YEARS AND IN THE OUT
YEARS, THE NEXT 10 YEARS, WELL
OVER $1,200,000,000.
THAT'S MONEY WE OWE
CHINA AND PAY THE INTEREST TO
THE CHINESE AND OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE PAYING
THIS IF THEY DON'T HAVE
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS WHERE
THEY CAN GET INSURANCE.
OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN AND THOSE OF US
LIVING FOR ANOTHER 10, 15, 20
YEARS, WE ARE GOING TO PAY
TWICE.
WE ARE GOING TO PAY THE
INSURANCE COSTS, THE HEALTH CARE
COSTS THAT IS NOT COVERED BY THE
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS, THE
EXAMPLE YOU GAVE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL WITH TWO BOUGHTS OF
CANCER AND GOING TO PAY FOR THE
FULL COSTS OF THAT BECAUSE THE
LIMITATION GOES BACK INTO PLACE.
SO YOU GET TO PAY FOR YOUR
HEALTH CARE AND YOU ARE GOING TO
ALSO.
HAVE TO PAY OFF THE DEFICIT
MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, BUT,
HEY, THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO
DO, WITHOUT ONE HEARING BY ANY
OF THE RELEVANT COMMITTEES.
CONSISTENCY IS THE
HOB GOBLIN.
THANK YOU SIR.
I NOTICED THAT
OUR COLLEAGUE FROM MARYLAND HAS
JOINED US.
MS. EDWARDS.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IT
EARLIER TODAY ON THE FLOOR AND
IN COMMITTEE.
I FEEL VERY
PERSONALLY ABOUT HEALTH CARE, A
PERSON WHO WENT A LONG TIME
WITHOUT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND
WORRIED LIKE MOST AMERICANS AND
THEY DID PRIOR TO OUR INVESTING
IN REFORM FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
SO I KNOW THAT ANXIETY.
AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT SOME OF
OUR SWEPTS, IN MARYLAND'S 4TH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT WHO
TODAY, BECAUSE OF WHAT WE DID IN
THE DEMOCRATIC-LED CONGRESS IN
PASSING LANDMARK HEALTH CARE
REFORM LEGISLATION ARE BETTER
OFF TODAY AND WE HAVEN'T FULLY
IMPLEMENTED THE BENEFITS FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I THINK ABOUT A LETTER THAT I
GOT FROM A GENTLEMAN WHO LIVES
IN MY DISTRICT IN OLNEY,
MARYLAND.
AND HE WRITES TO ME THAT HIS SON
MIKE WAS 25, GOING ON 26 AND HE
COULD RECEIVE HEALTH CARE
INSURANCE COVERAGE WHEN HE
WASN'T ABLE TO GET IT AND NEEDED
IT AND COULDN'T GET IT.
HE GOT A LETTER FROM BLUE
CROSS/BLUE SHIELD SAYING THAT
HIS SON COULD BE COVERED UNTIL
HIS 26TH BIRTHDAY.
AND WHAT HE DID WAS HE DID WHAT
A LOT OF AMERICANS DO, WIPING
THE SWEAT FROM THEIR BROW
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN KEEP
THEIR YOUNG PEOPLE ON THEIR
HEALTH CARE PLAN UNTIL THEY ARE
26.
I HAVE A 22-YEAR-OLD AND I WAS
FEELING THE SAME WAY.
I GOT ANOTHER LETTER FROM A
WOMAN WHO ACTUALLY DOES HEALTH
CARE POLICIES AND LIVES IN MY
DISTRICT AND WHAT SHE SAID TO ME
WAS THAT HER DAUGHTER HAD A
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION AND SHE
WAS VERY CONCERNED, BUT SHE WAS
AN OLDER YOUNG PERSON, 20 YEARS
OLD WITH A PRE-EXISTING
CONDITION, REALLY WORRIED THAT
SHE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROVIDE
HEALTH CARE AND GOT THE NOTICE
FOR COBRA COVERAGE AND WE SAID
THE BACKUP IS COBRA.
THAT WAS GOING TO BE AN EXTRA
$400 TO $500 A MONTH TO MAKE
SURE SHE DIDN'T LOSE HER HEALTH
CARE WHEN SHE ACTUALLY LOST HER
JOB.
FOR
THE COST OF ABOUT $70 OR $80, AS
OPPOSED TO $400 OR $500 CAN KEEP
COVERAGE.
THEIR CHILD ON THEIR HEALTH CARE
I THINK THIS IS A GREAT BENEFIT
FOR AMERICA'S FAMILIES, FOR
FAMILIES WHO WORK EVERY DAY AND
ACTUALLY HAVE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE.
I HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT PREMIUM
INCREASE HIKES.
AND I WANT TO TELL YOU
SOMETHING.
WHEN WE WORKING ON HEALTH CARE
REFORM AND MANY OF US WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T
COVERAGE.
HAVE INSURANCE AND NEED
BUT MOST AMERICANS ALL ACROSS
THE COUNTRY DO HAVE SOME FORM OF
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND YOU
ABOUT?
KNOW WHAT THEY ARE WORRIED
THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE
PREMIUMS GOING UP AT
ASTRONOMICAL RATES.
I HAVE HEARD FROM MY
CONSTITUENTS, 20%, 30% PREMIUM
HIKES.
BECAUSE OF WHAT WE DID IN THIS
HEALTH CARE PACKAGE, SNIRNS
COMMISSIONER, INSURANCE
COMMISSIONERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
HAVE THE POWER INVESTED IN THEM
AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO PUT A
CHECK ON THESE COMPANIES.
A BIG STATE LIKE CALIFORNIA,
CONNECTICUT, MAINE, COLORADO AND
MARYLAND, AND ALL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, THAT'S WHAT THE
COMMISSIONERS ARE DOING.
IT'S THE STATES.
WE HEARD THIS MORNING AS WE READ
THE CONSTITUTION A REMINDER THAT
STATES ARE IN A GREAT POSITION
TO LOOK AT WHAT INSURANCE
COMPANIES ARE DOING IN THEIR
STATES TO REGULATE WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THEIR STATES AND TO
SAY TO THEM, YOU HAVE TO STOP
TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM SCUMMERS
AND PATIENTS BY RAISING YOUR
PRELIMINARY -- FROM CONSUMERS
AND PATIENTS BY RAISING YOUR
PREMIUMS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT AND I'M GLAD
TO BE TALKING ABOUT THESE
BENEFITS WITH THE AMERICAN
.
PEOPLE.
I THANK YOU SO
VERY MUCH.
YOU REMINDED ME OF TWO VERY
QUICK STORIES.
ON MONDAY I WAS AT THE INAUGURAL
FOR THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA,
JERRY BROWN IS BACK AGAIN, AND A
LOBBYIST THAT I KNEW WHEN I WAS
AN INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
REPRESENTING HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANIES CAME UP TO ME AND HE
CAME UP TO ME AND PUT HIS FINGER
IN MY CHEST AND SAID, DON'T LET
THEM REPEAL THE LAW.
I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE HIS NAME,
HE'D LOSE HIS JOB IMMEDIATELY.
AND I SAID, I'LL DO EVERYTHING I
CAN, BUT WHY?
YOU REPRESENT THEM, WHY?
AND HE SAID, I HAVE TWO
CHILDREN.
BOTH ARE TYPE ONE DIABETICS.
THEY'RE APPROACHING 23 YEARS OF
AGE.
THEY WILL BE OUT OF LUCK.
THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GET
AN INSURANCE POLICY IF THIS BILL
IS REPEALED.
PATIENT'S BILL OF RIGHTS GIVES
THAT LOBBYIST FOR THE HEALTH
INSURANCE INDUSTRY AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HIS CHILDREN
GET HEALTH INSURANCE.
I HAVE SIX CHILDREN OF MY OWN.
PATTY AND I DO.
ALL SIX OF THEM HAVE GONE
THROUGH THAT AGE OF 23.
IT IS THE SCARIEST TIME FOR A
PARENT.
YOU GRADUATE, YOU GET A DIPLOMA
AND YOU ALSO GET AN EXIT FROM
THE INSURANCE.
THAT YOU'VE HAD PERHAPS FOR YOUR
ENTIRE LIFE.
THIS LAW PROVIDES ANOTHER THREE
YEARS AFTER YOU GRADUATE, THAT
PERIOD OF TIME THAT'S ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE NOWADDAIS TO FIND A
JOB WITH A -- NOW A DAYS TO FIND
A JOB WITH INSURANCE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK AND
LEADERSHIP ON.
THIS YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THE
PROBLEMS IN HEALTH CARE WITH
GOVERNMENT.
IT'S JUST NOT A GOVERNMENT
PROBLEM.
YOU ASK ANY HUMAN RESOURCES
EXECUTIVE ABOUT WHAT THE -- ONE
OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS THEY HAVE
AND BENEFIT PACKAGE, IT'S THE
ABILITY TO AFFORD HEALTH CARE.
HEALTH CARE COSTS HAVE BEEN
GOING OUT OF CONTROL.
IF YOU HAVE AN EMPLOYEE WITH A
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION AND HE'S
IN THE GROUP AND THEY DO THE
STUDY, YOU START GETTING BILLS
YOU ASK ANY HUMAN RESOURCES
YOU CAN'T PAY.
WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THEIR
INSURANCE COSTS OVER THE YEARS,
IT'S GOING THROUGH THE SKY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE EMPLOYEES --
EMPLOYEE PORTION OF HEALTH CARE,
IT WILL GO FROM ZERO
PARTICIPATION TO A LITTLE BIT,
MORE CO-PAYS, MORE DEDUCTIBLES,
MORE COSTS FOR THE FAMILY, ON
AND ON AND ON.
EVERYONE HAS A GREAT DEAL OF
INSECURITY ABOUT THEIR ABILITY
TO DO HEALTH CARE.
THEN YOU LOOK AT THE IDEA OF
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU LOSE A JOB,
IF YOU HAVE A PRE-EXISTING
CONDITION YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO GET HEALTH CARE UNTIL THIS
BILL PASSED.
WITH ALL THIS INSECURITY, YOUR
ABILITY TO GET HEALTH CARE, YOUR
ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT
IN THE FUTURE, ALL OF THESE
PROBLEM, ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS
IN THE FUTURE, WHAT IS THE
RESPONSE FROM THE OTHER SIDE?
ABOUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT KIND
OF INSECURITY, THEY SAY, WELL,
JUST BE STRONG AND GO WITHOUT
INSURANCE LIKE ME.
WELL, THAT IS NOT A PARTICULARLY
ATTRACTIVE SOLUTION FOR THOSE
THAT DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE,
DON'T HAVE A SPOUSE WHO YOU CAN
SAY, I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE
GOVERNMENT POLICY, I'M GOING TO
USE ANOTHER, OR IF THEY'RE SO
WEALTHY THEY DON'T NEED THE
INSURANCE.
MOST AMERICANS AREN'T IN THAT
SITUATION.
THEY NEED HEALTH INSURANCE AND
THIS IS WHAT IS PROVIDED, YOU
HAVE ACCESS TO IT AND IT'S
AFFORDABLE.
EVERYONE IN AMERICA WILL BE ABLE
TO AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE IN
2014 BECAUSE THOSE THAT CAN'T
AFFORD IT WILL HAVE SUBSIDIES TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN.
SO EVERYBODY WILL BE ABLE --
AGAIN, IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN
$88,000 YOU CAN GET HEALTH CARE
FOR LESS THAN 10% OF YOUR
SALARY.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE NOW.
IF YOU'RE IN THE $20,000,
$30,000, $40,000 A YEAR BRACKET,
IF YOU CAN GET INSURANCE IT'S
GOING TO BE A LOT MORE THAN
THAT.
SO WITH THIS BILL PEOPLE HAVE
THE SECURITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE NOW AND THE
BIZARRE SUGGESTION, JUST GO
WITHOUT INSURANCE, IS NOT
PARTICULARLY NICE WHEN YOU HAVE
CHILDREN THAT MAY NEED -- HAVE A
LITTLE EAR INFECTION, RATHER
THAN HAVE THEM LOSE THEIR
HEARING YOU CAN DEAL WITH IT
WHEN IT'S A LITTLE INFECTION.
THESE PROBLEMS DON'T GO OUT OF
CONTROL.
WE NEED THAT SECURITY, THIS BILL
PROVIDES IT.
AND IN TERMS OF SENIORS, SENIORS
ARE PARTICULARLY HELPED UNDER
THIS LEGISLATION.
THEY CAN GET -- THOSE WHO CAN'T
AFFORD THE CO-PAYS AND
DEDUCTIBLES CAN GET THEIR ANNUAL
CHECKUPS WITHOUT ANY CO-PAYS AND
DEDUCTIBLES.
WE'LL HELP FILL IN THE DOUGHNUT
HOLE.
TAKE A LITTLE TIME BUT
EVENTUALLY THERE WILL BE NO
DOUGHNUT HOLE WHERE THEY FALL IN
AND HAVE TO PAY ALL OF THEIR
DRUG COSTS.
IT WOULD PROVIDE MORE COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTERS SO THEY'LL HAVE
BETTER ACCESS.
WE'LL TRAIN MORE DOCTORS AND
NURSES SO THEY'LL HAVE MORE
PROFESSIONAL -- YOU HAVE A CHART
THAT EXTENDS MEDICARE, MEDICARE
IS EXTENDED.
WE KNOW THAT MEDICARE WILL GO
BROKE IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING.
IT EXTENDS THE POLICY OF
MEDICARE.
SO ALL OF THESE, LOWER
PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS, ALL OF
THESE THINGS THAT SENIORS HAVE A
PARTICULAR INTEREST IN, ALL OF
THAT WILL BE LOST IF THIS BILL
IS REPEALED.
IF I MIGHT INTERRUPT YOU FOR
JUST A MOMENT, MR. SCOTT, YOU'RE
INTO AN ISSUE, AN AREA, THAT IS
PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT TO THE
SENIORS OF AMERICA.
THE DISCUSSION LAST YEAR AS THIS
BILL WAS PASSING WAS THAT
SOMEHOW THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION WOULD HARM SENIORS
BY TAKING AWAY MEDICARE
BENEFITS.
IT WAS NOT TRUE LAST YEAR, IT IS
NOT TRUE THIS YEAR.
HOWEVER IF OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES ARE SUCCESSFUL IN
REPEALING IT, THEY, THE SENIORS,
WILL BE SERIOUSLY HARMED.
I WANT TO MAKE THIS POINT VERY,
VERY CLEAR AND ASK MY COLLEAGUES
TO JOIN US PERHAPS ON THEIR OWN
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN THEIR
DISTRICTS, BUT YOU STARTED GOING
THROUGH THIS LIST HERE, THIS
LEGISLATION ACTUALLY EXTENDS THE
SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE.
BY REINING IN THE COST AND BY
GIVING SENIORS SPECIFIC
PREILLNESS CARE SO THEY WILL BE
ABLE TO GET PREVENTATIVE CARE
FREE.
FREE ANNUAL CHECKUPS.
THEY CAN'T GET IT TODAY BUT
UNDER THIS LEGISLATION SENIORS
CAN GET PREANNUAL CHECKUPS WHICH
REDUCES THE COST -- FREE ANNUAL
CHECKUPS WHICH REDUCES THE COST
BECAUSE YOU GET TO THE ILLNESS
QUICKER.
MR. SCOTT.
YOU SAID PEOPLE WERE
SCARED ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
I ALSO SAID THINGS ABOUT SMALL
BUSINESS, THIS WOULD BANKRUPT
SMALL BUSINESSES.
SMALL BUSINESSES ARE EXEMPT FROM
THE REQUIRES -- REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THE BILL.
SO IT CAN'T POSSIBLY HURT THEM.
BUT THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT
WANT TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR
THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE GIVEN TAX
CREDITS TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO
SO.
HURTING SMALL BUSINESS.
SO THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY BE
BUT FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS,
THEY HAVE ALL OF THE BENEFITS
THAT YOU'VE LISTED ON THE CHART
THAT WILL BE LOST IF THIS BILL
IS REPEALED.
YOU MENTIONED THE
DOUGHNUT HOLE.
EVERY SENIOR THAT'S IN THE
PRESCRIPTION DOUGHNUT HOLE LAST
YEAR, 2010, RECEIVED A $250
CHECK TO HELP THEM PAY FOR THEIR
DRUGS.
IN GOING FORWARD THE DOUGHNUT
HOLE WILL BE LESSENED AND
LESSENED AND EVENTUALLY NINE
YEARS FROM NOW WILL DISAPPEAR.
THERE WILL BE NO DOUGHNUT HOLE.
YOU LOOK AT THE QUALITY OF CARE,
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT QUALITY OF
CARE, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THAT UP.
MORE PRIMARY DOCTORS, MORE
GERIATRIC CARE OF NURSES AND
DOCTORS, EXTRAORDINARY IMPORTANT
PART OF THE LEGISLATION, NOT
JUST ONLY FOR SENIORS, YOU ALSO
MENTIONED THE COMMUNITY-BASED
AND OF COURSE THE PREVENTATIVE
CARE.
ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE THERE
AND ALL OF THEM WILL DISAPPEAR
IF THE REPUBLICANS ARE
SUCCESSFUL WITH THEIR
LEGISLATION, NEXT WEDNESDAY THAT
WILL BE BROUGHT TO THIS FLOOR
WITHOUT ONE HEARING TO DISCUSS
ANY OF THESE ISSUES IN A
RELEVANT POLICY COMMITTEE.
MR. COHEN, PLEASE JOIN US.
LET ME ASK A
QUESTION.
I WAS JUST THINKING HERE, AS I'M
HONORED TO BE IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, AND WITH THE
CONSTITUTION THAT'S SO BEAUTIFUL
THAT IT SAYS WE'RE TO PROMOTE
THE GENERAL WELFARE, WE ARE
AMONG OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED
NATIONS ON THIS EARTH.
WHAT ARE THE OTHER
INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS ON THE
EARTH DO ABOUT HEALTH CARE FOR
THEIR CITIZENS?
I'M NOT SURE I
HEARD YOUR QUESTION.
WHAT DO OTHER
SO PLEASE SAY IT AGAIN.
INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS IN THE
WORLD DO FOR HEALTH CARE?
