[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3945-S3946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, over a year ago now, the President 
signed into law health care legislation that we are finding is 
certainly long on promises but short on sound policy. Unfortunately, 
the legislation did not follow a transparent or thorough process. 
Instead, it was hastily rushed through on a premise that has now become 
famous, as said by Speaker Pelosi: We have to pass it to see what is in 
it. Now, almost daily, newspapers, constituent mail, and independent 
reports continue to reveal that the law's promises are not reality.
  Recently, the Columbus Dispatch told the story of a family with a 
preexisting condition. Two years ago, their struggles to find health 
insurance coverage outraged this administration. In fact, their 
hardship was specifically used as an example of why we needed to get 
the health care system reformed. Well, party affiliation did not define 
how we felt about this family. We all empathized and sympathized with 
their struggles and recognized the need for basic health insurance 
reforms. But, unfortunately, we did not harness that common ground to 
develop sound policy that addresses the very real problems within the 
health care system. Instead, a bitterly partisan bill was shoved 
through Congress, and now we are stuck with its consequences.
  So what are the consequences for the family who struggled to get 
insurance? The article reports that their annual premium has increased 
a whopping $12,000. Clearly, one result of the law is soaring premiums. 
President Obama promised no fewer than 20 times that he would cut 
premiums by $2,500 for the average family by the end of his term. But, 
unfortunately, this is not an isolated story. This broken promise is 
evident in homes all across this great Nation. Mail from frustrated 
Nebraskans continues to flood my office. They question how a health 
care law that costs so much yet still allows skyrocketing premiums 
could have ever passed.
  A single mother from Bellevue, NE, recently found out that her 
family's health care premium increased by $700 per year. Her insurance 
provider explained it was due to mandates in the new health care law.
  She pleaded with me:

       Please stand up on behalf of single moms like me. We do all 
     we can to hold our world together, give up time with our 
     children to work two jobs . . . and now this! How am I 
     supposed to maintain health insurance for my family?

  Well, I wish I could tell constituents their premiums will not go up, 
as the President promised. I wish I could tell them the new health care 
law addressed the rising costs of health care, as the President 
promised it would. Instead, these stories reflect what the experts 
predicted would happen if the law passed. The nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office estimated that individual health insurance premiums would 
increase by an average of $2,100 per family due solely to the new 
mandates included in the law. That puts the gap between Candidate 
Obama's promise and President Obama's health care law at an alarming 
$4,600 per family.
  The administration's own Medicare Actuary expects health care costs 
to increase $311 billion over the next decade under the new law. In 
fact, the Actuary testified that the President's promise that the 
health care law would lower costs was ``false, more so than true.''
  Now, some may say: Mike, just wait until the law is fully 
implemented. That is when the promises will be fulfilled. But I 
continue to get reports on my desk forecasting the negative 
consequences of this irresponsible and shortsighted piece of 
legislation.
  For example, one of the law's major flaws is that about half of its 
new health insurance coverage is achieved by locking millions of more 
people on an already-broken Medicaid system.
  Yet the New England Journal of Medicine recently released a study 
showing those on Medicaid struggle to find doctors to treat them.
  The medical journal's research revealed that 66 percent of 
individuals who mentioned Medicaid's Children Health Insurance Program 
when calling to schedule a medical appointment were denied an 
appointment for the child.
  That is compared to only 11 percent who said they had private 
insurance.
  That is right--those on Medicaid's CHIP were six times more likely to 
be denied treatment.
  And when Medicaid was accepted, the children had to wait, on average, 
22 days longer than those with private insurance.
  Researchers blame low Medicaid payments, delays in paying, and 
bureaucratic redtape driving doctors from even accepting these 
patients.
  As a former Governor, I can tell you that these problems have long 
plagued the Medicaid Program.
  Yet in 2014 the President's new law dramatically expands Medicaid, 
dumping over 24 million more Americans onto this very broken system. 
How can the President promise guaranteed coverage for these millions of 
Americans when this study shows the majority of our most vulnerable 
population is denied treatment under the Medicaid system? The bottom 
line is you cannot receive care if you cannot find a doctor to provide 
it. The logic simply does not match the promise.
  Another recent study by the consulting group McKinsey & Company calls 
another one of the President's guarantees into question. Their study 
analyzed the impact of the health care law on employer-sponsored 
benefits.
  Prior to the health care law, America's employers were the backbone 
of our Nation's health care system, providing 165 million Americans 
with health care coverage. The McKinsey study found that 30 percent of 
employers will definitely or probably stop offering their employees 
health care insurance after 2014.
  During the health care debate, supporters of the law insisted that 
the law builds on the principle of employer-sponsored coverage.
  The President even repeatedly promised if you like your plan, you can 
keep it. But again, this appears to be an empty promise.
  According to the study--and others that came before it--employees 
will be stripped of plans that they like and dumped onto the new law's 
health care exchanges to fend for themselves.
  I realize there is some disagreement surrounding this particular 
study. But how can we deny this commonsense logic?
  The more you know about this law, the more you conclude it just does 
not make sense for employers to offer a health care plan.
  Beginning in 2014, the health care law mandates that employers with 
more than 50 workers offer health insurance coverage or pay a penalty 
of $2,000 per worker. And with this mandate comes a slew of other 
requirements. Suddenly dropping coverage and paying the $2,000 penalty 
becomes an economic necessity.
  During the health care debate, I spoke about this on the Senate 
floor. I and many others warned that the proposed penalties for 
businesses would create a perverse incentive. When you do the math, I 
said back then this is no penalty at all, compared to the cost of 
private insurance.
  It is a wise business decision if you are worried about the bottom 
line. That is how the law encourages employers to dump their employees 
onto the exchange.
  A Deloitte consultant told the Associated Press, ``I don't know if 
the intent was to find an exit strategy for providing benefits, but the 
bill as written provides the mechanism.'' John Deere has responded by 
saying businesses will look into ``just paying the

[[Page S3946]]

fine.'' Not surprisingly, employers have done their own math. AT&T 
reported that its $2.4 billion cost of coverage would drop to $600 
million for the penalties. Estimates reveal Caterpillar could save 70 
percent on health care costs by eliminating coverage and paying the 
penalties. And the list goes on.
  Prior to its passage, the Congressional Budget Office predicted 7 
percent of employers would drop insurance coverage due to the health 
care law. Now studies and business logic are challenging that estimate. 
This may mean the CBO's projected cost of the health care law may be 
significantly too low.
  That is right--the $2.6 trillion cost estimate for the health care 
law could be surprisingly too low. The President promised that this 
bill would lift the burden off the middle class. Not only will they see 
their premiums continue to increase due to out-of-control health care 
costs, but they will foot the cost of the new exchanges.
  Unfortunately, time is confirming what we have been predicting all 
along. The case for repeal of the health care law grows stronger every 
day. I will work to overturn these negative consequences. I believe 
Americans deserve better. They deserve promises that we can keep.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________