[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 18066-18072]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               OBAMACARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the recognition, 
for this time to spend talking to my colleagues on behalf of the 
Republican majority in the House of Representatives about the continued 
problem with ObamaCare and with the www.healthcare.gov Web site.
  The promise to Congress and to the American people was that by the 
end of November, November 30, the Web site would be fixed and that 
people would not have any problems whatsoever getting enrolled for 
ObamaCare on the government-created www.healthcare.gov Web site.
  Well, the administration has said, Mr. Speaker, that the problems 
that people had been faced with for the last 2 months--of course the 
rollout was October 1--had been essentially solved, that 80 percent of 
folks now could get health care, could complete their application, and 
would not get kicked off the system with an error message.
  But what they don't say is it is 80 percent of what. They go on to 
admit that 40 percent of the Web site, Mr. Speaker, has yet to be 
developed, and the law was signed into effect--and my colleagues all 
know this--was signed into effect on March 23, 2010. Well, today is, 
what, December 3, 2013. They have had over 3 years, 3\1/2\ years, 
essentially, to get this done. And it wasn't ready. The rollout was a 
colossal failure on October 1, even though $600 million, Mr. Speaker, 
had been spent to create this Web site; and that is what you get when 
you have a massive 2,600-page bill that was rushed through almost in 
the dark of night at the 11th hour in December of 2009 when the bill 
was not ready for prime time, and obviously this Web site was not ready 
for prime time.
  So it is incredibly concerning that the Obama administration has 
continued, Mr. Speaker, full speed ahead on the rollout of the system 
even after numerous warnings from vendors and from Members of Congress 
on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers--the House and the Senate.
  The Web site has led to confusion in the insurance marketplace as 
well as

[[Page 18067]]

putting customers and consumers--patients, really. I say that as a 
practicing physician for over 30 years in the great State of Georgia. 
The Web site has led to confusion and has put consumers' personal 
information at risk due also to lax security protocols. It is not just 
this health care information, which is sacrosanct under HIPAA law, but 
also the security of the information--financial information, as an 
example.
  So I am still extremely concerned about the security risk inherent 
with this Web site that is 80 percent fixed; but 80 percent of 60 
percent is 48 percent. So it is 52 percent not fixed after 3\1/2\ 
years.
  In last month's House Energy and Commerce Committee www.healthcare
.gov data security hearing--I am a member of that committee, Mr. 
Speaker, the Health Subcommittee--other members and I heard testimony 
on the Obama administration's efforts to protect private citizens' 
sensitive health care data in the online marketplace. Hearing recent 
concerns that the site would become a central target for these so-
called genius hackers and online thieves, we must make the protection 
of personal data one of the top priorities going forward.
  Www.healthcare.gov's rollout has been completely unacceptable, and we 
must work to ensure that the site's data security operations aren't 
fumbled, as well. It would be an even bigger disaster for the American 
people already faced with the other consequences of the law, including 
higher premiums and the likelihood that they will be unable to see the 
doctors who they are accustomed to, the hospitals they are accustomed 
to going to.
  This disruption is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. And it is probably why 
Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, back when this bill was signed into law 
by President Obama, said that, in his experience--and he has got lots 
of experience; he has been in both Chambers for years--that it was 
probably the worst bill that he had ever seen in his lifetime as a 
Member of Congress and as a Senator. And I definitely agree with him.
  The Obama administration claimed just this past Sunday that it had 
``met the goal'' for www.healthcare.gov, and the online exchange would 
work smoothly for the vast majority of users.'' But upon closer 
examination, Mr. Speaker, this is not the case. In fact, ``meeting the 
goal'' checked a political box, rather than fully repair the faulty Web 
site.
  These are a few of the problems that still remain, Mr. Speaker. Get 
this: site engineers have created a disguised gimmick for these error 
messages that were frustrating people so much. Consumers will now be 
placed in what they call a queuing system, a line--queuing up--rather 
than receive an error message if the site is unavailable. That, 
supposedly, would make people less frustrated if they know they have 
got a place in line, rather than seeing this big old error message that 
I just saw probably 30 minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, when I tried to go 
online to www.healthcare.gov. I put in all the information that they 
asked me to put in.
  And as you know, all Members of Congress have to go into the District 
of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange. We have to. As of January 1, we 
are no longer eligible to be on the Federal Employee Health Benefits 
plan. I don't really mind that because I thought from the very 
beginning what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I think 
the President, himself, will go on the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Web 
site; and I had recommended that with an amendment back when the bill 
was first being debated.
  But as I said, the White House claims that the site can now handle--
all of the site--a 50,000-person capacity limit. But the number is 
untested, and it is still far short of the volume needed to be on track 
to reach President Obama's 1-year 7 million people sign-up goal--7 
million people that, heretofore, have not had health insurance or maybe 
they got kicked off their health insurance plan because the promise of, 
If you like your health plan, you can keep it, has not been kept. 
Unfortunately, there are very many people--something like 5 million--
who have already been notified that they are not going to be able to 
keep their health care insurance even though they like it.
  Many health insurance professionals and public officials have gone 
public. They have reported that the site isn't anywhere near ready for 
prime time; and as much as 40 percent, as I said earlier, of the site 
has yet to be built.
  My hometown newspaper in Atlanta, Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-
Constitution, included a headline today: ``New and improved? Not so 
much, some Georgians find.'' And they went on to highlight three of the 
most glaring examples. Mr. Speaker, I am going to give you just a 
couple of examples in the interest of time.
  Robert Shlora from Alpharetta, Georgia, in Fulton County: shopping 
online and over the phone, Shlora has faced roadblock after roadblock 
in his quest to sign up for coverage through the marketplace. Shlora is 
paying nearly $2,800 a month for health insurance for himself, his 
wife, and their son--three people--and hasn't been able to shop around 
for years because he has a preexisting condition. The health law was 
expected to offer him much more affordable options.
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has been closely following Shlora's 
experience since the marketplace opened on October 1.

