[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2639-H2646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              WHY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT MUST BE REPEALED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Massie). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we're here tonight to talk 
about health care, something that is important to all of us, something 
that we have been discussing in this Chamber for the last few years, 
trying to make health care affordable and accessible to many American 
families.
  A couple of years ago, out of this Chamber, a bill was passed, one 
that many didn't even get a chance to read. But we were told, in 
preparation for that, the American people were told there would be 
tremendous benefits to passing the President's health care law. The 
President of the United States himself said it would cut health care 
costs by $2,500 per family per year.
  We were also told there are a number of benefits, such as no lifetime 
caps, a number of prevention benefits, certainly ones that many of us 
agree with. But to get the benefits of the health care bill, we were 
also told by then-Speaker Pelosi that we had to pass the bill to find 
out what is in it. We have, since then, found out many of the things 
that are in it, and many of those we are still discovering as time goes 
on.
  Tonight we'll discuss what is the Affordable Care Act and many 
aspects of it that concern us deeply, and why it must be repealed, 
because just the good intentions of the bill are not enough. Good 
intentions do not guarantee good results.
  What we will discuss tonight is a study that has told us some 
shocking information: how premiums will go up, on average, 96 percent, 
even more so for young men and for women before retirement.
  We will discuss new findings that show massive premiums increases for 
families, for individuals, for small businesses across the country. To 
many of these Americans, they will wake up, when they get their health 
care bills, and find the Affordable Care Act is not affordable.
  But first, let us review again some of the promises and the reality 
of that Affordable Care Act. To seniors, the President's promised that 
these reforms will not cut your guaranteed benefits. What we've 
discovered is that there were more than $500 billion in cuts to 
Medicare that the administration's own actuary predicts will lead to 
providers no longer accepting Medicare, meaning that doctors that 
seniors have been seeing for a while will simply say, we can no longer 
afford to provide this.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that, for 
Medicare Advantage, these cuts ``could lead many plans to limit the 
benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the 
program.''
  It's important to understand that Medicare Advantage is the program 
that provides a wide range of preventative services and disease 
management

[[Page H2640]]

for seniors. The very things that people talked about what we should be 
doing for health care will be omitted. Translation means that Medicare 
savings come from cutting payments to doctors and hospitals.
  We've also known that this Independent Payment Advisory Board is a 
problem, also known as IPAB. This 15-member appointed board of which, 
by law, a majority of them may not be in the health care field, will 
make additional cuts to Medicare without any Congressional approval or 
appeal, unless the House and the Senate pass legislation and the 
President signs it into law. So literally, it would take an act of 
Congress to change some of these aspects that this independent board 
will make decisions on with regard to payments and coverage.
  The President also promised, ``If you like your health care plan, 
you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take 
it away, no matter what.''
  But here are some of the facts we've discovered since the bill has 
passed. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted 3 million 
to 9 million individuals would lose their employer-sponsored coverage. 
McKenzie Consulting actually has come up with much higher numbers, 
saying workers losing their employer coverage could be as high as 80 to 
100 million.
  Over 1,400 waivers had to be granted to employers so they could opt 
out of this legislation. The Health and Human Services Department had 
to grant pardons to large businesses like McDonald's, Universal 
Studios, and labor unions. It is estimated that these waivers cover 3.2 
million people.
  And Speaker Pelosi said the bill would create 400,000 jobs almost 
immediately. Let's look again at the results now that the bill is law. 
The Congressional Budget Office predicted the law will result in 
700,000 additional Americans unemployed, 700,000 additional Americans 
unemployed.
  The National Federation of Independent Business predicted the bill 
will cause a loss of over 1.4 million jobs.
  A new insurance tax will also impact a number of private sector jobs, 
estimated to be between 146,000 to 262,000 jobs, by 2022. And 59 
percent of these job losses come from small businesses, the backbone of 
our Nation's growth, where so many moms and dads and young men and 
women have their jobs and get their start.

                              {time}  1820

  Those small companies, those neighborhood companies, those ones that 
have the big impact, that sponsor everything from the Little League 
games to church events as well, many of these businesses are going to 
say, We just cannot grow and create new jobs. Many worry how they're 
going to keep workers employed. Many worry how they're going to afford 
health care coverage for their workers, and many of those workers are 
wondering if they can keep their job.
  The President also said:

       I can make a firm pledge that under my plan no family 
     making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax 
     increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your 
     capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

  Let's now talk about the facts.
  There are over $835 billion in taxes that will be passed on to 
families in the form of higher premiums and higher costs. Let's look at 
some of those taxes. There will be an increase in the Medicare payroll 
taxes and an increase in other unearned taxes. These Medicare taxes 
will be a total amount of $317 billion in taxes that people will see 
coming off of their paychecks. Indeed, they will see them on their 
paychecks.
  There's a medical device tax. All those medical devices that doctors 
and dentists use to care for you, that will be a new tax. And even 
though they say this tax will be paid by the manufacturers, those 
taxes, indeed, will be passed on in terms of higher costs. Those 
medical devices so critical for the doctors and nurses to provide good 
health care for you, that will increase their costs.
  There will be a health insurance tax, a health insurance tax on the 
health insurance companies themselves and on the policies. That will be 
$101 billion.
  There will also be the individual mandate tax, saying that if you do 
not have coverage, you will pay an additional tax. That's $55 billion.
  And, of course, if your employer decides to give you a high-level 
health care plan that covers so many of the things that people want in 
terms of their doctors' fees, their hospital stay, dental, other 
medical, eyeglasses, prescription drugs, those may be now labeled as a 
Cadillac plan, and those will be taxed with a 40 percent excise tax 
that each family will have to pay in their health insurance, total 
being about $111 billion on that alone.
  These taxes will indeed cost health care more. There will be higher 
taxes for families who will be paying out of their paycheck. There's no 
escaping this part that even though people were told they will not pay 
higher taxes, indeed they will.
  But now the Energy and Commerce Committee has also done a study, and 
we're going to talk about what's going to happen with premiums in this, 
because the President said that his plan:

       not only guarantees coverage for every American, but brings 
     down the cost of health care and reduces every family's 
     premium by as much as $2,500.

