[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 40 (Thursday, March 18, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1635-H1636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, as we face what may be one of the most
important decisions Congress has made in our lifetime, I would like to
highlight what a huge, positive impact the passage of health care
reform will have on the lives of American women, on the health and the
economic well-being of our mothers, daughters, your wives, and your
sisters.
First and foremost, passing reform will expand dramatically the
number of women and children who have access to quality health care
throughout their lifetime.
The Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, has issued a report
entitled ``Comprehensive Health Insurance Reform: An Essential
Prescription for Women,'' which documents that, in America today, 64
million women lack adequate health insurance. Over one quarter of our
daughters between the ages of 19 and 24 do not have any coverage; 39
percent of all low-income women lack health insurance coverage. Passing
health care reform will expand the availability of care, improve the
affordability of care, and will expand the minimums of care.
Today, due to costs, 1 in 5 women over age 50 has not had a mammogram
in the past 2 years due to costs. The health care reform bill will
require coverage of annual mammograms for women, including coverage for
those under 50.
Passing health care reform will bring badly needed changes to a
system that places a particularly unfair burden on women who seek to
buy insurance in the individual market.
In a report by the National Women's Law Center titled, ``How the
Individual Insurance Market Fails Women,'' investigators found there
are huge and arbitrary variations in each State and across the country
in the differences in premiums charged between women and men.
The report found that insurers who practice gender rating might
charge a 40-year-old woman anywhere from 4 percent to 48 percent more
than a 40-year-old man. Passing health care reform will put an end to
that. Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to charge women
higher premiums simply because they are women.
Health care reform will also put an end to discrimination based
solely on the prospects of motherhood. In most States today, individual
market insurers are allowed to deny health insurance coverage to an
applicant simply because she is pregnant. A previous C-section can also
be the basis for denying coverage.
Passing health care reform will put an end to discrimination based on
preexisting conditions. And they call pregnancy a preexisting
condition.
Reform is also urgently needed because, under the status quo, even if
you are not pregnant now but at some point in the future you may become
pregnant and so you may wish to buy maternity coverage now, coverage
simply may not be available.
In the capital cities of four States, Hawaii, New Mexico, North
Dakota, and South Dakota, the NOW Women's Law Center investigators were
unable to find an offer of maternity coverage in the individual market
at any price. It simply was not available.
Under the status quo, only 14 States require maternity coverage in
policies that are sold on the individual markets. No wonder then that
79 percent of women with individual market policies don't have any
maternity coverage at all. And if you don't have maternity coverage,
heaven help you if you have a problem pregnancy because your insurance
company will not be there to help.
Passing the health care reform will put an end to all of this and
require that maternity care is a part of an essential benefits package.
And then there is the problem of rescission. Evidence presented to
the House Energy and Commerce Committee told a story of a Texas woman
who had a policy with WellPoint. After she received treatment relating
to a diagnosis of a lump in her breast, the insurance company
investigated her medical history. They concluded that she failed to
disclose that she had been diagnosed previously with osteoporosis and
bone density loss, and so they rescinded her policy.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe practically every woman alive has some
form of bone density loss. They refused to pay for medical care for the
lump in her breast.
According to the Committee's investigation, this case was not
unusual. Under current practices, the majority of States do not require
a showing of fraud or intent before insurance companies may rescind
coverage.
A simple mistake, an oversight, a typo can result in a life altering
denial.
Health care reform will put an end to such cruel and heartless
practices.
While I strongly support the passage of health care reform, I must
state my opposition to any restrictions on women's access to
reproductive health services. At a time when we are making historic
changes in the delivery of health care, we must not deprive women of
the very health care they both need and deserve. We must work against
any serious constraints on abortion coverage that could cause women to
lose ground in health reform.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot and we must not turn our backs on the urgent
need, on the call of history, on the millions of uninsured, on the tens
of millions who cast their votes in the last election and on the
promise the we made loud and clear: We will pass health care reform--
and we will pass it now.
Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi--Fact Sheet, March 18, 2010
NEWSPAPER EDITORIALS SUPPORTING HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM
Memphis Commercial Appeal Editorial (Tennessee)--Decision time on
health care
There will be more options . . . for small businesses, the
self-employed and the uninsured, who will have access to
transparent information about plan provisions. It would
mandate health insurance for almost everyone, making it
financially feasible for insurance companies to carry out
their mandates.
Insurance companies could afford, for example, to cover
everyone who applies, with or without pre-existing
conditions. They could afford to guarantee continued coverage
for clients who get sick.
The legislation would help solve many of the other problems
with health care that have grown increasingly frustrating in
recent years . . .