DO THEY HAVE PROGRAM POLICIES
LIKE OURS WITH -- WHERE 32
MILLION PEOPLE DON'T HAVE HEALTH
INSURANCE AND THEY'RE NOT
MANDATED TO GET INSURANCE?
WHAT DO THEY DO?
I THINK YOU'RE
ASKING ME A RHETORICAL QUESTION
BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE ANSWER AND
ANSWER.
I THINK MOST AMERICANS KNOW THE
ALL THE INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS,
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHINA
HERE, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
KOREA, JAPAN, THE EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES, THE EUROPEAN UNION,
ALL OF THOSE COUNTRIES PROVIDE
UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE
CONFERENCE.
UNIVERSAL.
EVERYONE, INCLUDING --
CONVERSATION.
UNIVERSAL.
EVERYONE, INCLUDING TOURISTS WHO
HAPPEN TO SHOW UP AND THIS I
KNOW FROM ONE OF MY DAUGHTERS
WHO FELL OFF A STAIR AT THE
LEANING TOWER OF PIZA.
SHE FELL, WENT INTO AN MICHAEL
JACKSON ROOM, -- EMERGENCY ROOM,
THEY TOOK AN M.R.I., SHE SAID, I
HAVEN'T PAID.
SHE SAID, YOU'RE COVERED MUCH
THAT WAS IN ITALY.
DOES THE UNITED
STATES NOT HAVE ONE OF THE
GREATEST DESSCREPSIES IN WEALTH
BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND POOREST
IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD AS
WELL?
ARE WE SAYING TO OUR WEALTHY
PEOPLE, YOU CAN AFFORD HEALTH
INSURANCE SO YOU CAN GET IT BUT
FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE POOR,
TOO BAD.
THE OTHER
COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD DON'T
LOOK AT IT THAT WAY.
THEY LOOK AT IT AS A RIGHT FOR
THEIR CITIZENS TO HAVE ACCESS TO
HEALTH CARE AND THEY PROVIDE THE
HEALTH INSURANCE.
DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING IT.
GERMANY, FRANCE, BRITAIN, CANADA
ALL DO IT DIFFERENTLY.
BUT THEY ALL DO IT AND
INCIDENTALLY THE HEALTH
STATISTICS IN ALL OF THOSE
COUNTRIES ARE CONSIDERABLY
BETTER THAN AMERICA AND AMERICA
IS PLACED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES IN
TERMS OF OUR HEALTH CARE, HOW
HEALTHY WE ARE, HOW LONG WE
LIVE, HOW SICK WE GET.
WE'RE AT THE BOTTOM.
IN FACT, WE ARE OFTEN WITH
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN THE
STATISTICS, WE SPEND ALMOST
TWICE AS MUCH AS ANY OF THOSE
COUNTRIES.
SO THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE
ACT GOES AFTER MANY, MANY THINGS
BEYOND THE PATIENTS' BILL OF
RIGHTS AND THE SENIOR ISSUES.
RAISING THAT ISSUE.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR
WE HAVE ABOUT MAYBE 10 MORE
MINUTES?
10.
MR. PALLONE.
I JUST WANTED TO
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
PREVENTION AND PARTICULARLY IN
TERMS OF SENIORS, WHICH YOU
MENTIONED.
AND WHAT IT MEANS IN TERMS OF
THE PEOPLE'S HEALTH AND
ALLEGATION THE COST TO THE
GOVERNMENT.
BECAUSE -- AND ALSO THE COST TO
THE GOVERNMENT.
SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE
MENTIONED WITH REGARD TO SENIORS
HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.
THIS SUMMER UNDER THE BILL
SENIORS WHO FELL INTO THE
DOUGHNUT HOLE GOT ADS 250
REBATE.
BEGINNING JANUARY 1 THEY GET A
.
50% DISCOUNT ON BRAND NAME DRUGS
YOU MENTIONED THE CO-PAYS FOR
PREVENTATIVE CARE, WHETHER IT'S
YOUR ANNUAL WELLNESS TREATMENT
OR OTHER KINDS OF TESTS LIKE
MAMMOGRAMS OR COLONOSCOPIES, FOR
EXAMPLE.
THE REASON WE'RE ELIMINATING THE
20% CO-PAY FOR THESE THINGS, THE
REASON WE'RE TRYING TO FILL UP
THE DOUGHNUT HOLE, IT GOES TO
PREVENTION.
IF PEOPLE DON'T GET THEIR DRUGS
AND THEY GET SICK AND GO TO THE
HOSPITAL, THEY HAVE THE ANNUAL
WELLNESS CHECKS, THEY STAY
HEALTHY, THEY DON'T GO TO THE
HOSPITAL.
AND WHEN THEY GO TO THE HOSPITAL
IF THEY'RE ON MEDICARE IT JUST
COSTS THE GOVERNMENT MORE MONEY.
SO THIS IS THE WAY WE SAVE
MONEY.
MEAN?
WE SAVE MONEY, WHAT DOES THAT
IT MEANS THAT THE DEBT IS
DECREASED, IT MEANS THAT THE
SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE YOU HAVE ON
THE CHART IS EXTENDED.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE TALKED MUCH
ABOUT THAT.
ONE OF MY AMENDMENTS IN THE
RULES COMMITTEE TODAY IS, YOU
KNOW, A LOT OF SENIORS TELL ME,
THEY COME UP TO ME AND SAY
THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE FACT
THAT, YOU KNOW, MEDICARE MAY
BECOME INSOLVENT AND THERE
WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE
TRUST FUND TO PAY FOR IT.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE
HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL EXTENDS
THE JUDGMENT DAY, IF YOU WILL,
WHEN THE SOLVENCY PROBLEM
BECOMES AN ISSUE MUCH FURTHER
AND IF YOU HAVE THE REPEAL, THE
SOLVENCY PROBLEM HITS US SIX
YEARS FROM NOW, IN 2017, FROM
WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
SO ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH REPEAL
IS NOT ONLY DOES IT INCREASE THE
DEFICIT, BUT IT ALSO, YOU KNOW,
IS ONLY SIX YEARS FROM NOW THAT
WE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS
MEDICARE SOLVENCY PROBLEM.
WHAT IS THAT GOING TO MEAN?
THAT'S GOING TO MEAN PROBABLY
THAT CUTBACKS IN BENEFITS FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS BECAUSE IF YOU
DON'T HAVE THE MONEY YOU'RE
BENEFITS.
GOING TO HAVE TO CUT BACK ON THE
IT IS AMAZING TO ME HOW THEY CAN
CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THIS
REPEAL.
THE OTHER THING THEY KEEP SAYING
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE,
THE REPUBLICANS SAY, WELL, THE
REASON WE WANT THE REPEAL IS
BECAUSE THIS HEALTH CARE REFORM
IS KILLING JOBS.
NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE
TRUTH.
I MEAN, THE FACT OF THE MATTER
IS THAT UNDER THIS HEALTH CARE
REFORM, BECAUSE THE COSTS OF
HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS FOR
EMPLOYERS WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCED, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO HIRE
MORE PEOPLE.
PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE
WITH COMPETITION OF OTHER
COUNTRIES, MENTIONED ALL THESE
OTHER COUNTRIES, THESE OTHER
INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES THAT HAVE
FREE HEALTH CARE, UNIVERSAL
HEALTH CARE, THAT MEENGS THAT --
MEANS THAT THE EMPLOYERS DON'T
CARRY THE BURDEN OF THAT.
WHEN THEY HIRE SOMEONE, IF THE
GOVERNMENT IS PAYING FOR IT,
THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
THAT FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES
NECESSARILY.
WELL, IT'S THE COST OF PREMIUMS
GO DOWN, THEN PEOPLE -- THE COST
OF HIRING SOMEBODY GOES DOWN IN
THE UNITED STATES.
IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE ARE
ALL KINDS OF JOBS CREATED IN THE
HEALTH CARE PROFESSION BECAUSE
AS EVERYONE GETS COVERED AND
EVERYBODY NEEDS A PRIMARY CARE
DOCTOR, WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO
NEED MORE DOCTORS, MORE NURSES,
MORE HEALTH AIDES BECAUSE PEOPLE
WILL GET THAT KIND OF
PREVENTATIVE CARE.
SO THERE ARE JOBS CREATED WITH
THE PREVENTATIVE CARE IN
HANDLING PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE
THEY STAY HEALTHY OR THEY STAY
WELL.
WHAT THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE
DOING IS SPENDING THE FIRST DAYS
OF THIS SESSION TALKING ABOUT
HOW TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY AND
CREATE JOBS NOT REPEALING HEALTH
CARE.
I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE
MOVED ON.
THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THIS.
THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THIS
CONGRESS IS GOING TO DO TO
CREATE JOBS.
WE HAVE DEALT WITH THE HEALTH
CARE ISSUE AND THEY WANT US TO
MOVE ON.
I YIELD BACK.
WE HAVE THREE
MINUTES, FOUR MINUTES AND I'M
GOING TO TURN TO MR. COHEN AND
MS. EDWARDS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
MR. PALLONE BROUGHT
UP AN ISSUE AND HE SAID IT'S NOT
TRUE IT'S COSTING JOBS.
THERE IS SOME RESPECTED GROUP.
I THINK IT IS POLITICAL FACT
CHECK AND THEY WERE ON NATIONAL
NEWS GIVING THE BIGGEST LIES
TOLD IN POLITICS IN THE LAST
YEAR.