  Even after the bill passed, more promises were made about the 
benefits of the law. In July 2012, President Obama promised that once 
the Affordable Care Act has been ``fully implemented, your premiums 
will go down.'' They have not. In fact, since the Affordable Care Act 
has passed, people have seen their premiums go up by thousands of 
dollars. We now have the data showing premiums, in fact, will go up 
even more, and quite dramatically for millions and millions and 
millions of individuals, families and small businesses across the 
country, and large businesses as well.
  Let me describe the study that the Energy and Commerce Committee 
performed, submitting letters on March 14 of this year from the 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
  We sent 17 health care insurance companies requests on information 
about the Affordable Care Act. We asked them, How would it affect 
premiums? We asked them to tell us the information that they already 
have. What numbers did they come up with? What are their analysts 
telling them already it's going to cost in terms of new premiums?
  We didn't request the companies create new information, and we didn't 
ask them to make anything up. We said very specifically, Tell us what 
you see is going to happen. And we said, Submit your existing analysis 
to us so we can capture the purest representation of the impact of the 
Affordable Care Act. Simply said, what is it going to cost families?
  As insurers are currently filing their applications to participate in 
the exchanges, that prediction phase is over, and now we can find out 
what was in the health care bill and what it will cost families. We 
went straight to the source to find out what it will be for America's 
families, and here is what we found out.
  First of all, we noted that health care is going to cost, on average, 
96 percent more for people who are going to get a new health insurance 
plan, 73 percent more for those keeping their insurance, and as much as 
413 percent more based on age and the plan mandates.

  Now, this is important because what this means, basically, is that 
young men will see a large increase in their health insurance rates. 
Women who are nearing retirement age will also see a large increase in 
their insurance rates. Let's go through what some of the reasons for 
this are.
  What was provided to us, for example, by one actual insurance company 
analysis said that, as you start to look through these cost increases, 
what may be a new business or an existing one for your employer, there 
are several essential benefits. Now, up to this point, people have been 
able to choose a plan based upon its affordability; but instead, what 
it's going to be is all plans have to look the same. Now, in that sense 
they say that that increase can be about 15 percent more.
  Now, in addition, for the minimum coverage, about 8 to 10 percent 
more, there will be other guaranteed issues. Removal of any 
underwriting actions, that will be about another 65 percent to 10 
percent. There will be insurer fees. There will be other things like 
risk adjustment transfer payments, reinsurance risk adjustment, and 
other effects small employers will have.

[[Page H2641]]

Those will also go up by as much as 35 percent.
  There will also be an average start--look at the average starting 
member cost premium per member per month will be $158. And if you're 
just doing it on what's called the bronze level, the very low level, 
which would pay 60 percent premiums, that's about $182 more per month 
up to $200 per month. There are multiple other fees in this.
  Basically, what this comes down to is, for those who are new 
businesses, newly in the plan, 96 percent higher costs; for those who 
have an established one, about 73 percent higher costs; and in some 
levels, as high as 413 percent higher.
  On a broader sense, to look at how much this will cost you, in 45 
States that were analyzed, 35 percent of the market will see a premium 
increase of greater than 30 percent. Now, what we see here, some States 
will be less than 10 percent, some States will be greater than 30 
percent, some will see 20 to 30 percent, and some will be 10 to 20 
percent.
  Let's look at some of the individual States.
  Now, in these States, I'm just going to pick out a few here to 
describe. For example, in the State of Georgia, potential premium 
increases range from 48 to 63 percent in the individual market and 25 
percent in the small group market; meaning, if you're buying on your 
own, it's going to be much higher than if you're in a small group, but 
still it's pretty considerable.
  Indiana, one insurance company said it would be 100 percent increase 
in the small group market. Illinois, potential premium increases from 
27 to 61 percent in the individual market and 25 percent in the small 
group market.
  Look at Nevada, potential premium increases 31 percent; Michigan, 25 
to 88 percent for males, and the individual market with premiums to 
vary greatly throughout the State. In the small group market, an 
estimated 44 percent of plans will see some decrease in some cases and 
other areas seeing an increase.
  In my State of Pennsylvania, there's an average increase of 30 
percent in the individual market and 27 percent in the group market.
  Tennessee, which has already had problems over the years with 
TennCare, will see a potential premium increase of 49 to 54 percent in 
the individual market and 35 percent in the small group market.
  The lists go on and on. We bring this out so the American people can 
understand that when people say, if you thought health care costs were 
expensive, wait until you see what they're costing when they're free, 
quite frankly, there is no free ride on this.
  Now, admittedly, some will have some subsidies on this. About 8 
percent of those will have some level of subsidy, which will help to 
offset some of these costs, but many people will not have these 
subsidies at all.
  At this point, I'd like to ask some of my colleagues up to talk about 
some of these things. On my left is Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito 
of West Virginia to talk about what this means in terms of the costs 
for some employees in her State.

