[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 31, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S510-S511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Patient Freedom Act

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the big debate right now, as we all know 
in our country, is this: How do we repeal and replace ObamaCare?
  It is pretty clear that the American people want something done. They 
voted, ever since the bill was passed, for those who opposed ObamaCare 
and had a desire to both repeal and replace, culminating in the 
election of President Trump.
  Now, I and Susan Collins, as well as others, have introduced 
something called the Patient Freedom Act, which is our attempt to 
replace ObamaCare. But what I want to emphasize here is the bill's 
emphasis upon federalism. The key feature is that we take power from 
Washington, DC, and give it back to patients and back to State 
capitols.
  We think that we find plenty of examples where Washington has done 
that, allowing States to be the laboratories of democracy. It has 
worked out well for all.
  First, let's look at the parameters that President Trump has laid 
out. President Trump says he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
but replace it with something which covers everyone, takes care of 
preexisting conditions, does not have mandates, and lowers cost. Those 
are the marching orders, as far as I am concerned. With the Patient 
Freedom Act, we attempt to achieve President Trump's goals.
  Now, how do we do that? Under our bill, Congress would pass 
legislation this year which next year would give States one of three 
options.
  The Patient Freedom Act has something we call the better choice. That 
would be one option that States could choose. But really, a State would 
have the choice to say nothing: We don't want anything from the Federal 
Government. Good-bye. Get out of here. That is one option the State 
has, and the last option the State has is to stay with the status quo--
or the Affordable Care Act.

[[Page S511]]

  We have actually gotten a little bit of criticism for that from 
conservatives, and I am saying: Why? This is federalism.
  We are going to repeal the ObamaCare taxes and penalties. We are 
repealing that. But if a State and a State capitol wants to reinstitute 
taxes and penalties upon the people in its State and upon the 
businesses in that State, God bless them. I think it is a mistake, but 
they should have that choice. In fact, they have that choice now. All 
we are saying is that you can exercise the right that you currently 
possess.
  The States would choose in 2018. They would implement their choice in 
2019. By 2020, ObamaCare would be repealed and replaced. That is our 
goal: to repeal and replace while achieving President Trump's goals of 
insuring all, taking care of those with preexisting conditions, without 
mandates and at a lower cost.
  Now, by the way, let's talk a little bit about federalism. 
Conservatives have always thought the 10th Amendment, which grants the 
States every responsibility not delegated to the Federal Government, is 
an important consideration. That is what we are embracing here--to 
allow the State to choose.
  There are some States in which the Affordable Care Act, I am told, is 
working well. The folks in California and New York swear by it. It is 
not working in Louisiana.
  A friend of mine got his quote for the renewal of his and his wife's 
policy. They are 60 and 61, or thereabouts. It was $39,000 a year--
$39,000 a year for the renewal of a policy.
  Yes, Mr. President, it is $39,000 a year for the renewal of a policy. 
No one believes me. I put it on my Facebook page, holding up the quote 
sheet with their names darkened out, but you can see, it is $39,000 a 
year. That is the ``un-Affordable Care Act.''
  As you look around the country, you can see, for example, in Arizona, 
there was one county that for a while had no insurance company there, 
and when one came in, it raised the rates 116 percent in one year--more 
than doubled in one year, on top of the increases in all the previous 
years.
  If California and New York say that the Affordable Care Act is 
working for them, keep it. It is not working for Arizona. It is not 
working for Louisiana. It is not working for other States in the Union. 
Why not take power from our Nation's capital and give it to the State 
capital, and allow the State capital to come up with a solution that 
works for that State?
  I read an editorial today, and it was out of Rome, GA. It pointed to 
the Welfare Reform Act, in which a Republican Congress and President 
Clinton devolved to the States many of the reforms necessary for 
welfare. It has been considered a tremendous legislative success. They 
used that example as an endorsement of the approach to federalism we 
are taking now.
  It isn't just that we give power back to the States; we also give 
power back to the patients. We let them choose the benefits they wish 
to have. We put in measures such as price transparency so that someone 
knows how much something costs before she has the tests performed, as 
opposed to being surprised by a huge bill 6 months later. With that and 
other means, we give power to patients.
  We hope all those who wish to see President Trump's mandates 
fulfilled to cover everyone, take care of those with preexisting 
conditions, lower costs without mandates, in the process of repealing 
and replacing ObamaCare, will endorse the federalism of the Patient 
Freedom Act as well as those other provisions.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.