AND THE NUMBER ONE BIGGEST LIE,
THIS INDEPENDENT GROUP WAS THE
REPUBLICAN MANTRA OF
GOVERNMENT-MANDATED HEALTH CARE
AND IT'S JUST A FACT, THAT'S THE
BIGGEST LIE TOLD THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC AND IT CAME FROM THE
LEADERS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
IT CAME FROM THESE HALLS WHERE
THEY ARE IMMUNE FROM DEFAMATION
SUITS BECAUSE IT'S NOT
GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE AND
IT'S UNHEARD THAT THE OTHER SIDE
WOULD USE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE
IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN THE
OTHER JURISDICTION OR COURT FOR
WORDS THAT AREN'T TRUE TO DO
THAT AND POLITICS TO SAY IT WAS
GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE, THE
BIGGEST LIE OF 2010 AND COMES TO
THE FLOOR NEXT WEEK.
WE WILL WRAP THIS
ONE UP AND MR. YARMUTH WILL
CARRY ON WITH HEALTH INSURANCE,
BUT WE REALLY TODAY FOCUSED ON A
BROAD RANGE OF ISSUES, PATIENTS'
BILL OF RIGHTS, THE WAY IN WHICH
THE REPEAL WOULD HARM
INDIVIDUALS.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT HOW THIS AFFECTS BUSINESS
AND WE WENT INTO SOME DETAIL
ABOUT SENIOR CITIZENS.
ALL OF THESE ARE CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT ISSUES AND WILL BE
DISCUSSING THESE IN THE DAYS
AHEAD AND I HOPE THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC WILL REALLY PAY ATTENTION
AND THIS NEXT WEEK PARTICULARLY
WEDNESDAY, IT'S GOING TO BE
ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT WILL ALL
OF US IN AMERICA BE ABLE TO GET
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE THAT IS
AFFORDABLE AND PROVIDE US WITH
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE
HEALTH CARE THAT WE NEED.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL WRAP THIS
IS NEXT.
UP AND TURN IT OVER TO WHOM EVER
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
MEMBERS
ARE REMINDED THAT THEIR REMARKS
ARE PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE
CHAIR RATHER THAN ANY PERCEIVED
TELEVISION VIEWING AUDIENCE.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 5, 2011, THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM IOWA, MR. KING, FOR 30
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT I AM PLEASED
TO ADDRESS YOU, MR. SPEAKER,
HERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED
STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND WELCOME YOU TO THE GREAT
DELIBERATIVE BODY WHICH BECOMES
INSTANTLY FAR MORE DELIBERATIVE
THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE LAST
FOUR YEARS.
AND THIS IS PART OF IT.
AS I DELIBERATE AND I LISTEN TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE, I
HAVE TO MAKE A POINT THAT WHEN
YOU CHALLENGE THE MENDACITY OF
THE LEADER THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A MOTION TO
TAKE THE GENTLEMAN'S WORDS DOWN,
HOWEVER MANY OF THE MEMBERS ARE
OFF ON OTHER ENDEAVORS AND THE
LEADER AND THE SPEAKER HAVE
ESTABLISHED THEIR INTEGRITY IN
THEIR MENDACITY FOR YEARS IN
THIS CONGRESS AND I DON'T THINK
IT CAN BE CHALLENGED AND THOSE
WHO DO SO ARE MAKING ASPERSIONS
BY MAKING WILD ACCUSATIONS.
I CAME TO TALK ABOUT THE WEATHER
AND AS I LISTEND TO THE SPEECHES
THAT HAVE GONE ON BEFORE IN THE
PREVIOUS HOUR, IT ACTUALLY
CHANGED THE SUBJECT FOR ME.
I THINK THERE ARE MANY THINGS
THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT OUT AND
CLARIFIED, GIVEN THIS THAT WE
HAVE DEBATED THIS HEALTH CARE
BILL -- WE DEBATED THIS HEALTH
CARE BILL FOR OH, CLOSE TO A
YEAR.
AND ANNOUNCED IN RULES COMMITTEE
EARLIER TODAY -- I BELIEVE THERE
WERE 100 HOURS OF MARKUP IN
COMMITTEE.
WASN'T THE BILL THEY PASSED, 100
HOURS OF DEBATE AND MARKUP ON A
DIFFERENT BILL AND SWITCHED
BILLS IN THE END.
THAT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
AND FACT.
BUT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDS WHAT HAPPENED.
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE SAID WE HAVE TO
PASS THE BILL, MEANING
OBAMACARE, MR. SPEAKER, IN ORDER
TO FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT.
AND WHEN THAT BILL WAS PASSED TO
DON'T THINK THERE IS ANOTHER
SET THE RECORD ALSO STRAIGHT, I
TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THIS
CONGRESS THAT THERE WAS A BILL
OF THIS MAGNITUDE THAT PASSED
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITHOUT THE MAJORITY SUPPORT OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR
THE BILL THAT WAS BEFORE US.
IT IS A FACT OF RECORD, IT'S A
FACT OF JUDGMENT, A FACT OF
HISTORY THAT THERE HAD TO BE
CONDITIONS THAT WERE ATTACHED IN
ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE VOTES
NECESSARY TO SQUEAK THAT BILL BY
AND PASS O'BAUMA CARE HERE ON
MARCH.
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE LAST
AND IF PEOPLE FORGET, REMEMBER
THERE WAS A SWITCH ON THE BILL.
THE BILL THAT WAS MARKED UP IN
COMMITTEE WAS NOT THE BILL THAT
CAME TO THE FLOOR OR HAD
HEARINGS ON IT, BUT THERE WERE
ALSO CONDITIONS.
THERE WERE THE STUPAK DOZEN WHO
SAID WE INSIST THAT THERE BE AN
AMENDMENT BROUGHT FORWARD THAT
WILL PROTECT SO THAT THE
LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE BILL
DOESN'T FUND ABORTION THROUGH A
FEDERAL MANDATE.
AND THEY HELD OUT ON THAT TO GET
THAT VOTE.
LITTLE DID I KNOW UP UNTIL THAT
SATURDAY AFTERNOON THAT THE
GENTLEMAN WHO WAS DOING THE
NEGOTIATING ALREADY COMMITTED TO
VOTE FOR THE BILL.
AND THE STUPAK PEOPLE WERE
ANONYMOUS PEOPLE.
AND THEY NEGOTIATED WITH THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
WHO MADE A COMMITMENT AND
FOLLOWED THROUGH ON IT TO SIGN
AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WOULD
PACIFY OR NULLIFY THE ANONYMOUS
STUPAK DOZEN UNDER THE
PRESUMPTION UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
AND COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE
BOUNDS OF THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES COULD EFFECTIVELY
AMEND LEGISLATION BY EXECUTIVE
ORDER AND PROMISE HE IS GOING TO
DO SO BEFORE THE BILL IS BROUGHT
TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE.
THAT HAPPENED IN THIS CONGRESS.
AND ANOTHER CONDITION OF THAT
WAS, THIS IS A CONDITION THAT
CAME AFTER THE THEN CHAIR OF THE
RULES COMMITTEE, MS. SLAUGHTER,
HAD OFFERED THE IDEA THAT THEY
SHOULD DEEM THE BILL PASSED SO
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO ON RECORD
FOR VOTING FOR THIS BILL BECAUSE
THEY KNEW HOW BAD IT WAS.
THEY KNEW HOW POLITICALLY
VULNERABLE THEY WERE.
THEY KNEW SPEAKER PELOSI WAS
MAKING THEM WALK THE PLANK.
A LOT OF THEM ARE NOT HERE
BECAUSE OF THAT ACTION.
BUT AS I TALKED ABOUT WHY THIS
BILL DIDN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT OF
THE CONGRESS AND IN THE FORM
THAT WAS BEFORE US, WHY THE
MAJORITY DID NOT SUPPORT IT.
THE MAJORITY VOTE THAT DAY IN
ITS FORM, BECAUSE THERE HAD TO
BE ANOTHER DEAL ON TOP OF THIS.
THIS WAS THE DEAL THAT THE
SENATE HAD TO PASS A
RECONCILIATION PACKAGE WHICH WAS
DESIGNED TO AMEND THE BILL THAT
HAD NOT YET BEEN BROUGHT TO THE
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE FOR A VOTE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THE
FIRST TIME SOMETHING LIKE THAT
HAD BEEN PLAYED BUT FIRST TIME
TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS A
BILL THAT CAME BEFORE THIS
CONGRESS TA WAS NOT THE BILL
THAT CAME THROUGH COMMITTEE,
THAT WAS PLEDGED TO BE AMENDED
BY A PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE
ORDER AND FURTHER AMENDED BY A
RECONCILIATION BILL THAT WOULD
LATER PASS THE UNITED STATES
SENATE.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US
WITH OBAMACARE AND IT BECAME THE
LAW OF THE LAND ON THAT DATE OF
MARCH 30, 2010, PASSED OVER HERE
IN THE HOUSE IF I REMEMBER
CORRECTLY ON THE LATE EVENING OF
MARCH 21 OR EARLY SUNDAY
MORNING.
I REMEMBER TELLING MYSELF I'M
GOING TO SLEEP AND THEN WAKE UP
AND FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO.