                              {time}  1600

  Colleagues, you are not going to believe what I am going to tell you. 
Just listen to this. It is a comedy of errors, Mr. Speaker.
  On Saturday, the marketplace Web site still failed him--just this 
past Saturday--but he believed he had a breakthrough after a telephone 
operator said she could process the application that he had been 
working on for 2 months and sent his information over to Humana. He 
could call Humana Monday to arrange payment, she said.
  And this is a quote from him: ``They told me, 'You're good--you're 
all set,''' Shlora said. When he called Humana Monday morning, however, 
the insurer said it had no record of his application. The insurer's 
phone rep said she had researched the issue and called him back. She 
did call him back, but with bad news. After further research, she still 
found no record of his application.
  Shlora called healthcare.gov back and the telephone rep, Mr. Speaker, 
insisted he was enrolled with Humana, but could offer him no way to 
prove it. ``Humana said to check with them by the end of the week and 
maybe it will mysteriously appear,'' Shlora said.
  Let me give you another one, colleagues.
  Greg Paulauskis from my hometown of Marietta, Georgia. Paulauskis, an 
early retiree who buys his own health insurance, has also been trying 
to shop for coverage for himself and his wife since the day the health 
insurance marketplace opened. Again, October 1. What is it today? 
December 3.
  I thank the Atlanta Journal Constitution for their due diligence. 
They have been closely following his experience.
  Like Shlora, he has run into a series of frustrating obstacles. On 
Monday, he noticed that the Web site was quicker. They said that it was 
quicker. It is now handling 50,000 people at a time, and its appearance 
has changed. Its icons looked different.
  He tried to access his application that had been completed over the 
phone with a representative so that he could finally get to the step of 
actually selecting a plan, but the application wasn't visible on the 
site.
  Now this was just Monday. What is today? Tuesday. That was yesterday.
  He called and went through another lengthy process, to be told again 
what he has heard before. He can't see the plans on the site, but the 
operator could read plan information to him. Paulauskis isn't 
comfortable making a decision without seeing all the options in 
writing. The supervisor handling his call told him she could put in a 
work order and someone would call him back. She put in a work order. 
Paulauskis said he has made such a request five times since the 
marketplace opened and has yet, Mr. Speaker, to get a response.