                              {time}  1830

  Mrs. CAPITO. I'd like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. And 
I'm glad we're talking about this because tomorrow I intend to vote 
again to repeal ObamaCare and put an end to what its lead author 
himself said is a ``train wreck.''
  I'd like to read an email that I received about 2 or 3 weeks ago:

       I own a daycare center (260 children and 73 staff). Been in 
     business 24 years. I just got the info on ObamaCare from my 
     insurance company. The numbers will cause me to close my 
     business. How can my own government do this? I have worked 
     hard to have a first-rate child care center, seldom taking 
     vacations and easily putting in 10 hours a day year-round. I 
     have always done the right thing for my employees and 
     clients. This is so discouraging to me. Is there any way to 
     fix this?

  So I visited the daycare center and talked with the owner of the 
business. If she moves forward and doesn't offer insurance, she is 
going to have to pay $83,000 a year in penalties. She cannot afford 
this.
  So what are her options? She's looking at going from 73 employees 
down to below 50. Well, that's 24 jobs right there that she's talking 
about cutting. But let's think of the further implications of cutting 
24 jobs in a daycare center. It's over 70 children who are no longer 
going to have good, high-quality daycare in her small business. She's 
worked hard for 24 years and she doesn't understand.
  She tells me most of the people in her business now have insurance. 
Those who aren't, because they work at the lower wage scale, are able 
to access Medicaid and have other health care available to them. She's 
very, very discouraged.
  Another business person in my State of West Virginia just sent me his 
tax collection for next year for the ObamaCare health plan. He has 105 
people. His premiums are going to go up $180,000 more a year. His 
annual premium in a small business like this is $788,000-$180,000 more 
than it was the previous year. And this is for a plan that has a $3,000 
deductible, which is going to break the back of a lot of employees in 
his business.
  His change? We heard from the gentleman from Pennsylvania that we 
were promised that premiums would not go up, that it was going to be 
affordable and premiums would come down. His premiums have gone up 30 
percent.
  We've already talked about how many folks across this country are 
going to lose their coverage, how many are going to lose their jobs. 
These are just two small businesses that are thinking about either 
cutting their full-time employees down to part time to try to get under 
the threshold--which means that employee has to go out and find another 
job to supplement the income to be able to have enough income to 
sustain their families.
  We also learned, as the report from the Energy and Commerce Committee 
has stated, that for younger people and people going on the individual 
market, the premiums are going to be 96 percent higher. We've also 
learned that 80 percent of single adults between the ages of 21 and 29, 
with incomes at just $16,500, will pay more for their health care than 
they do today. It's very discouraging to hardworking folks.
  I was reading The Wall Street Journal the other day and saw an op-ed 
by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who I think played a large role in creating 
ObamaCare. He noted that the exchanges would only work if younger 
Americans decided to participate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
just pointed out that the younger working population is the one where 
the premium increase is going to hit the hardest.
  But he further suggests that the President, through the force of his 
popularity with younger Americans--because they voted for him--could 
convince them to sign up for health plans because of the popularity of 
the President. It's difficult to encourage people through a sheer force 
of personality to act against their own economic instincts. I mean, 
we're talking about young people that will go across the street--and 
most people in America that will go across the street--to save a nickel 
on gasoline even if their dad owns the gas station on the other side. 
In my view, this just doesn't even hit reality of what's actually going 
to happen with our young people.
  He further states that health insurance needs to be seen as an 
individual responsibility. You know what? Health insurance right now is 
an individual responsibility in this country. But instead, purchasing 
insurance after January 1 will be a requirement imposed by Big 
Government.
  I have shared the concerns of mine. We've talked about the taxes. As 
I was reading through the renewal summary of the small business that 
has 105, he has three taxes listed here that his insurance company has 
enumerated for him:
  One is the annual fee on health insurance providers called an 
insurance fee. This is a nondeductible excise tax applied on health 
insurance to help finance ObamaCare.

  Number two, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund. This 
provides funding for an institute to assist patients, clinicians, 
purchasers and policymakers to make informed health decisions.
  The other is a transitional reinsurance contribution for those who 
are in high-risk pools.
  This is added tax to small businesses, the employers in our country. 
They're

[[Page H2642]]