I DIDN'T SLEEP VERY LONG AND I
COULDN'T SLEEP WITH THAT POLICY
IMPOSED UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WITH THE REALIZATION THAT IT
WOULD BECOME THE LAW OF THE
LAND.
AND ABOUT TWO AND-A-HALF HOURS
LATER, I GOT UP AND WEPT TO MY
WORD PROCESSOR AND TYPED A
REQUEST FOR A BILL TO REPEAL
OBAMACARE.
AND I FILED THAT REQUEST AT THE
OPENING OF BUSINESS THAT DAY,
THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY AND THE
FIRST MINUTES OF THAT DAY.
I WANT TO THANK AND CONGRATULATE
MICHELLE BALK MAN.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT, SHE WAS AWAKE
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND
HER BILL CAME DOWN WITHIN THREE
MINUTES OF MINE AND THAT DRAFT
WAS TURNED INTO A DISCHARGE
PETITION WITH A HUGE PELOSI
MAJORITY IN THE 111TH CONGRESS
AND DISCHARGE PETITION GATHERED
173 SIGNATURES BIPARTISAN AT
LEAST BY THE PELOSI DEFINITION
AND PART OF THE FOUNDATION THAT
COUNTRY.
I THINK ACTUALLY DID SHAKE THIS
THE RULES COMMITTEE AND THEY
THERE WAS A STATEMENT MADE IN
WERE DELIBERATING ON THE RULE
FOR H.R. 2 THAT WE HAD SAID THAT
THE SKY WOULD FALL IF OBAMACARE
BECAME THE LAW OF THE LAND AND
THEY SAID THE SKY DIDN'T FALL.
CHAIRMAN UP TON AND NOW CHAIRMAN
OF THE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
COMMITTEE SAID YES, IT DID.
YES, THE SKY DID FALL AND WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE 87 FRESHMAN
REPUBLICANS THAT ARE SEATED OVER
ON THIS SIDE, NINE FRESHMAN
DEMOCRATS ON THIS SIDE RKTS I
THINK ANY --, I THINK ANY
POLITICAL PUNDIT WOULD SAY THERE
WAS AN EARTHQUAKE IN AMERICA
THAT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
IMPOSITION OF THIS
LIBERTY-STEALING,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OBAMACARE BILL
THAT'S BEFORE THIS CONGRESS NOW.
THIS CONGRESS WAS ELECTED TO
COME HERE AND REPEAL OBAMACARE,
GET A HANDLE ON THE DEBT AND
DEFICIT AND LAY THE FOUNDATION
SO THAT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE CAN
START TO HAVE FAITH IN THE
FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY AGAIN AND
THEY CAN CREATE THE JOBS UNDER
THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE HOPEFUL
WE WILL BE ABLE TO BRING
THROUGH.
WE AREN'T IN A POSITION WHERE
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CAN
PLAY ALL OF THE ECONOMIC
FOUNDATION THAT'S NECESSARY FOR
FREE ENTERPRISE TO HAVE ENOUGH
FAITH AND CONFIDENCE TO INVEST
FASHION.
THEIR CAPITAL IN A ROBUST
WHAT WE ARE IN A POSITION TO DO
NOW WITH A NEW CONGRESS AND A
NEW SPEAKER IS TO BE ABLE TO
PLAY AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE
AGAINST THE EXISTING MAJORITY IN
THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
WHO HAS BEEN DIGGING HOLES
THROUGH HIS ECONOMIC STEROID
THEORY AND DUG SUCH A DEEP HOLE
AND WE WATCHED NANCY PELOSI
PRESIDE OVER THE DEBT AND WE
WATCHED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
RUN THAT UP UNDER THEIR TERM TO
ABOUT $3 TRILLION AND GOT TO
STOP.
THE AMERICAN WERE LOOKING AT
PRESIDENT GULLIVER OBAMA AND
THEY CAME TO THE POLLS ON
NOVEMBER 2 AND TIED HIM UP WITH
THEIR ELECTORAL ROPES AND SAID
JOIN THE INCUMBENTS THERE.
TOMORROW AND ON WEDNESDAY, TO
REPEAL OBAMACARE AND TAKE THE
SHOVEL OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE
PRESIDENT AND TAKE THE GAVEL OUT
OF THE HANDS OF NANCY PELOSI.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.
I TAKE YOU BACK THROUGH THIS
HISTORY BECAUSE IT'S BEING
REWRITTEN AGAIN.
HOW CAN THEY STAND HERE, GO
BEFORE THE RULES OF COMMITTEE,
BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, MR.
SPEAKER, AND TAKE THE POSITION
THAT SOMEHOW IF THEY JUST
EXPLAIN IT ONE MORE TIME AND ONE
MORE WAY THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WILL NOW HAVE SOME
LEFT-WING LIGHT BULB COME ON IN
THEIR HEAD.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SEEN
CLEARLY.
THEY WASHED THE LENSES OFF AND
LOOKED DOWN THROUGH THE
CONSTITUTION AND FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND COMMON SENSE
AND THEY WERE APPALLED AT THAT
LIBERTY-STEALING BILL OF
OBAMACARE AND THEY SAID REPEAL
THAT MONSTROSITY BECAUSE THE
DESTINY OF AMERICA WILL BE
DIMINISHED UNLESS WE DO.
THIS IS A CHARGE THAT THIS NEW
CONGRESS HAS.
IT'S THE VOICE OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE AND IT'S THE RESPECT THAT
WE MUST HAVE.
AND MY GRATITUDE FOR GOD'S GIFT
TO AMERICA, THE FRESHMAN CLASS
THAT WAS ELECTED IN 2010 AND
SWORN IN HERE RIGHT HERE ON THIS
FLOOR YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
AND THEY WILL AFFECT THE AGENDA
OF THIS COUNTRY FOR MANY
CONGRESSES TO COME AND IT WILL
BE A RESPONSIBLE AGENDA THAT
BRINGS US TO A BALANCED BUDGET
AND BEGINS TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT
THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS, NOT JUST
THE DEFICIT SPENDING, BUT REDUCE
THE NATIONAL DEBT.
TO THE POINT WHERE
WE CAN BEGIN TO PAY DOWN THE
NATIONAL DEBT AND WE START WITH
THIS CONGRESS.
WE START BY ROLLING BACK THE
SPENDING TO 2008 LEVELS AND WE
STARTED IT TODAY WITH A VOTE
THAT CUT OUR OWN BUDGETS BY 5%.
IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY AND YES
IT'S SYMBOLIC BUT THE SYMBOLISM
THAT COMPELS US TO FOLLOW
THROUGH IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH NOW
FOR THOSE OF US IN THIS CONGRESS
THAT VOTED ON THAT, IT'S ALSO
GOOD ENOUGH TO BRING THAT POLICY
THROUGH BACK TO THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA.
WELL, SO WHAT I HAVE HEARD IS,
THE MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE THAT STILL STAND HERE
AND DEFEND OBAMACARE, THE ONES
THAT ARE LEFT, THEY HAVE FOUR
TALKING POINTS ABOUT THE BILL
THAT THEY THINK ARE COMPELLING
AND THEY MUST BELIEVE THAT IT
OFFSETS ALL OF THE HORRIBLE
THINGS ABOUT OBAMACARE.
FIRST THEY SAY -- WELL,
REMEMBER, THE PRESIDENT HAD ALL
OF THESE PROMISES ABOUT WHAT HE
WAS GOING TO DO WITH OBAMACARE
AND HE ATTACHED OBAMACARE TO IT
AT THE BLAIR HOUSE DURING THE
HEALTH CARE SUMMIT, FEBRUARY 25,
2010 WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES REFERRED TO HIS
OWN BILL AS OBAMACARE.
THAT IS THE SHORTHAND VERSION
FOR ALL THIS LONG THING.
THEY DON'T WANT TO SAY
OBAMACARE.
THAT'S HOW EVERYBODY KNOWS IT
.
AND UNDERSTANDS IT.
SO UNDER OBAMACARE THEY GIVE YOU
THE FOUR, FOUR REDEEMING
COMPONENTS TO OBAMACARE THAT
APPARENTLY OFFSET ALL THE
HORRIBLE THINGS ABOUT IT.
AND THESE FOUR REDEEMING
CONDITIONS ARE THIS.
THAT IT REQUIRES INSURANCE
COMPANIES ALL ACROSS AMERICA
WITH A FEDERAL MANDATE TO
PROVIDE FOR POLICIES THAT MUST
KEEP YOUR CHILDREN ON THERE UP
UNTIL AGE 26.
AND THEY THINK THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT AMERICA HAS
FALLEN IN LOVE WITH AS A REALLY
GOOD, BRAINY SOLUTION.
I KNOW THERE ARE REPUBLICANS
THAT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF
EXTENDED TO AGE 26.
INSURANCE POLICIES BEING
BUT, MR. SPEAKER, WHAT A LOT OF
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IN THIS
COUNTRY IS THAT THERE ARE AT
LEAST TWO MEMBERS IN THIS
CONGRESS THAT WERE ELECTED
BEFORE AGE 26 AND HAD OBAMACARE
BEEN IMPLEMENTED BEFORE THEY
WERE ELECTED TO OFFICE, THEY
WOULD HAVE, COULD HAVE BEEN ON
THEIR PARENTS' HEALTH INSURANCE
PLAN.