[[Page 18068]]

  Now, who is Mr. Paulauskis? Well, he is a former college professor 
and he has a doctorate degree. He is a Ph.D. Paulauskis said he has 
probably spent more than 80 hours on the ObamaCare application process 
without being able to actually shop for a plan.
  That didn't change on Monday with the improvements to the marketplace 
Web site that you are hearing this administration, President Obama and 
Secretary Sebelius, saying: We're there. We have spent $600 million. It 
didn't work. So we brought in new, bright gurus, and they have been 
working 24/7 over the last 3 or 4 weeks, and now we have got it fixed.
  And we don't have it fixed. Forty percent of it hasn't even been 
built. Twenty percent absolutely are going to be in a terrible bind 
come January 1 if they have lost their health insurance coverage that 
they previously had and they don't have any coverage; in other words, 
they are just going bare.
  They don't intend to do that. They wanted to keep the insurance they 
had because they liked it. They found out that that was not true. I 
will be kind and use the word ``mendacity,'' rather than a lie. But it 
was pure mendacity. They weren't able to keep it.
  And so if you can't sign up during that 5-week period, which is over 
Monday, this coming Monday, you can't get signed up and have coverage 
by January 1. My goodness gracious, what if your child gets run over by 
a car or you have a heart attack in the week or month or however much 
time it takes after January 1, if you are in that 20 percent group, to 
finally get coverage? By that time, you are truly, if you survive, 
bankrupt because of medical expenses that are not covered.
  These stories were printed in the AJC, Mr. Speaker. There are plenty 
of others that have not been published.
  Let me share with you a few other stories from my constituents back 
in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia about the lack of 
affordable options ObamaCare offers them.
  Mike told me that ObamaCare ``has been a financial disaster for his 
family.'' It used to cost him just under $300 a month to cover his wife 
and daughter on their insurance plan. Under ObamaCare, that lowest 
level plan is the bronze plan. There are four choices. Gold, I guess, 
is the most expensive and covers the most things. It probably has the 
highest deductible. But under that bronze plan, instead of $300 a 
month, now he is going to pay, Mr. Speaker, $700 a month. And guess 
what? His deductible is $5,000. So he has to pay $5,000 out of pocket 
before insurance kicks in. He is paying $400 more a month. That is 
$4,800 plus the $5,000. His new plan under ObamaCare, because he is not 
eligible for any subsidy, is costing him about $10,000 more a year.
  Teresa and her husband from Cartersville, Bartow County, one of the 
great counties in the 11th Congressional District, told me that their 
premium is increasing from $550 to more than $900 per month. That is 
almost, Mr. Speaker, a 40 percent increase.
  Robert from metro Atlanta told me that, even though they were 
underwritten in June, his wife's policy has increased from $387 to $557 
a month. And that increase is 30 percent. It is getting a little 
better, but, gee, a 30 percent increase?
  When President Obama talked about his great new health care plan, the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, he said that, on average, 
families would see a $2,500 per year reduction in what they are paying 
for health care. Mr. Speaker, let's go back to the word ``mendacity.'' 
Nothing could be further from the truth. The average increase is 
probably $2,500 a year, not a decrease. This is truly unacceptable that 
with new mandates in insurance markets concerning essential health 
benefits premiums have to increase.
  And now we finally find out that Ms. Pelosi was absolutely right. 
Wait until you read it and find out what is in it. Where she was wrong 
is when she said then you would like it. I think the latest statistics 
that I read, Mr. Speaker, show that 61 percent of people today are 
opposed to ObamaCare--61 percent. That is a lot. That means 39 percent 
either don't have an opinion either way or are not sure or maybe they 
approve of it. But those are dismal, dismal numbers.
  We have seen more insurance policies canceled than created as 
consumers are faced with this sticker shock, all in the name of a bill 