going to have to make tough choices because it's unaffordable. Even 
paying the penalties is unaffordable, which is going to result, as you 
said, in over 700,000 jobs lost in this country.
  We have a better way to do this, a more patient-centered, market-
based approach where affordability and accessibility are goals that we 
all want. We could have, I think, a much more economical, and probably 
a better health approach because it will have the patient-centered 
doctor/patient relationship in full consideration.
  So I would say to you that I have two concrete examples. I would 
encourage my colleagues throughout--and I'm sure we have--the House and 
Senate to talk to these employers who have over 50 employees to see 
what kind of impact this is going to have. Twenty-four possible people 
losing their jobs in a day care center; 70 children losing after-school 
care. What are those families going to do?
  I tried to help with this business owner to try to help her find 
solutions. I couldn't come up with one because this is getting rammed 
down her throat no matter what.
  So, with that discouraging bit of a small business viewpoint of the 
impact of ObamaCare as it approaches, and with the attitude of some of 
the architects of ObamaCare that it's our responsibility, or because we 
voted for somebody, we are going to work against our own economic 
interests, it just doesn't even pass the laugh test in my opinion. So I 
think we're in for a rough ride.
  I want to thank my colleague for letting me join him on this Special 
Order and all my colleagues here tonight.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank my friend from West Virginia, 
whose district borders mine in southwestern Pennsylvania down there.
  But I note and amplify something you said because even when some say, 
well, you know, if you're a business of less than 50 employees it's not 
going to affect you, there are a couple things. Some businesses say, 
well, then, we'll stay under 50 employees. But also, those people are 
still going to have the taxes. They're going to have higher Medicare 
taxes, taxes on their paycheck, they're going to see health care costs 
going up anyway because of the tax on health insurance, tax on 
prescription drugs, and other taxes that go on. So people will still 
see higher costs in this.
  I'd like to call now upon another one of my colleagues from Texas, 
Dr. Burgess, also on the Energy and Commerce Committee, who continues 
to work very hard for the sake of patients to make sure we come up with 
an affordable plan for American families.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank him for 
holding this hour tonight. It is important that we have this 
discussion.
  We're barely 3 weeks from the third anniversary of that late-night 
congressional session where the Affordable Care Act was passed into 
law. Those of us who were here at the time will remember that this bill 
that became law that was voted on late that night never went through 
our committee. We had a bill that went through our committee, but it 
never saw the light of day. This was a Senate bill that was bounced 
back over to the House, and we were forced to pass it without a single 
hearing, without a markup. It basically just came to us and the 
majority at the time, the Democratic majority, pushed it through.
  When you stop and look at what were the American people telling us 
through the summer of 2009, when we all had those very tense town halls 
in our district, what were people saying to us? Number one, do not mess 
up the system that is working well for 65 or 70 percent of us. Number 
two was, if you're going to do anything at all, can you help us with 
costs? Well, I think we have the answer to those two questions. Number 
one, we have messed the system up for the people who were depending 
upon it, and, the costs are going through the roof.
  But when you analyze what this new data means, the real thrust of the 
cost increases are focused on people who buy in the individual market 
and people who buy in the small group market. All of the rhetoric from 
the summer of 2009, through the fall of 2009, to the spring of 2010 was 
we have to make these changes in our insurance policy. Why? Because we 
have to help these people in the small group market and the individual 
market.

                              {time}  1840

  This is where the problems occurred; but, in fact, we have made those 
problems worse, and they continue to grow in severity day by day.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also point out, the committee staff on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee on our Subcommittee on Oversight, has 
really done an excellent job in compiling this data. We don't get much 
help from the Department of Health and Human Services. When we say we 
need information from you about what the cost structure is going to be 
of this new health care plan, we don't get a lot of help from them.
  So the committee staff goes out, actually writes to people who will 
be in charge of administering the plans for people in the small group 
and the individual market, and then they compile the data. And the data 
that they compiled is all up on the Energy and Commerce Web site, and 
it's startling.
  These are the individuals: the small-group market and the individual 
market. To be sure, the large-group market will be affected, but not 
nearly as much as those people in the small-group and individual 
market. It was those people who ObamaCare was supposed to help in the 
first place, and we've done them the maximum harm.
  So a tip of the hat to the Energy and Commerce staff, particularly 
the staff on the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. I think 
they've done an excellent job in bringing this information to the 
Congress in a very usable form. Again, I encourage people to look on 
the Energy and Commerce Web site because this is information that can 
directly affect you, your family, your business, your children, and 
literally your health care for the next three decades.
  I wish this thing had never happened. We are going to have a repeal 
vote later this week, and I welcome the chance to do that. This is the 
unfinished business of this Congress, to undo this dreadful law that 
has been visited upon the land.
  But in the meantime, we also need to make people aware of how this 
law is going to affect their lives. It's going to be in a big way: if 
you like what you have, you can keep it--not so much. If you like your 
doctor, you can keep your doctor--not so much. ObamaCare, you're going 
to pay a lot more to get a lot less.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURGESS. Yes, I'll be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding for a 
question.
  I am looking at the report that you have referenced that people can 
go look at online for themselves, and I notice that your home State of 
Texas has a projected 23 percent premium increase; is that correct?
  Mr. BURGESS. That's my understanding.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. And I also notice that the report says, 
from the data that was obtained from the insurance companies, that my 
home State of Virginia is going to have a 31 percent premium increase 
in the small group; again, not talking about the large group rates, 
while they will be affected by the taxes.
  Now, I'm just kind of curious. How come Texas is getting off light 
with only a 23 percent increase and Virginia is getting hit with that 
31 percent increase? Can you explain that, or is that just another one 
of the mysteries of ObamaCare?
  Mr. BURGESS. If the gentleman will yield?
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BURGESS. Well, let me assure the gentleman from Virginia, I can 
promise you with absolute certainty that there was no favoritism on the 
part of the Obama administration toward the great State of Texas. If 
anything, Texas seems to be singled out for special consideration on 
some other areas. But perhaps it actually relates to the differences in 
the insurance market and the type of coverage that's sought. I really 
can't explain that 5 or 6 percent discrepancy.
  What I can tell you--and, again, this is with dead certainty--that 
the Obama administration did not--did not--show

[[Page H2643]]

favoritism to the State of Texas or its Governor Perry.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. If the gentleman will yield further, 
perhaps for a colloquy, I would ask the gentleman if he suspects that 
this is because up to this point in time this has always been a State-
driven market and, therefore, there are some differences between the 
States, but that the vast majority of States, according to this report, 
in the small-group market are going to be facing significant double-
digit increases? Is that his understanding from the report?
  Mr. BURGESS. There are going to be double-digit increases. And, of 
course, as the gentleman is well aware, there are different State 
mandates that have governed the State-regulated insurance market over 
time, and that may result in some of the discrepancy that you're 
seeing.

