[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3858-3860]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, as we face what may be one of the most 
important decisions Congress has made in our lifetime, I would like to 
highlight what a huge, positive impact the passage of health care 
reform will have on the lives of American women, on the health and the 
economic well-being of our mothers, daughters, your wives, and your 
sisters.
  First and foremost, passing reform will expand dramatically the 
number of women and children who have access to quality health care 
throughout their lifetime.
  The Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, has issued a report 
entitled ``Comprehensive Health Insurance Reform: An Essential 
Prescription for Women,'' which documents that, in America today, 64 
million women lack adequate health insurance. Over one quarter of our 
daughters between the ages of 19 and 24 do not have any coverage; 39 
percent of all low-income women lack health insurance coverage. Passing 
health care reform will expand the availability of care, improve the 
affordability of care, and will expand the minimums of care.
  Today, due to costs, 1 in 5 women over age 50 has not had a mammogram 
in the past 2 years due to costs. The health care reform bill will 
require coverage of annual mammograms for women, including coverage for 
those under 50.
  Passing health care reform will bring badly needed changes to a 
system that places a particularly unfair burden on women who seek to 
buy insurance in the individual market.
  In a report by the National Women's Law Center titled, ``How the 
Individual Insurance Market Fails Women,'' investigators found there 
are huge and arbitrary variations in each State and

[[Page 3859]]

across the country in the differences in premiums charged between women 
and men.
  The report found that insurers who practice gender rating might 
charge a 40-year-old woman anywhere from 4 percent to 48 percent more 
than a 40-year-old man. Passing health care reform will put an end to 
that. Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to charge women 
higher premiums simply because they are women.
  Health care reform will also put an end to discrimination based 
solely on the prospects of motherhood. In most States today, individual 
market insurers are allowed to deny health insurance coverage to an 
applicant simply because she is pregnant. A previous C-section can also 
be the basis for denying coverage.
  Passing health care reform will put an end to discrimination based on 
preexisting conditions. And they call pregnancy a preexisting 
condition.
  Reform is also urgently needed because, under the status quo, even if 
you are not pregnant now but at some point in the future you may become 
pregnant and so you may wish to buy maternity coverage now, coverage 
simply may not be available.
  In the capital cities of four States, Hawaii, New Mexico, North 
Dakota, and South Dakota, the NOW Women's Law Center investigators were 
unable to find an offer of maternity coverage in the individual market 
at any price. It simply was not available.
  Under the status quo, only 14 States require maternity coverage in 
policies that are sold on the individual markets. No wonder then that 
79 percent of women with individual market policies don't have any 
maternity coverage at all. And if you don't have maternity coverage, 
heaven help you if you have a problem pregnancy because your insurance 
company will not be there to help.
  Passing the health care reform will put an end to all of this and 
require that maternity care is a part of an essential benefits package.
  And then there is the problem of rescission. Evidence presented to 
the House Energy and Commerce Committee told a story of a Texas woman 
who had a policy with WellPoint. After she received treatment relating 
to a diagnosis of a lump in her breast, the insurance company 
investigated her medical history. They concluded that she failed to 
disclose that she had been diagnosed previously with osteoporosis and 
bone density loss, and so they rescinded her policy.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe practically every woman alive has some 
form of bone density loss. They refused to pay for medical care for the 
lump in her breast.
  According to the Committee's investigation, this case was not 
unusual. Under current practices, the majority of States do not require 
a showing of fraud or intent before insurance companies may rescind 
coverage.
  A simple mistake, an oversight, a typo can result in a life altering 
denial.
  Health care reform will put an end to such cruel and heartless 
practices.
  While I strongly support the passage of health care reform, I must 
state my opposition to any restrictions on women's access to 
reproductive health services. At a time when we are making historic 
changes in the delivery of health care, we must not deprive women of 
the very health care they both need and deserve. We must work against 
any serious constraints on abortion coverage that could cause women to 
lose ground in health reform.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot and we must not turn our backs on the urgent 
need, on the call of history, on the millions of uninsured, on the tens 
of millions who cast their votes in the last election and on the 
promise the we made loud and clear: We will pass health care reform--
and we will pass it now.

       Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi--Fact Sheet, March 18, 2010

        NEWSPAPER EDITORIALS SUPPORTING HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM


   Memphis Commercial Appeal Editorial (Tennessee)--Decision time on 
                              health care

       There will be more options . . . for small businesses, the 
     self-employed and the uninsured, who will have access to 
     transparent information about plan provisions. It would 
     mandate health insurance for almost everyone, making it 
     financially feasible for insurance companies to carry out 
     their mandates.
       Insurance companies could afford, for example, to cover 
     everyone who applies, with or without pre-existing 
     conditions. They could afford to guarantee continued coverage 
     for clients who get sick.
       The legislation would help solve many of the other problems 
     with health care that have grown increasingly frustrating in 
     recent years . . .


