[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 100 (Monday, June 22, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4340-S4341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        King v. Burwell Decision

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, in the next couple of days, the Supreme 
Court is going to rule on a case that will have a long-lasting impact 
not only on just what health care is going on in this country but a 
long-lasting impact on how the law is to be interpreted. This is a law 
called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It was hurried 
through Congress before anyone had time to read it, and it contained 
multiple mistakes and contradictions.
  Already this administration has unilaterally changed this law over 30 
times to try to make it work, including completely rewriting a section 
about who gets the subsidies and who lives underneath the mandates. The 
law says the States that set up an exchange as a State exchange are 
under the subsidies and also have those mandates, but the 
administration claims that, no, it was intended for everyone.
  Within days, the Supreme Court will release their opinion on this 
matter in a case called King v. Burwell and basically answer this one 
question: Does the law mean what the law says or does the law mean what 
the administration interprets it to mean?
  This is not a political problem; this is a health care problem for 
millions of people. These days, the discussion seems to circle around 
on who is to blame. Well, people and families were hurt in the 
ObamaCare chaos because of the way this law was written. They are not 
worried about blame; they are worried about the issues facing their 
family in the days ahead. I have the obligation to do whatever I can to 
protect the people of my State from the harmful effects of this law, 
and there are many.
  The people in my State distinctly heard people say 5 years ago: If 
you like your health care, you can keep it, except for the people who 
were forced off the State-run exchange that already existed in Oklahoma 
and were pushed out--ObamaCare, that is 5 years old, came after Insure 
Oklahoma, which is 10 years old--except for the people who have higher 
deductibles in my State, except for the people who now have higher 
premiums in my State. In Oklahoma this year, the requested rate 
increase for health care is between 11 and 45 percent, depending on the 
plan and the county you live in. This year's rate increase is between 
11 and 45 percent.

  In addition, physician-owned hospitals are trapped in time, not 
allowed to grow larger than what they were 5 years ago. Many people in 
my State like the physician-owned hospitals, and they want to see it 
succeed, instead of being slowly bled to death.
  People struggle to find a job in places in my State because of this 
40-hour requirement that hangs over them. They now have to find two 
jobs, each having about 28 hours, so they can keep up the amount of 
pay. Those individuals were hurt in this process.
  Higher premium costs in the plans will soon come to those in unions 
because they have too good of health care insurance. In the short days 
ahead, union members who have premium health care policies will now get 
a penalty for having insurance that is too good for this 
administration.
  By next year, the Independent Payment Advisory Board kicks off its 
work. Its sole responsibility is to find areas to be able to save money 
by cutting options for patients.
  This is not a mess that can be fixed with one sentence--unless that 
one sentence says ``the bill is repealed.''
  So how do we solve this in the days ahead? Let me lay out a couple of 
ideas before the Senate because very soon we are going to be confronted 
with this when the Supreme Court actually responds.
  First, do the basic things: Do no harm and stop the existing harm. We 
need to transition out of the subsidies and mandates of ObamaCare for 
millions of people who will lose their subsidy when the Court rules in 
favor of the American people and the law of the United States--the 
clear text reading of the law.
  Those individuals who were forced into ObamaCare are not the problem. 
We are not angry at those individuals. They are trapped in a mess that 
was made around them that they were forced into.
  I will never forget a conversation I had with a Democrat in my State 
who was participating in a plan called Insure Oklahoma--who liked their 
insurance plan. It was a subsidized plan from our State. They pulled me 
aside 5 years ago and said: Is there any way I can keep the State-based 
plan I have now? And all I could do is look at him and say, no, you 
can't, actually, and that is not my decision. The Affordable Care Act 
which was passed and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and 
HHS forced the people in my State out of a State-based solution for 
health care and into the larger national solution. Many Oklahomans lost 
their health care coverage and were forced out of it. It was already a 
subsidized system, and now they were taken from one plan and pushed 
into another. Let's do no harm, and let's try to help those individuals 
to be able to find their way back to a plan they like and help in that 
transition.
  The second thing is pretty straightforward: States should have the 
freedom to choose any path to help their citizens. States should not 
have to check in with the Federal Government to ask permission to take 
care of their neighbors and citizens. How ridiculous is that; that a 
State leadership would have to go to the Federal Government to say we 
want to develop a plan to be able to help our own citizens, and the 
Federal Government says, no, they have to check in with us instead.
  This is basically a repeal option for all 50 States. For those States 
that like it, we would say, if you like your ObamaCare, you can keep 
it, and for all the States that don't, they have their own way out to 
be able to take care of their own citizens.
  The tax money that is being supplemented for those came from those 
States. Why shouldn't it be returned to those States and give the 
States the ability to be able to speak to that issue for their own 
citizens. We have to stop this mentality that only the people of 
Washington, DC, love the individuals in each State and want to care for 
them and be able to manage what is happening in that State. That State 
leadership deeply cares about their own citizens. Let's let them step 
up and lead.
  Third is probably the clearest of all of them: People should have the 
freedom to choose any health care plan they want. What a radical idea, 
to actually hand people freedom, to hand people opportunities. Free of 
the mandates and the penalties, patients should be able to pick their 
own doctor and their own plan for their own family.

[[Page S4341]]

  I have to say, it is ironic. I hear people call this law either 
ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act. I am fascinated with that because 
the law's name is the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'' 
Over the last 5 years, the words ``patient protection'' seem to have 
disappeared from every part of everyone's vernacular in this. I would 
only have to say, I agree.
  When did we stop saying to the patient: You have no ability to make 
your own choices. I will tell you when. When ObamaCare passed and 
everything became about affordable rather than about patient. We have 
seen the consequences of this.
  In the days ahead, the Supreme Court will rule on this, and I believe 
strongly they are going to rule for the plain text of the law, not just 
about ObamaCare but because they have to make the decision as the 
Supreme Court: Does the law mean what the law says or can any 
administration on any law in the future reinterpret it based on their 
preferences?
  If there is one area that would be a great path for us to follow, it 
is in the days ahead that we get back to the government is about the 
law, and we follow the law because we are a nation of laws, not just a 
nation of leaders. The law is to be king in our Nation.
  So let's interpret it the way it is written and let's give people 
back the freedom they want and need. Let's put the patient back in 
health care. That is the next step I think we should take in this U.S. 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time is yielded back.