NOW ISN'T THAT A NICE THING,
WHEN YOU WEAN THEM OFF OF THE
PARENTS' HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
AND YOU TRANSITION THEM OVER AND
SAY, NOW RUN THE COUNTRY, THEY
HAVEN'T HAD A SINGLE MINUTE OF
THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE
POLICY UNTIL THEY GET HERE.
THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY FOR
IT HERE.
WE PAY OUR CHUNK OF THE PREMIUMS
LIKE ANY OTHER FEDERAL EMPLOYEE,
BUT I JUST THINK IT'S IRONIC
THAT THERE WOULD BE SUCH A
STRONG ARGUMENT THAT PEOPLE
ELECTED TO CONGRESS COULD COME
HERE, WALK IN THAT DOOR, COME
DOWN HERE BEFORE THE SPEAKER'S
ROSS TRUM, RAISE THEIR HAND AND
TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE AND AT
THAT MOMENT STILL BE ON THEIR
MOMMY AND DADDY'S HEALTH
INSURANCE POLICY.
I WANTED MY KIDS TO GROW UP.
WHEN THEY TURNED 18 I TOLD THEM,
MY RESPONSIBILITIES ARE NOW
DONE.
I'M GOING TO NURTURE YOU AND
GIVE YOU ADVICE AND COUNCIL YOU
AND I'LL HELP YOU WHERE I CAN.
BUT I'M NOT OBLIGATED, GUYS.
WE DID OUR BEST FOR THE FIRST 18
YEARS, WHILE DO OUR BEST FOR
EVERY YEAR, WE'LL LOVE YOU ALL
OUR LIVES BUT YOU GOT TO START
PULLING YOUR OWN LOAD AND NOW I
LOOK AT THREE GROWN SONS IN
THEIR 30'S, ALL MARRIED, FIVE
GRANDKIDS, EACH AN ENTREPRENEUR
IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, PULLING
THEIR OWN LOAD AND I'M GLAD THAT
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO STAY
UNWEANED UNTIL AGE 26.
BUT IF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES
WANT TO DO THAT YOU SHOULD BE
ABLE TO BUY THE POLICY.
IF STATES WANT TO MANDATE, I
BUT THEY CAN DO SO
THINK IT'S NOT A GOOD POLICY,
CONSTITUTIONALLY AND THEN IF A
PERSON'S TIRED OF PAYING THOSE
KIND OF PREMIUMS YOU CAN MOVE TO
ANOTHER STATE AND VOTE WITH YOUR
FEET.
THERE'S SOME STATES IN THE UNION
HERE THAT I WOULD MOVE OUT OF
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE
HEALTH INSURANCE IN THEM.
THERE ARE OTHER STATES ONE COULD
THE OPPOSITE.
THINK ABOUT MOVING TO BECAUSE OF
HERE'S A SECOND POINT.
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.
THEY ALWAYS TIE THIS
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS IN WITH
THE WORD DISCRIMINATION.
BECAUSE IT'S LIKE A CIVIL RIGHTS
CODE WORD SO IF AN INSURANCE
COMPANY SAYS, I DON'T WANT TO
BUY, I DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE
INSURANCE POLICIES TO PEOPLE WHO
HAVE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS,
WHO WAIT UNTIL THEY GET SICK
BEFORE THEY BUY A POLICY, THE
HEALTH INSURANCE PURCHASING
EQUIVALENT OF WAITING FOR YOUR
HOUSE TO BE ON FIRE BEFORE YOU
GO BUY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE, HOW MANY RATIONAL
PEOPLE, MR. SPEAKER, IN THIS
COUNTRY WOULD MAKE THE CASE THAT
WE OUGHT TO HAVE A GUARANTEED
ISSUE FOR OUR FIRE INSURANCE ON
OUR HOUSE?
COULDN'T WE THEN JUST, YOU KNOW,
SET UP OUR LITTLE BLACKBERRY
WITH AN AUTOMATIC SEND AND WAIT
FOR THE FIRE ALARM TO GO OFF AND
ON THE WAY DOWN THE STEPS TO
BAIL OUT OF THE BURNING HOUSE
YOU COULD JUST CLICK SEND,
AUTOMATICALLY THEY'D HAVE TO
GIVE YOU A POLICY SO THAT YOUR
HOUSE COULD BE REBUILT AND -- IF
IT'S OTH ON FIRE.
WE WOULDN'T DO THAT -- IF IT'S
ON FIRE.
WE WOULDN'T DO THAT.
IT'S RIDICULOUS BECAUSE IT
DEFEATS THE LOGIC OF INSURANCE.
YOU WANT TO BE INSURED AGAINST A
CATASTROPHE AND YOU WANT TO
SHARE THAT RISS WISCONSIN OTHER
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE INSURED
AGAINST CATASTROPHE.
IT'S TRUE FOR FIRE INSURANCE.
IT WAS TRUE FOR FLOOD INSURANCE
UNTIL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TOOK IT OVER AND IT NEEDS TO BE
TRUE OF HEALTH INSURANCE.
BUT WE WILL ADDRESS PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS AND WE'LL HAVE A
LEGITIMATE DEBATE ON
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS HERE IN
THIS CONGRESS, IN COMMITTEE
HEARINGS, HEARINGS BEFORE
COMMITTEES, AMENDMENTS OFFERED,
AMENDMENTS ALLOWED AND
AMENDMENTS OFFERED AND DEBATED
AND VOTED UP AND DOWN.
MY POSITION IS THAT IF THE
STATES WANT TO PROHIBIT THE
CONSIDERATION OF PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS, THEY MAY DO SO.
OUR STATE HAS A HIGH-RISK POOL
AND WE FUND PART OF THOSE PROOM
PREMIUMS WITH THE HIGH-RISK POOL
OUT OF THE STATE TREASURY.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I HAVE WORKED TO DEVELOP THAT
AND EXPAND THAT IN MY TIME IN
THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF
CONSIDERATION THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE A LOOK AT
THOSE STATE HIGH-RISK POOLS AND
FIND WAYS TO HELP THOSE STATES
PROVIDE THOSE KIND OF BACKSTOPS.
BECAUSE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE
PEOPLE WHO ARE UNFORTUNATE.
IT WON'T ALWAYS BE THOSE WHO ARE
IRRESPONSIBLE, IT WILL ALSO BE
THOSE WHO ARE UNFORTUNATE.
SO WE NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO
CONSIDERATION.
BUT TO HAVE THE WHOLE DEBATE
ABOUT JUST THOSE THAT ARE
UNFORTUNATE AND NOT TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THOSE THAT ARE
RESPONSIBLE, THOSE THAT ARE
TAXPAYERS, THOSE THAT ARE
FUNDING, THOSE THAT ARE THE
ENGINE OF OUR ECONOMY THAT ARE
BEING DISCOURAGED BY THESE KIND
OF BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALIZED
MEDICINE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL
POLICIES LIKE OBAMACARE.
HERE'S A THIRD ONE, 26-YEAR-OLD
INSURANCE, PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS.
OH, YES, THE DISCRIMINATORY
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS POLICY.
IT'S NOT DISCRIMINATORY.
IT'S LOGICAL AND RATIONAL.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT'S
DISCRIMINATORY POLICY TO NOT
ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUY PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE IF THEIR
HOUSE IS ON FIRE?
NOT DISCRIMINATION, IT DEFIES
COMMON SENSE.
SO I'M NOT GOING TO LET THEM GET
BY WITH THAT WORD.
HERE'S THE THIRD THING.
DOUGHNUT HOLE.
THEY SAY THEY'VE FIXED THE
DOUGHNUT HOLE AND WE WOULD UNFIX
THE DOUGHNUT HOLE.
THE TRUTH IS THAT LOW INCOME
PEOPLE HAVE THAT FIX, THERE IS A
BACKSTOP FOR THAT DOUGHNUT HOLE.
IT'S NOT THE HOLE THAT THEY SAY
IT IS.
FURTHERMORE THEY RAISE FEES
ELSEWHERE TO FILL THE DOUGHNUT
HOLE SO IT'S NOT FIXED, IT'S
JUST ANOTHER TRANSFER SO THAT
SOME PEOPLE ARE BENEFICIARIES
AND OTHERS THAT PAY THE EXTRA
MONEY.
I'M NOT PARTICULARLY ANIMATED
ABOUT THAT ALTHOUGH I THOUGHT WE
SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT
DOUGHNUT HOLE CREATED HERE IN
2003.
IN ANY CASE, THE NEXT ARGUMENT
IS AGAINST LIFETIME CAPS.
IF STATES WANT TO PROVIDE
LIFETIME CAPPS LET THEM DO THAT.
BUT IF INDIVIDUALS WANT TO BUY
POLICIES THAT HAVE LIFETIME CAPS
BECAUSE THE PREMIUMS ARE LOWER,
LET THEM MAKE THAT DECISION AS
WELL, MR. SPEAKER.
I ENVISION A DAY THAT WE HAVE
FREE MARKETS THAT ARE ENGAGED IN
THIS.
WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE
DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP.
WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE FREE
MARKET EFFECTIVENESS SO WHEN
PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT
THEIR HEALTH AND THEIR LIVES
THAT THEY HAVE SOME TOOLS TO
WORK WITH.
