[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3908-3910]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT: A REBUTTAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized 
for 47 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank the 
majority leader for allowing me this opportunity to take the leadership 
hour this evening and, quite honestly, the opportunity to respond to my 
colleague, Representative Frank Pallone, who is a colleague on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee--in fact, the ranking member of the 
Health Subcommittee--as he talked about the benefits of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act. And he spent the last 35, 40 
minutes talking about what a great piece of legislation that was and 
about all of the wonderful things that it has already done.
  Well, I'm going to take my leadership time, Mr. Speaker, to give the 
other side of this viewpoint and to suggest that this is not a good 
bill, that this is not helpful. Certainly my colleagues on the 
Democratic side, when they were in the majority--and 2 years ago this 
coming Friday they passed into law the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare--
they felt like this was the best thing since sliced bread, like this 
was the solution to all of our problems.
  Yet we spent 2 years cramming that bill--literally cramming that 
piece of legislation, all 2,811 pages of it, down the throats of the 
American people when our unemployment rate was 9.5 percent, when 15 
million Americans were out of work and another 15 million were 
underemployed. This was our number one priority, national health 
insurance, a complete government takeover of one-sixth of our economy? 
This is what the Democratic majority in the 109th, 110th Congresses 
have forced upon the American people.
  The gentleman from New Jersey can talk about all the wonderful things 
that have occurred since the passage of ObamaCare. But let me just 
point out some truths that, Mr. Speaker, don't need any adjectives to 
explain. The truth is, there were never 47 million people in this 
country who could not afford health insurance. There may have been 47 
million who didn't have health insurance. But how many million people 
of that 47 million estimate were making more than $50,000 a year? Mr. 
Speaker, how many were making more than $75,000 a year? And how many of 
the 47 million uninsured were in this country illegally? How many were 
eligible for one of our safety-net

[[Page 3909]]

programs, like Medicaid or the SCHIP program for their children, in 
their respective States? And when you crunch all of those numbers, 
there may have been and may be 15 million people in this country who do 
not have health insurance because they can't afford it or because they 
don't want it. They would rather pay as they go.
  Now, I'm not going to stand here and suggest--particularly as a 
physician Member--that that's a wise thing to do. The expression is 
``to go bare'' in regard to health insurance coverage. I wouldn't 
recommend that. But certainly as an individual in this country, the 
land of the free, we have the constitutional right to make that 
decision for ourselves and our families.
  And what the Democratic majority did with ObamaCare, the way they 
made it work, when you cut right to the chase, so they could cover 
people with preexisting conditions, whether they were nearly seniors or 
children, to eliminate yearly or lifetime caps, to provide preventive 
health services that didn't previously exist, the way they did that, 
colleagues--and you know this--they cut $550 billion out of the 
Medicare program. They virtually gutted Medicare Advantage. Twenty 
percent of seniors select Medicare Advantage.
  The title, Mr. Speaker, speaks for itself. It's an advantage because 
that program covers many of these preventive services that the 
gentleman from New Jersey was talking about that are now available 
under ObamaCare. They were available under Medicare Advantage, but now 
that program has been gutted. It's been cut 14 percent per year over a 
10-year period of time. So you rob from Peter to pay Paul.
  And who is Paul? Paul is this 15 million to 20 million that are left 
in that group who have no insurance, many of whom who don't want it. 
And now we have created a whole new entitlement program that we cannot 
afford when 15 million people are out of work and the unemployment 
rate, Mr. Speaker, for--what is it--38 straight months now has been 
above 8 percent. That, despite the fact that the stimulus bill and its 
$875 billion on shovel-ready projects that promised--that promised when 
the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent that this would solve the 
problem, and it would not go above 8 percent. It hasn't been below 8 
percent since we've spent the money.