  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. And I would further ask the gentleman if it 
makes him a little nervous that the folks who are going to be trying to 
get out there and get records and make sure that folks are doing what 
they're supposed to, either paying the tax or buying the insurance, are 
in fact the IRS? That would be the same IRS that we found out for 
political reasons slow-walked and made it difficult for some 
conservative groups, particularly from Texas and other parts of the 
country, to actually get their tax exempt status. Does that make the 
gentleman a little bit nervous?
  Mr. BURGESS. It should concern and make nervous every man, woman, and 
child in this country that the Internal Revenue Service is going to be 
administering their health care in the future. I think that's an 
important point that the gentleman has brought up.
  One other difference, if I may add, between the cost in Texas and the 
cost in Virginia. Do bear in mind that Texas enacted significant 
medical liability reform 10 years ago, and we have seen the benefits of 
that. If there's one thing that was the missing link in the Affordable 
Care Act, it was where was their commitment to reforming the medical 
justice system in this country, which we all know tends to drive costs 
up, and the creation of defensive medicine, which in turn drives costs 
up.
  Texas has a 10-year history now of caps on noneconomic damages in 
medical liability suits. I don't know for certain if that has played a 
role in the lower premium increase in Texas; but if it has, I'm sure 
they'll be happy to take credit for it.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would say to the gentleman that I'm sure 
some of those things have played out, not necessarily the differences 
between Texas and Virginia, because Virginia has a longer history with 
medical malpractice caps. And we, too, have seen that it has helped us 
in many ways in the State of Virginia.
  I would point out to the gentleman, and I doubt that he is aware of 
this, and I don't know the truth or veracity of it, but it is reported 
in the Courthouse News Service, which is a service for lawyers and 
press folks, that in California the IRS has actually been sued because 
they had a search warrant to go in to look at a specific employee's 
financial records. And in the process, according to the allegations 
made by the attorney, Robert Barnes, when they went in, it happened to 
be an insurance company or a company that had medical records--we're 
not sure because it's called a John Doe company--but it had medical 
records for something like 10 million Californians, including everybody 
in the judicial system in California. And notwithstanding the fact that 
they were told those were not financial records of the individual but 
personal medical records and that they were probably violating some 
HIPAA rules, they seized these records and they have now been sued by, 
as I said, the attorney's name is Robert Barnes in the State of Texas.
  That gives me some concern that perhaps what we are seeing in regards 
to the IRS's callousness towards political parties and political 
philosophy and the Constitution of the United States groups that were 
trying to promote that, they may also just have a callous disregard 
that they can be untouched by anybody, when you see that this lawsuit 
actually was filed in March, and I don't think it got much attention 
because people probably thought it was not part of their regular 
pattern.
  But now that we have seen what has happened in other parts of the 
country in regard to those exemptions, that may also be of some concern 
to people that they're out there compiling all of these records. And, 
again, we don't know whether it's true. But some of those records that 
they got from some of the Tea Party groups allegedly, and alleged by a 
left-leaning or a liberal group, the IRS gave them the information as 
to who their donors were, is the IRS also going to give out our medical 
information to folks that we don't necessarily want to have it?
  That's the question that we have to ask when you have a scandal like 
this at the IRS and it directly impacts ObamaCare. Because right now, 
before ObamaCare comes into effect, the gentleman, I think, would agree 
with me the IRS really doesn't have anything to do with your medical 
records. But now we are opening up the door and taking those 16,000 
agents, and they are very likely to be looking at your medical records 
and your company's medical policies as well as the medical records, and 
that causes me some concern, and I suspect it may cause the gentleman 
some concern also.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. It certainly is a concern, because not 
only do you have the IRS with these new 16,000 agents, and we already 
know that it has come from multiple sources in multiple States, the 
issue with regard to not only going after conservative groups, but also 
pro-Israel Jewish groups, the issue of them going into the Gibson 
Guitar Company, multiple things where they tend to use the heavy hammer 
for political purposes on those who may not agree with some others.
  At this point, there still certainly is a lot of information yet to 
be garnered from this, but it should give people pause and 
understanding--what happens if you don't cooperate with the health care 
plan, will these be the folks who will basically come in and try and 
enforce that as it goes through?
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would ask you in that regard, if someone 
sees these premium increases that we've been talking about and they 
decide that they don't want to buy the insurance, what then happens 
from the IRS's standpoint, or from the government's standpoint in 
general?
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for the question.
  Look at it this way: let's take a young man who is suddenly going to 
see his rates go through the roof. He's healthy. In the past, that 
gentleman in his 20s may have said, you know, I'm going to buy just a 
little bit of catastrophic insurance if I need it, if at all; or 
perhaps if it's one that is out-of-pocket, he may decide not to do it.

