[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 18 (Tuesday, February 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S732-S733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today the House of Representatives held yet
another vote--I think they are maybe up to 50-some--to repeal the
Affordable Care Act, showing once again their objective is to dismantle
the health care law. House Republicans voted to repeal the law. They
like to say ``repeal and replace,'' but the ``replace'' doesn't ever
really quite come forward.
Think what that would be like. It would take us back to the day when
children with preexisting conditions such as cancer or asthma could be
turned away from health coverage. Let me illustrate.
Several months ago a couple came to my coffee, which I hold every
Thursday when the Senate is in session. It is open to anyone from Ohio
who wants to stop in. A woman came from Cincinnati. She lives in one of
the most conservative parts of the State. We talked for a few minutes
about home schooling and her desire to be able to get some support from
the Federal Government in a variety of different ways for home
schooling.
Then she said: I want to thank you for the Affordable Care Act.
I said: Certainly. I was proud to support it.
She said: You see, my son--and she pointed across the room. He was
about 15. He was diagnosed with diabetes when he was 7 or 8 years old.
She hesitated. She said: I counted them, 33 times, we were turned
down for health insurance because of his preexisting condition. We
signed up last week for the Affordable Care Act.
So if the House's effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act had come
to the Senate and become law, someone would have to explain to her why
she loses her health care. Again, if this is repealed, insurers could
place lifetime or annual caps on health coverage. We know that tens of
thousands of people in this country have gotten sick and their
insurance has been cancelled because their insurance was so expensive.
That is prohibited under the Affordable Care Act. That would be back if
we repealed the Affordable Care Act.
Seniors were forced to pay huge out-of-pocket costs when they hit the
gap in prescription drug coverage known as the doughnut hole.
A decade ago, when I was a Member of the House of Representatives, I
voted against that Medicare plan in part because it had this huge gap
in coverage. So if you have an illness or a series of illnesses and buy
a lot of prescription drugs, between the second thousandth dollar and
the fifth thousandth dollar, there is a gap in coverage. In other
words, you continue to pay the premiums for prescription drug coverage
but get no assistance from the government. Under the Affordable Care
Act, we have closed that gap. We have already cut it better than half,
and over the next 3 or 4 years it will be eliminated entirely. We know
the Affordable Care Act is working.
In my State, 100,000 young Ohioans, a little older than these pages,
between the ages of 18 and 26, are on their parents' health insurance
plans right now. They would be dropped from that coverage if the
Affordable Care Act were repealed.
Ohio seniors have saved $65 million in prescription drug costs by the
closing of the coverage gap, the so-called doughnut hole. Those savings
would end. Those with preexisting conditions would no longer be covered
or would be
[[Page S733]]
charged higher premiums, and 700,000 Ohioans--people in my State--now
have health insurance they did not have 5 years ago.
So if we repeal the Affordable Care Act, somebody has to explain to
those 700,000 people why they no longer have insurance, why those
100,000 young people are getting dropped from coverage; those families
like the woman's who would lose her insurance because her child has a
preexisting condition, and all the consumer protections the Affordable
Care Act has been part of.
Last month I spoke with Charles McClinon, a Cincinnati resident who
suffered from severe epilepsy and, as a result, was unable to work.
After Ohio chose to expand Medicaid--and I give Republican Governor
Kasich credit for that--Mr. McClinon qualified for health care coverage
and was able to schedule surgery. Thanks to this lifesaving coverage,
he has returned to work.
Isn't that what we want? If people are ill, injured, sick, don't we
want to take care of them so they can return to work? Mr. McClinon
never wanted to miss work, but he had to. Because of the expansion of
Medicaid, because of the Affordable Care Act passed by a Democratic
Senate, signed by a Democratic President, because of a Republican
Governor in Ohio expanding Medicaid, unlike Republican Governors in
many States, people such as Charles McClinon can now go back to work
and live a healthier, more productive life and pay taxes.
Since its creation in 1965, Medicaid has been a joint Federal and
State program, providing free or low-cost health coverage to qualified
individuals. One of the key components of the Affordable Care Act
expanded both the eligibility and the Federal funding for Medicaid.
States were given the opportunity to expand Medicaid to individuals
with incomes of up to 130 percent of the Federal poverty level. Many
people on Medicaid who are now on the expanded Medicaid in Ohio and
Kentucky and many other States hold jobs, just like the parents of the
130,000 Ohio children who now have insurance because of the Children's
Health Insurance Program. Their parents are working at places such as
Walmart and McDonald's, making $8, $9, $10 an hour. Those companies
generally don't provide health insurance and don't pay wages high
enough to be able to buy health insurance.
What kind of society do we want to be? Where people are working every
bit as hard as all of us as U.S. Senators work, with very little
compensation, without health insurance, generally without pensions?
Do we want to say: Well, we don't care about you? If you weren't
smart enough, if you weren't educated enough, if you weren't smart
enough to get a good-paying job with insurance, then we are going to
turn our backs on you? Of course we are not that kind of society. That
is what the Affordable Care Act is about.
The expansion of Medicaid has saved Ohio about $350 million. It also
helped Ohioans who already have insurance. When people lack health
insurance, someone has to pay for their care.
The Presiding Officer's State of Colorado is not much different, just
smaller dollar amounts because it is a smaller State. But Ohioans spend
over $2 billion on care for people who can't pay. It is a hidden tax on
the insured estimated to be about $1,000 a year per insured family.
So prior to the Affordable Care Act, somebody who went to a hospital
in Denver, Cleveland, Dayton or Colorado Springs or Pueblo or
Youngstown--because those without insurance would go to hospitals and
get care; that is what we do; we take care of people if they show up in
an emergency room--because they were not paying, because they were low
income, they were unemployed, and they had no insurance, the cost of
their treatment got shifted onto those of us with insurance. Economists
say pretty much everybody pays about $1,000 additional for their health
insurance because of the problems of the uninsured. So when we expand
Medicaid, when we pass the Affordable Care Act, when we get people into
the health exchanges, it means we are not charging people that $1,000
hidden tax, so it is a savings to those of us with insurance.
Ultimately it is better for taxpayers, ultimately it is better for our
health care system, and ultimately, most importantly, it is better for
a healthier society.
We should be helping Ohioans gain health care, not cutting them off.
That is the importance of expanding Medicaid.
I urge the Ohio legislature to work with the Governor to include
Medicaid expansion in the budget. I urge my colleagues here in this
Chamber to end their grandstanding attacks on a law that is helping
Americans such as Charles McClinon get the care they need. It helped
him go back to work. It will help others live more healthy lives. It
will help all our communities. We should be helping Ohioans gain health
care, not cutting them off.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________