                              {time}  2120

  So I say to the gentleman from New Jersey and my Democratic 
colleagues in this Chamber, you fiddled for 2 years; you fiddled while 
Rome was burning. And so, yes, now you can beat the drum and celebrate 
the 2-year anniversary of ObamaCare while 60 percent of this country 
continues to tell you they hate it. They hate it. And they're going to 
tell you that loud and clear, as they did 2 years ago. They're going to 
tell you that loud and clear November 6, 2012.
  I take no pleasure in that. I enjoy being in the majority. Mr. 
Speaker enjoys being in the majority. But our responsibility is to the 
American people, especially to our seniors--our moms and dads--and 
those folks who are struggling, who are on a fixed income. But to 
suggest that we're helping them when we cut their program $550 billion, 
to suggest that closing the doughnut hole is a good thing and lowers 
the cost of health care and lowers the cost of prescription drugs, no, 
it doesn't.
  Because what this Federal Government, what Uncle is doing is forcing 
the pharmaceutical industry to pay for that doughnut hole, and to pay 
for it with brand drugs when prior to ObamaCare we were filling that 
doughnut hole with generics.
  And so what is going to happen? This pharmaceutical industry, it's 
whack-a-mole. You squeeze that balloon, it's going to bulge out on 
another side. And it's going to bulge out when they raise the premiums 
for prescription drug coverage for everybody else.
  The gentleman talked about these wonderful exchanges that are going 
to be set up for the people who don't have health insurance. I don't 
object, Mr. Speaker, to the idea of setting up State exchanges. That's 
an idea that's been around for a long time. It didn't just originate 
with ObamaCare. But when you hear my good friend from New Jersey, the 
ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce--and 
he certainly should know of what he says--that in these exchanges 
people are going to get a subsidy, in other words, that's a government 
handout. They're going to get a check if they make $75,000 to $80,000 a 
year. You heard him say it. Colleagues, you heard him say it.
  Now, I would like to ask the 700,000 people in the 11th Congressional 
District of Georgia what they think of $70,000, $75,000, $80,000 a year 
and getting a government handout, a subsidy. My people, the people I 
represent, would feel wealthy if they made $75,000 a year, and they 
would not be expecting a government handout.
  What this administration has done with this piece of legislation--Mr. 
Pallone criticized the Republican idea in the Republican budget of 
block-granting the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program, colleagues, 
it's been around since 1965. It's a good program. It's shared between 
the Federal Government and the States. But under ObamaCare, States are 
told that they cannot be innovative in regard to designing a Medicaid 
program that best fits the needs of the citizens of their State.
  It's called maintenance of effort. ObamaCare says to the Governors of 
the respective States: You can't do anything. You can't make any 
changes whatsoever in your Medicaid program. You can't check on 
eligibility. You can't check to make sure that an individual that 
applies is in this country legally. You can't drug-test these 
individuals. You can't do anything to make sure that that program for 
your State is going to those who need it, who are eligible for it, and 
to who deserve it, because of this maintenance of effort restriction 
under ObamaCare.
  Not only do we put handcuffs on the chief executives of our States, 
but we also mandate that they now cover under the Medicaid program 
people up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. Prior law, the 
requirement was 100 percent. Yes, some States went above that when 
times were good, when unemployment was 6 percent instead of 9.5 
percent, as it is in my current great State of Georgia. But States 
can't afford to do that.
  But the Federal Government comes along and says, because of 
ObamaCare, we're going to force you to stay where you are. You can make 
no changes. You cannot go down to 115 percent or 100 percent. Oh, no. 
You have to stay at 133 percent. And we are looking at an additional 
cost to the States over the next 10 years of $15 billion.
  That's why this is part of the lawsuit that the Supreme Court will 
hear next week in the 6 hours of testimony--that and this individual 
mandate in ObamaCare that forces individuals to engage in commerce, the 
Federal Government regulating commerce as provided for in article 1, 
section 8, clause 3 of our great Constitution. Oh, no. This says 
whether you are engaging in commerce or not, Mr. Speaker, you have to 
participate.
  I know my colleagues have heard the expression and the comments from 
me and others, What's next? Everybody has to eat broccoli? It's 
absolutely absurd. It's patently absurd for the Federal Government to 
tell people they have to engage in commerce. We understand the 
Constitution and the right constitutionally to regulate existing 
commerce between States, but not to force people.
  So as I have these moments tonight to talk about as a counterpoint to 
Mr. Pallone in regard to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act, Mr. Speaker, it could not be more unaffordable. The CBO just came 
out with a new score. Originally, 2 years ago, that score was something 
like $950 billion and, according to smoke-and-mirror accounting, 
completely paid for. Now the cost--the adjusted cost--is about twice 
that. It's about twice that.

                              {time}  2130

  So it's not the Affordable Care Act but the Patently Un-Affordable 
Care Act. For my colleague to criticize the Republican majority for 
coming forward with a budget that includes a

[[Page 3910]]