                              {time}  1850

  What does he face?
  If the IRS catches him, he pays a $95 fine. Now, if you're looking at 
paying thousands of dollars a year for health insurance versus $95, 
even though the gentlelady from West Virginia said that they had hoped 
that people would just out of affection for the President buy it 
anyway, when someone is having a hard time paying for groceries--and 
look at the cost of gasoline and its having gone up a couple thousand 
dollars for the average family, and they're saying electricity has gone 
up--you can buy a lot of groceries for $3,000 a year. That's months and 
months worth of groceries for someone. They may say, I may just pay 
that $95 fine. Quite frankly, what also comes up is, if they don't have 
a plan, they could end up in an ambulance or in an emergency room and 
sign up when they're there just like they do with Medicaid. Now, what 
motivation will there be for someone to have that?
  The important thing about this place is that it's based upon an 
assumption that a lot people when they're healthy will sign up so we'll 
have that money coming in. I have my doubts for families and 
individuals who are already struggling who will then make decisions and 
say, I think I'll take the risk. Even in 2016, when those fines go up 
to a maximum of $695--or 2.5 percent income, whatever is greater--I 
think many individuals may also say, Well, if my choices are paying 
$695 or $6,000 or $10,000 or $12,000 for the insurance, maybe I'll just 
not pay it and see what happens.

[[Page H2644]]

  Let's face it. A lot of Americans make their health insurance 
decisions on what the affordability is, just like they make their car 
insurance decisions. They don't all get a comprehensive policy. They 
get what they can afford. It's the same thing with other decisions in 
their lives, whatever that is.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I think it's an important point you make about how 
people make decisions based on price, because every weekend, when I go 
back home to southeast Louisiana and when I talk to my families and 
small businesses that are trying to figure out how ObamaCare is going 
to affect them, there is a recurring theme that comes through, and it's 
something we hear every single day.
  First of all, small businesses have no idea how they're going to be 
able to comply with this law when they look at the mountains of 
regulations. We had recently stacked up all of the pages of regulations 
and rules that have come out, and it's well over 7-feet high. A small 
business that doesn't have, maybe, five, six, seven employees--they 
don't have an H.R. shop, they don't have teams of attorneys and 
accountants, they can't figure all of this out, and they're asking 
these questions. But we're also hearing this from large companies that 
provide really good health care for families all throughout southeast 
Louisiana. I hear this from colleagues from other States, too. When 
they look at this law, they say, The President promised, if you like 
what you have, you can keep it. Yet that promise is broken for millions 
of Americans who are facing these costs that have been discussed.
  Look at the drastic increases of 73 percent that will hit families. 
If you have a good insurance policy that you like, if you have good 
health care, it's a 73 percent increase for you. If you're trying to 
get new health care, it's 96 percent more you'll have to pay because of 
ObamaCare.
  I think what's the most frightening to families is when they see the 
new bureaucracy. This is the new bureaucracy created by ObamaCare. If 
you look, I think the most sacred relationship in health care is the 
doctor and the patient. There should be nobody in between the doctor 
and the patient when it comes to making health care decisions. Yet, 
under ObamaCare, look at all of this mountain of red tape and agencies 
that come between families and their doctors in ObamaCare. At the very 
top of this--again, it's most riveting and has been brought up before--
is the Internal Revenue Service.

  First of all, does anybody at the IRS have any kind of medical degree 
or even EMS training?
  Now the IRS is the enforcement agency of ObamaCare. Of course, that 
was riveting before the scandal that came out last week, but in light 
of the new scandal in which the IRS is literally targeting people, 
President Obama's administration is allowing this. Not one person has 
been fired by the way. The Obama administration made a decision to 
target Americans based on their beliefs, based on their values, and 
that's the agency that will be tasked with enforcing ObamaCare. They 
had little credibility before all of this scandal emerged, but now, in 
light of this, I think the lead Senate architect, Max Baucus, one of 
the authors of the bill, just a few weeks ago--they rammed it through, 
and Speaker Pelosi 3 years ago said that you've got to pass the bill to 
find out what's in it--said it's a train wreck coming down. In fact, 
he's not even running for reelection next year.
  This kind of bureaucracy should not be put in place for any type of 
government agency, let alone coming between patients and their doctors. 
This is the massive bureaucracy that ObamaCare is. This is why we have 
this vote tomorrow to repeal ObamaCare, and it's a bill I'm proud to 
cosponsor.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership in 
the hearings that we've had on the Oversight Subcommittee of Energy and 
Commerce to expose some of this, and also to even get testimony from 
Obama administration officials who say they're not even ready to comply 
with the legal deadlines in the law that are coming up in the next few 
months. This should not be dumped upon our families, whether it's in 
southeast Louisiana or anywhere else in the country. We need to repeal 
this bill and actually get back to work on fixing the problems in 
health care, like cost and access, that are now made even worse with 
ObamaCare.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  I would also like to call upon the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), 
who is also a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and is also 
deeply concerned about his constituents in Ohio and what they're going 
to be facing.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I am, indeed, honored to join you and the rest of our colleagues here 
in sharing some thoughts on what the American people now should expect 
in the coming months and years from the administration's so-called 
historic achievement in health care reform. It's historic all right. 
This massive bill gives the government control over one-sixth of our 
economy and the authority to manipulate markets and to make individual 
health care decisions.
  So how did President Obama convince the American people to buy into 
this scheme? He looked the American people right in the TV camera lens, 
and he promised two things. He pledged that this law would cut costs 
for American families, and he promised that it would make health care 
more affordable.
  Now, I could stand up here and talk about all of the other economic 
dangers posed by the so-called Affordable Care Act, like the ever-
mounting costs of implementation, the instability it causes in programs 
that seniors rely on, the fact that this bill contributes substantially 
to the insurmountable debt we are leaving to our children and our 
grandchildren, but that's not foremost in the minds of those 
individuals whom I represent along the Ohio River in eastern and 
southeastern Ohio.
  As the American people continue to search for good-paying jobs, 
families in my district are trying to figure out how to stretch their 
paychecks to cover another trip to the grocery store or to buy clothes 
for their kids or to purchase another tank of gas for the car. Now 
we're seeing reports that indicate most families will have to factor 
health care premium increases into their budgets as well--all because 
of the Affordable Care Act's policies, mandates, taxes, and fees.
  Now, does that sound affordable to anyone? It doesn't to me, and it 
doesn't to the people that I represent along the Ohio River.
  I am proud to serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I was 
recently given the opportunity to question Gary Cohen, the director of 
the office within HHS in charge of the implementation of the health 
care law. I asked him directly if premiums were going to go up or down 
for the American people. Remember, the President promised us lower 
costs. Mr. Cohen briefly toed the party line, saying, Absolutely, we'll 
see lower costs. But he went on largely throughout the questioning to 
repeatedly say, We'll simply have to wait and see.
  They don't know. That sounds oddly familiar to me. It reminds me of 
when the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California, tried to 
convince the American people that Congress needed to pass the 
Affordable Care Act in order to find out what was in it. We are now 
finding out what's in it, and it is a train wreck, as some have stated. 
Now, wouldn't the responsible thing have been to do the job correctly 
the first time?
  Let me clarify a few things. Let me cite some numbers brought to 
light by our investigation.
  Individual consumers in 90 percent of States will likely face premium 
increases. In my State of Ohio, men purchasing an individual policy 
would face increases ranging from 32 to 52 percent. Ohio employers 
purchasing small group market policies could see a projected premium 
increase of 28 percent. Nationwide, new businesses could see increases 
of 96 percent, while existing businesses would be burdened with 73 
percent. And age and plan mandates forced on insurers could push 
premiums up as high as 413 percent in some cases.

