[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1934-S1935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Moran, 
        Mr. Wicker, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 2191. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about 
ObamaCare and what I have long believed is a march to rationing of 
health care.
  The ObamaCare bill and the accompanying regulations now tower over 7 
feet--1 foot above where I stand--when stacked together, and they have 
provision after provision that will deny patients the care they want, 
the care they need to ensure they get the life-sustaining and 
lifesaving treatments that are best for them.
  These rationing elements in ObamaCare have been documented by a 
recent report of the National Right to Life Committee's Powell Center 
for Medical Ethics. This study is entitled ``The Affordable Health Care 
Act and Health Care Access in the United States.''
  Perhaps most egregious about ObamaCare is that it directly inserts 
the Federal Government into the personal lives of Americans, their 
families, and their doctors.

[[Page S1935]]

  We all know about the individual mandate that coerces people into 
purchasing a product they may not want by threatening to tax them. And 
I have often spoken about my personal nemesis in the rationing board 
that I am going to bring up--the Independent Payment Advisory Board, 
IPAB. This is a board made up of 18--15 voting and 3 nonvoting--all 
unelected bureaucrats who will decide what gets to stay and what must 
go in Medicare coverage. They will decide which treatments and services 
will be covered and which will not. And there is no accountability 
whatsoever. It would, in fact, take a two-thirds majority of the U.S. 
Senate to undo any of their actions. As a result, this board diminishes 
our constitutional responsibility.
  This President has already raided half a trillion dollars from 
Medicare to pay for ObamaCare, and then he gave himself the ability to 
go after even more Medicare dollars without any accountability. This, 
my friends, is frightening. It is irresponsible. But there is more.
  It is conceivable that the Independent Payment Advisory Board won't 
just limit Medicare access; it will also propose ways for the Federal 
Government to limit what Americans of all ages are allowed to spend out 
of their own private money--not taxpayer funds--to save the lives and 
health of their families.
  Shocking but true: ObamaCare tells bureaucrats on the board to make 
sure we are not even allowed to keep up with medical inflation. 
Further, it is conceivable that the board will suggest ways for the 
Federal Government to impose so-called quality and efficiency standards 
on doctors and hospitals with the purpose of limiting the health care 
we can get.
  So here is the deal: If a doctor dares to give her patient treatment 
beyond what those standards allow, the doctor will be punished. That 
doctor will be excluded from all of the health insurance plans 
qualified under ObamaCare. Unbelievably, under ObamaCare, Washington 
bureaucrats can dictate one uniform standard of health care that is 
designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend out of 
their own money to save their own lives.
  But the Independent Payment Advisory Board isn't the only rationing 
provision in the ObamaCare or Affordable Healthcare Act. If only. 
ObamaCare also has a Cadillac tax for having too much health care 
coverage. Patients all across America need to know there is a provision 
of ObamaCare that punishes them and their employer if they provide 
coverage that is above the arbitrary limits imposed by the Federal 
Government. This is an additional 40-percent tax on individuals who 
need more expensive treatments and coverage oftentimes essential to 
battle life-threatening illnesses. Even worse, these ObamaCare limits 
were drafted in a way they will never be able to keep up with medical 
inflation. This means insurance companies will have to cut back even 
more on patient treatments and services or people will be forced to pay 
an incredibly higher tax.
  What about those individuals who are already suffering from life-
threatening illnesses who really need the care? This is why we should 
pass the legislation I am offering.
  Do Americans know that there is a provision in ObamaCare that lets 
the Federal Government--not them and not their employer--decide if 
coverage is ``excessive or unjustified''? This isn't government-
subsidized coverage in the exchanges, nor is it the federally funded 
Medicare and Medicaid coverage. This is their own and their employees' 
private money--their money. The Federal Government is given the 
authority to decide if the way it is being spent is excessive or 
unjustified, and they are going to do it through the provision of 
ObamaCare that allows the Obama administration to review premiums by 
pressuring private insurance companies to stop offering coverage or 
face adverse government consequences.
  So far we have talked about the private coverage, but there are also 
similar provisions for seniors' coverage. It wasn't bad enough that the 
President diverted one-half trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for 
ObamaCare to begin with, he also granted the Department of Health and 
Human Services the authority to deny private market-offered coverage 
for services and treatments that could save your life. Before ObamaCare 
these private market programs such as the prescription drug program and 
Medicare Advantage could allow seniors to add their own money to 
purchase coverage they want and need beyond what the government will 
pay. ObamaCare allows Washington bureaucrats to deny that choice.
  Folks, this isn't how we should be treating our seniors. It isn't how 
we should be treating people who need access to life-saving treatment 
and services. This isn't how we should be treating anybody.
  That is why today I come to the floor to introduce the Repeal 
Rationing in Support of Life Act of 2014. My legislation repeals these 
provisions that allow the Federal Government to intercede on very 
personal decisions. It repeals the provisions that authorize rationing 
boards to deny patients the ability to access the care that may save 
their lives.
  This legislation is relatively simple and should be supported by all 
of my colleagues to address some of the egregious changes from the 
Affordable Care Act that patients should be aware of but that many 
don't even know exist. This is down the road. We are trying to stay 
ahead of the curve. That is why I am introducing this legislation.
  This legislation builds upon my Restoring Access to Medication Act. 
This bill repeals the provision of ObamaCare limiting a patient's right 
to purchase over-the-counter products with their own money. It is also 
a continuation of my efforts that I discussed when introducing the Four 
Rationers Repeal Act many times on this floor. It repeals the 
Independent Payment Advisory Board. It repeals the euphemistically but 
misleadingly named Innovation Center. It repeals the changes made to 
the Preventive Services Task Force and makes sure any comparative 
effectiveness research is used by the doctor and the patient, not 
coverage providers or CMS, to determine the best care for patients, not 
simply try to lower costs.
  I really believe that in order to protect this all-important doctor-
patient relationship we need to repeal and most importantly to replace 
ObamaCare with the real reforms that work for Kansans and all 
Americans. However, until we can accomplish full repeal we at least 
need to ensure we are protecting the life-saving care and treatment 
that Americans need by attacking the elements of ObamaCare that ration 
care, and passing the Repeal Rationing and Support of Life Act of 2014. 
I urge my colleagues to support this proposal and take the steps 
necessary to protect the lives of their constituents.
                                 ______