plan to save Medicare and Medicaid, legacy programs, programs that our 
seniors and our poor are so dependent on, for us to have a plan to save 
that and for the gentleman from the other side of the aisle to 
criticize that, I would ask him if he were still in the Chamber, and I 
ask all of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle: What is 
your plan? What is your plan to save the Medicaid program? What is your 
plan to save the Medicare program? How many different studies do we 
need from how many different commissions over how many years before we 
accept the plain, hard, cold truth that the hospital trust fund and 
Medicare program will be insolvent at the very latest by the year 2024 
and by the earliest at the year 2016 as estimated by the Medicare 
actuaries?
  Nobody denies that. But what are my Democratic friends doing about 
it? Mr. Speaker, they're doing two things. They're whistling past the 
graveyard and they're enacting IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory 
Board.
  Colleagues, you've heard it all evening as we've discussed the repeal 
of IPAB and H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act. IPAB is 15 unelected bureaucrats--
unelected but appointed by the President, this President--at a salary 
of $176,000 a year for a 6-year term, renewable for another 6. So we're 
stuck with them for 12 years and that fat salary and benefit package so 
they can say, We're going to save Medicare by cutting reimbursement to 
health care providers and prescription drug companies. We can't change 
the age of Medicare eligibility. We can't increase the annual 
deductible or copay. No, we can't do anything, any of those things. We 
can only cut provider reimbursement. Oh, but there's no rationing. It 
says there in that section regarding IPAB that no rationing will occur.
  Well, give me a break. If you cut reimbursement to providers and they 
stop providing the care, then the senior does not get that knee 
replacement and does not get that stent put in. You can spell it any 
way you want to, but, Mr. Speaker, that's rationing. That's rationing. 
And the American people don't want that. Our seniors don't want that. 
That's no compassion.
  You can provide all these preventive services you want to that Mr. 
Pallone was speaking about, and that's fine if you can afford to do it. 
But to suggest that that saves money, it might save an individual life, 
and that's a wonderful thing, but don't stand up here and tell me and 
tell my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that preventive services 
save money. No economist, no health economist would agree with that. It 
doesn't save money. It costs money. And every time you add another 
``free'' preventive service to a program, it's going to increase the 
health insurance premiums for everybody else. These are called 
mandates.
  The gentleman from New Jersey talked about direct access without 
prior approval, whether it's to see your OB-GYN doctor, your 
dermatologist, or your general surgeon without having to go through a 
gatekeeper. I understand that. I practiced medicine 31 years. I think 
my colleagues know that. I understand that. But these things definitely 
cost money. They don't save money. I think it's important for people to 
understand that.
  He talked about the wonderful things that have already occurred under 
ObamaCare, allowing adult children--I realize that's a bit of an 
oxymoron, but I've got four of those oxymorons--to allow adult children 
to stay on their parents' health insurance policy until they're 26 
years old without regard to whether or not they're students.
  Now, the prior policy of most health insurance companies, if you were 
over 21 years old, maybe in the third or fourth year of college, then 
you were no longer eligible to be covered under your parents' health 
insurance policy. The expectation, of course, is that you would have a 
job. Well, the reason it's so important now to have them covered up to 
age 26 on their parents' health insurance policy is because they have 
no jobs. And that's the thing that this administration and this--now, 
at least in the House of Representatives--Democratic minority, they 
just don't seem to understand that what the American people care about 
first and foremost is a job. They want health insurance, of course they 
do. If they have to, they'll pay for it out of their own pocket. But 
they've got to have a job first. They've got to put food on the table. 
They've got to put clothing on the backs of their children. They have 
to have the pride, dignity, and respect of having a job.
  As we go into these elections this fall, and all 435 of us in this 
body and 100--well, in fact, I guess it's one-third of the other body 
stand for reelection and we elect a 45th--and, indeed, I think we will 
elect a 45th and not reelect the 44th--President of the United States, 
it's going to be based on jobs and the economy. That's the thing that 
this President, since he took office in January of 2009, has just 
totally missed the point of. And really, it started in January of 2007 
with the Democratic majority in this Chamber when we spent another 2 
years wasting time, fiddling while Rome was burning, trying to force 
and cram down the throats of the American people this cap-and-trade 
regime which would have cost every family $2,500 a year in increased 
utility costs. Thank goodness the other body stopped that, because the 
American people didn't want it.
  And they don't want national health care. That's why we voted in this 
body, H.R. 2, to repeal ObamaCare. And that repeal passed in the House 
of Representatives. We finally had a vote in the Senate. We couldn't 
get them to pass a budget. They haven't done that in 3 years. But after 
about a year and a half, we finally got them to vote on repeal of 
ObamaCare. The Democratic majority rejected that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, now we're dealing with plan B, and plan B is to chip 
away at the most egregious aspects of ObamaCare. It would be a mistake 
for us to assume the Supreme Court will strike down that individual 
mandate and will strike down that Medicaid expansion, that unfunded 
mandate, a $12 billion burden placed on the budgets of our respective 
States. I think they will strike it down, but I'm not going to stand 
here in this Chamber holding my breath waiting for that to happen. That 
would be irresponsible. That would not be representing the people of 
the 11th of Georgia the way they deserve to be represented.

                              {time}  2140

  So, we are going to fight. That's what this is all about today and 
the vote tomorrow in regard to repealing IPAB, this Independent Payment 
Advisory Board that literally takes legislative responsibility away 
from the Congress. Talk about unconstitutional; clearly, that is 
unconstitutional.
  We're going to vote it down tomorrow. And we're going to send that to 
the Senate, and I expect Harry Reid and the Democratic majority to do 
the responsible thing. They don't like it either. They don't like it 
either. Let's don't make an election issue out of it. Let's just do the 
right thing for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, it's been a long day. We have had a lot of discussion on 
the floor of the House of Representatives, a lot of eloquence on both 
sides of the aisle. I feel very strongly that we should respect one 
another, and I think we do. This is not personal, but when you feel 
that you have the right idea, it's your responsibility to stand strong, 
not to pander to anybody, but to stand strong and do the right thing, 
do the right thing for the American people.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________