                              {time}  1900

  Now, do these numbers support the pledge made by the President that 
Americans would see lower costs, or do

[[Page H2645]]

they highlight the dishonesty as a means of pushing a terrible law 
through Congress? Based on these facts, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to 
argue that the Affordable Health Care Act will ever become more 
affordable as long as that law is on the books.
  Hard evidence to support the looming premium rate shock should scare 
the administration as much as it scares the American people, American 
families, businesses, and health care providers throughout the Nation, 
particularly along the river where people are still struggling to make 
ends meet from day to day.
  I appreciate the time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Absolutely.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would say to the gentleman that it was 
very interesting when you talked about the cost of the insurance, and 
while he said overall that he thought the rates were going to go down, 
my recollection was--and correct me if I'm wrong--that when you were 
asking him those questions, part of his position was, Well, we don't 
know for sure, but we think they'll be lower than what they would have 
been if we hadn't passed the law, but they're going to be higher than 
what they were when we passed the law. Wasn't that pretty much his 
reasoning?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Yeah, that was pretty much the case. I started 
to challenge him to a Monopoly game because that's funny money. That's 
a way of manipulating the numbers, and that's more of the dishonesty 
that's being perpetrated on the American people with this law.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would also have to point out that, with 
everything that we've gotten to so far, it appears that their numbers 
have not been right. They told us that they could produce a long-term 
care insurance plan, and they backed out of that because they couldn't 
make the numbers work as they had originally thought they would work on 
long-term care insurance.
  Then we had the whole situation with the catastrophic illness fund 
that, from the time the bill was passed, was supposed to get folks who 
had catastrophic illnesses, it was going to cover all of them until 
ObamaCare came into effect in 2014, but they ran out of money March 1. 
Do you recall that?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Absolutely, I do.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. So those numbers weren't right, and they 
apparently thought they had enough money built into the budget and gave 
the Secretary large latitude to take money out of various funds to make 
things happen, but now she seems to be going around the country asking 
the very companies that she's overseeing as part of her job for money 
because they didn't calculate how much money they were going to need to 
sign everybody up to get into ObamaCare.
  So every time we turn around on the committee, it looks like we're 
finding something new where their numbers were always funny money 
numbers, Monopoly money, however you want to look at it. And it seems 
to me that your point is exactly right, that it's not only going to 
cost the people of southern Ohio, but it's also going to cost the 
people of southwest Virginia and every part of these United States more 
money than was ever projected, and it's going to come right out of the 
pockets of the working poor and hurt them the most.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Absolutely.
  Every time we asked Mr. Cohen who are premiums going to go down for, 
he avoided the question. He couldn't tell us that premiums were going 
to go down for anyone.
  We asked him, Are they going to go down for the young? Are they going 
to go down for the old? Are they going to go down for women? Are they 
going to go down for men? He had no answers. We'll have to wait and 
see. That's a far cry from the promise that the President made of 
lowering costs and making health care more affordable.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Certainly that was part of the promise 
that was given to so many Americans on why they supported this image.
  Look, we as Republicans, we know there are a number of things we want 
to see happen. We want to make sure that we're preventing illnesses, 
and we want to make sure that we're caring for those who are 
chronically ill. Sadly, regarding the high-risk pool, the door was 
closed on that. Many people who are chronically ill will not be getting 
additional care.
  We want to make sure that doctors can be paid for coordinating care 
of those chronically ill. Right now, getting people to make sure they 
take their medication, there's follow-up to get to their appointment, 
doctors can consult back and forth, a patient can call with other 
questions, nobody gets paid for that. They do get paid if they have 
more tests. So there's a fee-for-service plan. Quite frankly, it's 
tough for doctors to try to reduce costs under that plan. We would like 
to see those costs go down even more, and we support that.