  Minneapolis Star-Tribune Editorial (Minnesota)--Rx for health care: 
                           political courage

       f the legislation doesn't pass, the worst-case projection 
     is that the number of Americans without coverage will climb 
     from 49.4 million to 67.6 million in 2020, meaning that 
     nearly one in four Americans too young for Medicare will be 
     uninsured.
       The best-case scenario doesn't exactly inspire confidence, 
     either. Should economic conditions improve over the next 
     decade, there will be 57.9 million people without coverage 10 
     years from now--about one in five Americans younger than 65 . 
     . .
       . . . let's put this procedural spat in perspective. It's a 
     distraction from the real issue: the catastrophic 
     consequences of the health care status quo . . .


   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial (Pennsylvania)--To our health: 
              Democrats must seize the day and pass reform

       One of the bogus assertions made in the health care 
     debate--and that includes allegations of death panels and 
     kindred nonsense--is the Republican idea that the bills 
     passed by the House and Senate should be junked and Congress 
     should start over.
       Let everybody know this: Starting over is political code 
     for doing nothing, or at least very little. It is the 
     invitation to drag feet until another election cycle starts 
     and the chance is lost. It is the siren call to put 
     comprehensive health care reform forever on the rocks . . .
       This legislation has been talked to death. It's time now to 
     give it life by passing it, forthrightly and bravely, with as 
     few gimmicks as possible.


Dayton Daily News Editorial (Ohio)--Health care reform partly in Ohio's 
                                 hands

       . . . Are we or aren't we going to extend affordable health 
     care to nearly all Americans? And are we going to insist that 
     Americans who can afford to buy insurance do so, while also 
     requiring those who can't pay the full cost still pay 
     something toward coverage? . . .
       . . . does anyone believe that there isn't a lot wrong with 
     the current system--50 million people without coverage; an 
     insurance system that protects you when you're well, but 
     kicks you to the curb when you get sick; cost structures that 
     result in huge sums being spent on marketing and processing 
     claims instead of services to patients? . . .
       Republicans would have you believe that this legislation is 
     so awful that the only solution is to start over. That is not 
     a plan; it is a stalling strategy. But stalling for what?
       The current system is unsustainable for everyone. Insurance 
     rates keep going up both for businesses and individuals. 
     Young people continue to choose not to buy insurance, 
     sticking hospitals and those who do buy insurance with their 
     bills. Medicaid rolls are soaring, forcing states to limit 
     eligibility, cut spending elsewhere and reduce how much they 
     reimburse doctors. People who want to buy insurance can't get 
     it if they've ever had a serious illness . . .
       Win or lose this vote, the president and Democrats are in 
     for tough political times. At least if they win, some 30 
     million people will get health insurance and some immoral 
     elements of a broken system will be no more.


Detroit Free Press Editorial (Michigan)--Messy bill offers significant 
                          health care progress

       . . . So let's get on with it. Congress can continue to 
     tweak the program through the years as its shortcomings 
     become more obvious. In the meantime, people with preexisting 
     conditions will get decent coverage again, Medicare won't 
     have such a huge ``doughnut hole'' in its prescription plan, 
     and many other benefits will accrue. Women, in particular, 
     may find better coverage, especially for pregnancy--a huge 
     plus especially for anyone who (mistakenly) thinks the Senate 
     language is not strong enough on keeping federal funds 
     separate from any insurance with abortion coverage. Good 
     health insurance is probably the most life-affirming policy 
     any Congress could enact.
       What's pending before Congress hardly represents a 
     government takeover of health care. It will attract more 
     private dollars into the system and should spur competition 
     among insurance companies to offer helpful and more effective 
     care.
       But the main point remains: Not just health insurance but 
     health care itself will continue to deteriorate without 
     decisive congressional intervention. Unless you welcome the 
     day when America has the best health care in the world for 
     the lowest percentage of people, you should look forward to a 
     successful, history-making vote, no matter how messy the 
     process.


  Los Angeles Times Editorial (California)--Rehabilitating Healthcare

       Opponents of comprehensive healthcare reform have achieved 
     something remarkable, if not necessarily admirable: Having 
     stopped the legislation from being considered and passed in 
     the usual fashion, Republicans have now ginned up a debate 
     over the extraordinary procedural steps they've forced

[[Page 3860]]

     Democrats to take to complete the work. This ugly, gimmick-
     ridden process brings no credit to either side. Yet the fist-
     pounding over the shortcut being contemplated by House 
     leaders shouldn't obscure the simple reality of the vote that 
     House members are expected to cast this weekend. It may not 
     be an up-or-down vote on the Senate's version of the bill, 
     but it is an up-or-down vote on comprehensive healthcare 
     reform.
       . . . any House members who vote for reconciliation under a 
     self-executing rule will be unmistakably voting to enact into 
     law a sweeping change in the healthcare system, extending 
     coverage to millions of the uninsured, outlawing abusive 
     insurance industry practices, promoting higher-quality care 
     and attacking the incentives that drive up costs. At the same 
     time, they'll be voting to improve the Senate's approach by 
     eliminating special deals and making insurance more 
     affordable to the working poor. That's not an abuse of power, 
     that's a win-win.

                          ____________________