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO IN THIS
CONGRESS, THIS 112TH CONGRESS,
ADVANCE THE IDEA AND SEEK TO
PASS LEGISLATION THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH CHAIRMAN
DREIER'S -- I WOULD EXPAND IT A
LITTLE MORE.
HE ADVANCED THE MEDICAL SAVINGS
ACCOUNTS.
I WOULD ADD WE NEED TO ADVANCE
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS,
H.S.A.'S.
IN 2003 WITH THE EXPANSION OF
PART D WE PUT LANGUAGE IN THAT
ESTABLISHED H.S.A.'S.
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
IT ALLOWED -- EXCUSE ME, IN THE
FIRST YEAR FOR A COUPLE TO
ESTABLISH A HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNT WITH A MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN
IT OF $5,150.
THAT'S THE CALCULUS, FROM $5,150
ON UP.
WELL THAT'S A GOOD DEAL.
OBAMACARE SLASHED THAT IN LESS
THAN HALF AND CAPPED THE H.S.A.
MAXIMUM AMOUNT TO $,500.
WHY?
BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE
TO BE INDEPENDENT AND THEY DON'T
WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
THEIR OWN DECISIONS.
IF THEY DO THAT THEY MIGHT
UNDERMINE THIS EFFORT OF
EXPANDING THE DEPENDENCY CLASS
IN AMERICA, WHICH IS WHAT
OBAMACARE IS DESIGNED TO DO.
BECAUSE EXPANDING THE DEPENDENCY
CLASS EXPANDS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
AND THAT INCREASES THE POLITICAL
BASE AND IT SEEMS ILLOGICAL TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WELL,
THERE'S THE LOGIC I'VE JUST
APPLIED TO IT AND NOW, MR.
SPEAKER, THEY DO UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS IS ABOUT POLITICS.
IT'S ABOUT EXPANDING THE
DEPENDENCY CLASS, AND IT'S ABOUT
DIMINISHING THE INDEPENDENCE AND
THE SPIRIT OF AMERICANS.
AND SO THE LIFETIME CAPS PIECE
IS A FOURTH ONE.
FIFTH ONE THAT'S IT.
DO THEY REDEEM THOSE 2,500 PAGES
OF DISASTER?
DO THEY THEN OVERRULE AND TRUMP
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA?
I SAY NO, MR. SPEAKER.
THEY CANNOT, THEY MUST NOT, THEY
SHOULD NOT.
AND I HEAR THIS DEBATE ALSO
ABOUT AN INCREASE IN OUR DEFICIT
OF THE NUMBER I THINK WAS $332
BILLION, NOT IF BUT WHEN WE
REPEAL OBAMACARE.
WELL THAT DEFICIT, AND THEY WANT
TO KNOW, WELL, YOU OFFSET THAT
DEFICIT WITH SPENDING CUTS.
YES, SIR.
WE WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFSET A
DEFICIT WITH SPENDING CUTS BUT I
WOULD MAKE THIS ARGUMENT
INSTEAD.
WHEN YOU HAVE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILL IN FRONT
OF YOU AND IF YOU'RE DEBATING
TO REPEAL AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A REASON
BILL, YOU CAN SET NO PRICE ON
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA.
IF IT'S A TRILLION DOLLARS YOU
REPEAL THE BILL ANYWAY BECAUSE
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND YOU
DON'T SIT BACK AND TWIDDLE YOUR
THUMBS AND WAIT FOR THE COURT TO
RESOLVE THIS FOR YOU.
I'M GLAD THAT THERE'S LITIGATION
GOING ON IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
I'M GLAD THAT JUDGE HUDSON FOUND
WITH VIRGINIA ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMPONENT OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE.
I'M GLAD THERE ARE EFFORTS OUT
THERE IN THE STATES TO DENY THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF OBAMACARE.
ALL OF THESE THINGS GOING ON.
BUT WE TOOK AN OATH TO PRESERVE,
PROTECT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES HERE YESTERDAY.
WE TOOK IT ALL IN GOOD FAITH.
WE SAID SO.
AND WHEN WE HAVE AN
MR. SPEAKER, IT IS OUR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILL BEFORE US,
OBLIGATION TO REPEAL THAT BILL.
OUR JUDGEMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS NOT A JUDGMENT
THAT DEFERS ACROSS AND DOWN THE
LINE OF INDEPENDENCE AVENUE.
WE DON'T GO TO THE SUPREME COURT
AND GENUFLECT AND SAY, IF YOU
CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE
CONSTITUTION MY OATH APPLIES,
OUR OATH APPLIES TO OUR
UNDERSTANDING AND CONVICTION OF
THE TEXT AND THE ORIGINAL
UNDERSTANDING OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE VARIOUS
AMENDMENTS AS THEY WERE ADOPTED.
THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS
TO MEAN OR IT IS NO GUARANTEE
WHATSOEVER TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS
COUNTRY.
THEY ROSE UP AND THEY CHANGED
THIS MAJORITY IN THIS HOUSE AND
THEY DID SO BECAUSE THERE ARE A
WHOLE GROUP OF MILLIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES,
AND THEY SAID, ENOUGH
INCLUDING THE TEA PARTY GROUPS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITY,
ENOUGH OF THIS THEFT OF OUR
LIBERTY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO
PASS THE DEBT AND DEFICIT ON TO
THIS SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS.
SO I NOTICE, AND IT WAS $230
BILLION WAS THE POINT, NOT $232,
TO MAKE IT ACCURATE BUT I
NOTICED TODAY IN THE REPUBLICAN
STUDY COMMITTEE THAT CHAIRMAN
JIM JORDAN READ FROM AN ARTICLE
WRITTEN BY TONY BLANKLY IN THE
"WASHINGTON TIMES," DECEMBER 20,
2010, AND IT CAUGHT MY EAR AND
SO I LOOKED IT UP AND I'D LIKE
TO JUST CLOSE WITH THIS CONCEPT
THAT WAS DELIVERED BY TONY
BLANKLY SHORTLY BEFORE CHRISTMAS
THIS YEAR.
AND HE WROTE ABOUT SMEERNS IN
CHINA AND HOW THEY'RE WORRIED
THAT IF THEY DON'T KEEP THE
GROWTH GOING IN CHINA THAT THEY
WILL CREATE EXPECTATIONS AND
THEN THE PEASANTS IN CHINA WILL
BE UNRULEBLE IF YOU GIVE THEM
EXPECTATIONS, THEN YOU HAVE TO
MEET THOSE EXPECTATIONS.
WELL WE IN AMERICA, WE TRUST IN
OUR EXPECTATIONS AND SO HE
WRITES THIS, WHAT HAPPENED IN
NOVEMBER 2 WAS THIS, THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WENT TO THE
POLLS AND SAID, I WANT MORE
LIBERTY AND LESS GOVERNMENT.
I WANT MORE LIBERTY AND LESS
SECURITY ABOUT MY FUTURE AND HE
PUTS IN THESE WORDS AND I THINK
THEY'RE EXCELLENT WORDS.
QUOTE, NO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE
WORLD WOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO
ECONOMIC DANGER BY SEEKING MORE
LIBERTY AND LESS GOVERNMENT
PROTECTION.
NO OTHER PEOPLE WOULD HAVE
FOUGHT TO -- THOUGHT TO
THEMSELVES, IF I HAVE TO SUFFER
ECONOMICALLY IN ORDER TO NOT
STEAL FROM MY GRANDCHILDREN, SO
BE IT.
I PRAY WE WOULD HAVE COME TO
THAT DECISION A GENERATION AGO
INSTEAD OF A COUPLE OF MONTHS
AGO, MR. SPEAKER.
BUT THIS CONGRESS HAS COME TO
THAT DECISION AT THE DIRECTION
AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WE WILL
FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT PLEDGE.
WE'LL ASK THEM, KEEP SENDING US
MORE PEOPLE LIKE THIS FRESHMAN
CLASS, TO HELP GET THIS JOB DONE
SO, THAT IN OUR TIME WE CAN HAND
THE KEYS OF THIS CHAMBER AND
THIS GOVERNMENT OVER TO THE NEXT
GENERATION IN SOUND FISCAL
FASHION, SOUND CONSTITUTIONAL
FASHION, NOT WITH DIMINISHED
LIBERTY, BUT WITH THE EXPANDED
LIBERTY AND WITH THE PILLARS OF
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM
REFURBISHED BY OUR GENERATION
THANKS TO THE WILL OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 5, 2011, THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM KENTUCKY, MR. YARMUTH, FOR
30 MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
AND CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR
ELECTION.
IT'S A GREAT PLEASURE TO BE HERE
TODAY AND I COULD SPEND THE NEXT
HALF HOUR RESPONDING TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM IOWA.
I THINK IT'S FASCINATING THAT
JUST ONE COMMENT THAT HE TALKS
ABOUT READING THE CONSTITUTION
AND THEN TALKS ABOUT HOW THIS IS
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILL.
WELL OBVIOUSLY HE APPARENTLY
STOPPED AT ARTICLE 2 AND DIDN'T
GET TO ARTICLE 3 WHICH
STIPULATES THAT THE JUDICIARY
AND THE SUPREME COURT ULTIMATELY
DECIDES WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL
IN THIS COUNTRY, NOT MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS.