  We want to maintain coverage for the sick. We don't want to see 
people cut because they're ill. And we believe that if people have a 
preexisting condition, they ought to have an opportunity to maintain 
insurance. We agree with those.
  What we don't agree with is this massive bureaucracy that Mr. Scalise 
showed us before that's going to require a lot of tax money to pay for 
it, increased taxes, 10 years worth of taxes to cover 6 years worth of 
plans; and already we see Health and Human Services running out of 
money and so they have to call up insurance companies and other groups 
and say, Can you give us more money to help convince people that this 
is a good idea? It's tough going with that.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. It is very tough going.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. So we do know that these costs are going 
to continue to climb for many people, even though people in the 
administration have told us they're not quite sure yet what is going to 
go on. We know these costs are going to continue.
  Let me point out again something very important, Mr. Speaker. I worry 
about how the American families are going to afford this. Their 
electricity rates have gone up and will continue to go up. This 
administration has pushed to have coal-fired power plants to close 
down, has spent billions of dollars for energy subsidies for companies 
that have gone belly up. Gasoline prices have gone up thousands of 
dollars for families, unemployment has been above 7 percent for years, 
hundreds of thousands have been put out of work because of the aspects 
of this health care bill.
  It's tough for families to say, How am I going to pay for this? How 
are they going to pay, as they say, 96 percent more for those who get a 
new plan, 73 percent more for those keeping their insurance, and up to 
413 percent because of some of the age issues and other things going on 
with that?
  These are tough concerns for American families and ones that they're 
asking us to then say, Please, repeal this bill and let us get to 
something that really works to take care of those issues, to help the 
uninsured, to help those who are ill, to help put doctors back in 
charge of people's health care plans. We're deeply concerned about 
those issues as they go on; and, quite frankly, these costs are going 
to be ones that people are not going to be able to afford.
  I now want to recognize one of my colleagues, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lance), who also wants to speak on this bill. He is another 
member of our committee who is deeply dedicated to making sure that he 
is dealing with the affordability of the health care bill.
  Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very pleased to be able to 
speak this evening on this important issue.
  In my judgment, the Affordable Care Act was a poor piece of 
legislation and it was not well thought out. In 2009 and 2010, when the 
leaders of the then-House Democratic majority were rallying support for 
the President's health care legislation, the American people were told 
that health insurance premiums for individuals and small businesses 
would decrease under ObamaCare. That was stated repeatedly. Three years 
later, we have come to learn that this is just not the case.
  Internal documents from the Nation's largest health insurance 
companies reveal the health care law's policies, mandates, taxes, and 
fees will cause major premium increases for consumers, the individual, 
the small group and large group markets; and I

[[Page H2646]]

think it might be particularly onerous on young people who are just 
starting out at a time when the economy is not as strong as any of us 
would like.
  Many small businesses are already feeling the impact of higher 
monthly premiums. Just this week, I heard from a small business owner 
in the district I serve, Susan Schwartz of System Builders, in 
Westfield, Union County, New Jersey. She is seeing her company rates 
jump by nearly 40 percent in 1 year, Mr. Speaker.
  We must work together to provide much-needed relief to the small and 
large businesses being crushed under this burdensome law.
  I thank you, Chairman Murphy, and certainly I commend you for your 
efforts and the efforts of the Energy and Commerce Committee, of which 
I am a proud member under your leadership in that committee as one of 
the subcommittee chairs, the committee as a whole, under Mr. Upton's 
leadership, and really all of us in Congress who believe that this law 
was poorly designed and will lead to massive increases in premium 
payments for many of the American people.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Messer). The gentleman has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. With that, then, Mr. Speaker, I'll wrap 
up here with a couple of comments.
  First of all, I really want to thank the Energy and Commerce 
Committee staff for bringing out this important study. We only wish 
this was the kind of information we had a couple of years ago when 
Members were called upon to blindly support this bill and so many other 
organizations were called upon to support this bill.

                              {time}  1910

  These are going to be high costs, and people are going to have to 
make decisions now about what kind of health care they are going to 
have, can they afford it. Well, they'll also see the impact on top of 
their gasoline prices and utility prices and worries about their jobs. 
They're going to be making decisions about do I not have health care 
now and run the risk of having the IRS come after me and charge me $95. 
People will be making those kinds of decisions. That's not what we 
should be doing.
  Out of care and concern for every mother and father and grandparent 
and child in America, to make sure that we work on an affordable health 
care plan, that makes sure that people who are ill, people who have 
preexisting conditions are not cut, and to make sure that the high-risk 
pool has money in it to help those who have high risks for health care, 
not use money for other purposes, and to make sure that we're working 
on prevention and caring for the ill. That is what we should be doing 
to help make health care affordable, not offering a 96 percent increase 
for those getting a new plan, up to 73 percent for those keeping their 
insurance, and up to 413 percent for others.
  Look, we understand some people are going to see their health 
insurance rates go down. Many will see their rates go up. That is part 
of the frightening thing for America's family.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my 
Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my 
colleagues for speaking tonight. I thank the Energy and Commerce staff 
for also being part of this tonight. And I thank the American people 
for continuing to communicate with us and understand that we want to 
make health care affordable, but we think the Affordable Care Act is 
neither.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________