Minneapolis Star-Tribune Editorial (Minnesota)--Rx for health care:
political courage
f the legislation doesn't pass, the worst-case projection
is that the number of Americans without coverage will climb
from 49.4 million to 67.6 million in 2020, meaning that
nearly one in four Americans too young for Medicare will be
uninsured.
The best-case scenario doesn't exactly inspire confidence,
either. Should economic conditions improve over the next
decade, there will be 57.9 million people without coverage 10
years from now--about one in five Americans younger than 65 .
. .
. . . let's put this procedural spat in perspective. It's a
distraction from the real
[[Page H1636]]
issue: the catastrophic consequences of the health care
status quo . . .
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial (Pennsylvania)--To our health:
Democrats must seize the day and pass reform
One of the bogus assertions made in the health care
debate--and that includes allegations of death panels and
kindred nonsense--is the Republican idea that the bills
passed by the House and Senate should be junked and Congress
should start over.
Let everybody know this: Starting over is political code
for doing nothing, or at least very little. It is the
invitation to drag feet until another election cycle starts
and the chance is lost. It is the siren call to put
comprehensive health care reform forever on the rocks . . .
This legislation has been talked to death. It's time now to
give it life by passing it, forthrightly and bravely, with as
few gimmicks as possible.
Dayton Daily News Editorial (Ohio)--Health care reform partly in Ohio's
hands
. . . Are we or aren't we going to extend affordable health
care to nearly all Americans? And are we going to insist that
Americans who can afford to buy insurance do so, while also
requiring those who can't pay the full cost still pay
something toward coverage? . . .
. . . does anyone believe that there isn't a lot wrong with
the current system--50 million people without coverage; an
insurance system that protects you when you're well, but
kicks you to the curb when you get sick; cost structures that
result in huge sums being spent on marketing and processing
claims instead of services to patients? . . .
Republicans would have you believe that this legislation is
so awful that the only solution is to start over. That is not
a plan; it is a stalling strategy. But stalling for what?
The current system is unsustainable for everyone. Insurance
rates keep going up both for businesses and individuals.
Young people continue to choose not to buy insurance,
sticking hospitals and those who do buy insurance with their
bills. Medicaid rolls are soaring, forcing states to limit
eligibility, cut spending elsewhere and reduce how much they
reimburse doctors. People who want to buy insurance can't get
it if they've ever had a serious illness . . .
Win or lose this vote, the president and Democrats are in
for tough political times. At least if they win, some 30
million people will get health insurance and some immoral
elements of a broken system will be no more.
Detroit Free Press Editorial (Michigan)--Messy bill offers significant
health care progress
. . . So let's get on with it. Congress can continue to
tweak the program through the years as its shortcomings
become more obvious. In the meantime, people with preexisting
conditions will get decent coverage again, Medicare won't
have such a huge ``doughnut hole'' in its prescription plan,
and many other benefits will accrue. Women, in particular,
may find better coverage, especially for pregnancy--a huge
plus especially for anyone who (mistakenly) thinks the Senate
language is not strong enough on keeping federal funds
separate from any insurance with abortion coverage. Good
health insurance is probably the most life-affirming policy
any Congress could enact.
What's pending before Congress hardly represents a
government takeover of health care. It will attract more
private dollars into the system and should spur competition
among insurance companies to offer helpful and more effective
care.
But the main point remains: Not just health insurance but
health care itself will continue to deteriorate without
decisive congressional intervention. Unless you welcome the
day when America has the best health care in the world for
the lowest percentage of people, you should look forward to a
successful, history-making vote, no matter how messy the
process.
Los Angeles Times Editorial (California)--Rehabilitating Healthcare
Opponents of comprehensive healthcare reform have achieved
something remarkable, if not necessarily admirable: Having
stopped the legislation from being considered and passed in
the usual fashion, Republicans have now ginned up a debate
over the extraordinary procedural steps they've forced
Democrats to take to complete the work. This ugly, gimmick-
ridden process brings no credit to either side. Yet the fist-
pounding over the shortcut being contemplated by House
leaders shouldn't obscure the simple reality of the vote that
House members are expected to cast this weekend. It may not
be an up-or-down vote on the Senate's version of the bill,
but it is an up-or-down vote on comprehensive healthcare
reform.
. . . any House members who vote for reconciliation under a
self-executing rule will be unmistakably voting to enact into
law a sweeping change in the healthcare system, extending
coverage to millions of the uninsured, outlawing abusive
insurance industry practices, promoting higher-quality care
and attacking the incentives that drive up costs. At the same
time, they'll be voting to improve the Senate's approach by
eliminating special deals and making insurance more
affordable to the working poor. That's not an abuse of power,
that's a win-win.
____________________