AND THE CONSTITUTION WAS READ
TODAY, I'M GLAD IT WAS, IT'S
ALWAYS GOOD TO REMIND OURSELVES
OF THIS GREAT FOUNDATIONAL
DOCUMENT THAT WE ALL RESPECT,
THAT ALL OF US, ALL 435 MEMBERS
OF THE HOUSE, SWORE TO PROTECT
AND DEFEND YESTERDAY.
AND IN THE CONSTITUTION, IN
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5 IT SAYS,
EACH HOUSE MAY DETERMINE THE
RULES OF ITS PRECEDINGS.
AND YESTERDAY THE REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE PUT FORTH
A GROUP OF RULES CHANGES THAT
WILL DETERMINE HOW THIS CONGRESS
WILL OPERATE OVER THE NEXT TWO
YEARS.
AND IT WAS FASCINATING IN LIGHT
CARE, IN LIGHT OF OUR
OF OUR DISCUSSION OF HEALTH
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COST OF
HEALTH CARE THAT ONE OF THE
THINGS IT DID, THESE RULES
CHANGES THAT REPUBLICANS
PASSED, BASICALLY DIVEST
EXTRAORDINARY POWER IN ONE
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE
ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE COST, WHAT
THE DEFICIT OR THE DEBT -- THE
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS OF A
MIGHT BE.
PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION
AND TO THE DEBATE WE ARE IN NOW
ABOUT REPUBLICANS' PROPOSAL TO
TAKE AWAY ALL OF THE PRIVILEGES
AND RIGHTS AND BENEFITS GRANTED
BY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT
WE PASSED IN THE 111TH CONGRESS
AND I WAS PROUD TO SUPPORT IS
THAT ONE OF THE THINGS IT SAID
WAS THAT IF THERE'S A VOTE TO
REPEAL THE HEALTH CARE BILL,
THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT
THAT WE PASSED LAST YEAR, THAT
WE BASICALLY DECIDE THAT WE
DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY PAY-GO
RULES.
IN OTHER WORDS, SAYING THAT
JUST BECAUSE THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE DETERMINED THAT
THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT
WILL SAVE THE TAXPAYERS $230
BILLION OVER THE NEXT SEVEN OR
EIGHT YEARS AND THEN ANOTHER $1
TRILLION IN THE FOLLOWING 10
YEARS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO
MAKE THE SAME KIND OF
ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE DO FOR
OTHER KINDS OF ADDITIONAL
EXPENDITURES BECAUSE THE
REPUBLICAN PHILOSOPHY IS IF YOU
REDUCE REVENUES IN ANY WAY TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT'S
FINE AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE
DEFICIT.
NOW, A LOT OF DEBATE -- A LOT
OF THE DEBATE WE HAD LAST
CONGRESS OVER THE HEALTH CARE
ACT I HEARD TIME AFTER TIME
AFTER TIME, TAX CUTS AND MANY
OTHER THINGS THAT, OH, A
BUSINESS CAN'T OPERATE LIKE
THIS, A FAMILY CAN'T OPERATE
LIKE THIS.
WELL, IN FACT, IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE THAT ANALOGY
ARE REALLY RELEVANT BECAUSE IF
I HAVE A FAMILY, TWO-INCOME
FAMILY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN ONE
OF US LOSES OUR JOB AND LOSES
OUR INCOME, IT'S REALLY
INTERESTING THAT WE COULD TAKE
THE POSITION THAT, OH, IT
DIDN'T AFFECT OUR BUDGET.
IT DIDN'T AFFECT THE FAMILY
DEFICIT.
JUST THAT LOSS OF REVENUE
DIDN'T MATTER.
ALL WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS
HOW MUCH WE SPENT.
ALL WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS
THE EXPENSE.
WHAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE
BASICALLY DONE IS TO SAY UNDER
THIS NEW REGIME, THIS NEW SET
OF RULES THEY PASSED YESTERDAY
THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE
LEDGERS.
ONE DEALING WITH
EXEXPENDITURES, ONE DEALING
WITH REVENUE AND THEY DON'T
AFFECT EACH OTHER.
IT'S AN ASTOUNDING PHILOSOPHY
OF OPERATION THAT WE'RE ABOUT
TO EMBARK ON.
UNDER THIS NEW RULE WHEN THE
BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE VERY
WEALTHY EXPIRE IN TWO YEARS, WE
WOULD NOT HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR
THAT LOSS IN REVENUE TO THE
PHILADELPHIA DEFICIT EVEN
THOUGH WHEN -- TO THE FEDERAL
DEFICIT EVEN THOUGH WHEN WE
START BORROWING MONEY TO PAY
FOR THE DEFICIT WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO COME UP WITH THAT
MONEY.
THEY SAY, NO, IT DOESN'T AFFECT
THE DEFICIT.
IF WE REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE ACT, WHICH THE
C.B.O. SAYS WILL SAVE $1.3
TRILLION OVER THE NEXT TWO
DECADES, THAT'S MONEY THAT WE
AREN'T GOING TO HAVE TO BORROW
FROM SOMEBODY ELSE.
THEY SAY, OH, THAT'S NOT PART
OF THE BUDGET.
WE DON'T HAVE TO COMPENSATE FOR
THAT.
SO IT'S FASCINATING THAT THEY
BASICALLY SET UP THESE TWO SETS
OF BOOKS AND THEN THEY GIVE THE
POWER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, WHO IN THIS
CASE IS MR. RYAN OF WISCONSIN,
A VERY THOUGHTFUL, VERY
THOUGHTFUL, HONEST MAN.
YOU GIVE HIM THE POWER,
HOWEVER, TO MAKE A DECISION
THAT WHATEVER THE C.B.O. SAYS
DOESN'T MATTER, HE CAN DEEM OR
DECIDE EXACTLY WHAT THE IMPACT
OF ANY PROVISION OR ANY ACT OF
CONGRESS IS ON THE BUDGET.
ONE PERSON.
NOW, I COME FROM KENTUCKY.
WE'RE A BIG BASKETBALL STATE.
LAST WEEKEND WE HAD A GAME, BIG
GAME RIVALRY, KENTUCKY AND
LOUISVILLE PLAYED.
DIDN'T COME OUT THE WAY I LIKED
TO, BUT I HAVE TO THINK WHEN WE
SET UP THESE RULES THAT THAT
WOULD BE LIKE LOUISVILLE AND
KENTUCKY PLAYING AND SAYING TO
COACH PITINO OR LOUISVILLE OR
COACH CAL PERIIPERRI, YOU GET
TO MAKE THE CALLS IN THIS GAME.
COACH PITINO, WE'RE TAKING THE
REFS OFF THE FIELD.
YOU ARE THE ONE THAT WILL CALL
FOULS.
YOU'LL MAKE ALL THE DECISIONS.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THE
REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE.
AND WHAT THEY ALSO SAID IN THIS
PROCESS IS THAT THEY BASICALLY
DECIDED THAT THE HEALTH CARE
REFORM BILL HAS CHANGING IT,
REPEALING IT WILL HAVE NO
IMPACT ON THE DEFICIT, NO
IMPACT ON THE BUDGET.
NOW, THAT'S FASCINATING BECAUSE
FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF
WHEN WE DEBATED THE AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE ACT THEY KEPT
TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS WAS
GOING TO BALLOON THE DEFICIT,
HOW IT WAS GOING TO EXPLODE THE
DEFICIT, TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IT'S GOING TO COST THE AMERICAN
TAXPAYER.
WELL, NOW THEY SAY, NO, HAS NO
IMPACT AT ALL ON THE DEFICIT.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
IF IT COSTS NOTHING TO REPEAL
IT, THEN THERE WAS NO COST TO
PASSING IT.
SO ONE HAS TO QUESTION, WHO'S
BEEN HONEST IN THIS DEBATE?
WHO'S BEEN HONEST IN THIS
DEBATE?
I UNDERSTAND FINDING REFEREES
AS TO WHO'S RIGHT AND WHO'S
WRONG AND WHICH FACTS ARE
ACCURATE HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT
PROCESS.
AND MY COLLEAGUE, MR. KING,
SAID THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE
KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS
EXPECTING LIBERAL LIGHT TO GO
ON IN PEOPLE'S HEADS, WELL, WE
NEED SOME LIGHT ON THIS SUBJECT
BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH
ATTEMPT, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS SPENT TO CREATE
DARKNESS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF
THIS BILL AND THAT PROCESS
PROCEEDS TODAY.
SO I THINK AS WE DEBATE THIS
PROPOSAL THE REPUBLICANS TO DO
AWAY WITH MANY OF THE BENEFITS
WHICH WE ARE SO PROUD OF AND
WHICH MANY AMERICANS, MILLIONS
OF AMERICANS ARE BEGINNING TO
FEEL NOW, THAT WE HAVE THE KIND
OF DISCUSSION THAT IS HONEST,
THAT IS OPEN, THAT SHEDS LIGHT
ON THE SUBJECT.
AND NO ONE CAN DO THAT BETTER
THAN MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE
GREAT STATE OF MARYLAND, DONNA
EDWARDS.
THANK YOU FOR
YIELDING, MR. YARMUTH.
AS I LISTEN TO THIS DISCUSSION
I THOUGHT, I WONDER WHAT
TAXPAYERS ARE THINKING ABOUT