that was sold to the American people as a way to lower the uninsured 
rate.
  Another statistic that I read just recently, and this is verifiable, 
when this bill was being talked about--again, back in 2009, shortly 
after Mr. Obama became our 44th President--it was estimated that there 
were something like 47 million people in this country, Mr. Speaker, 
who, through no fault of their own except couldn't afford it, didn't 
have health insurance.
  Well, go through those numbers. And I have a book with me that I am 
going to reference, and I want to give proper attribution. The name of 
the book is, ``The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's 
Guide.'' Maybe it could be ``A Patient's Guide,'' and this is written 
by Sally Pipes.
  She talks in this book about that 47 million. Something like 15 
million of those 47 million make more than $50,000 a year. Indeed, some 
make more than $75,000 a year, Mr. Speaker. They have just decided that 
they don't want health insurance; they will pay as they go. And there 
is nothing wrong with that. I don't advise it. I think everybody should 
at least have catastrophic coverage. But be that as it may, this is 
America. We have to insist on enjoying our liberties to do what we want 
to do with our hard-earned tax dollars and our own money.
  There are probably 10 million, maybe, of these that don't have health 
insurance that are in this country illegally. There may be another 6, 
8, maybe even 10 million of that 47 million who are eligible for a 
safety net program like Medicaid and they just have not gotten the 
proper information or not bothered to go find out if they were 
eligible. A lot of the people that are signing up now are those 
individuals.
  So when you get right down to it, there will probably be not 47 
million, but about 15 million that were falling through the cracks.
  What we have done has thrown out a market-driven health care system 
that is not perfect. I guarantee you, I agree with that. It is too 
expensive. And yes, indeed, we Republicans have some other ideas.
  I am going to yield in just a minute, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, 
the cochair with me of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, the gentleman from 
Tennessee, fellow OB/GYN, Dr. Phil Roe, and he is going to talk about 
some of those Republican alternatives, or maybe even Democratic 
alternatives, because I think that is what it is going to come to.
  We have to repeal this law and not be embarrassed about it. If you 
made a mistake, you made a mistake. Own up to the American people that 
this is a bad law and repeal it and start over. But I am saying start 
over in a bipartisan way, and we can do that.
  We have got some thoughts on that, and I am going to, at this point, 
yield to Dr. Roe for his comments.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate the opportunity to be down here on the House floor today 
to discuss, Mr. Speaker, this extremely important issue of health care. 
One of the reasons that it is so important is that it affects every 
single American citizen in a personal way.
  As Dr. Gingrey said, I spent 31 years practicing medicine and 
teaching in medical school in Johnson City, Tennessee. I know the thing 
that I saw as the biggest issue and problem in health care--and Dr. 
Gingrey did also--was the cost of care. I saw the cost going up, and I 
saw more and more people that didn't have access to affordable health 
insurance coverage.
  And I say this as a joke, but it is true. I have never seen a 
Republican or Democrat heart attack in my life. I have never operated 
on a Republic or Democrat cancer in my life, and I have operated on 
many of them. These are people issues. And why in the world we passed a 
partisan health care bill makes no sense to me whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. 
I never understood that for now going on 5 years later.

[[Page 18069]]



                              {time}  1615

  We should have sat down in that bipartisan way and talked about, as 
Dr. Gingrey so eloquently explained, taking care of those 15 or 20 
million people, whatever the number is. We could do that. Let me just 
give you some data from my own State.
  In 2011, we had 2\1/2\ percent of our children in our State who 
didn't have health insurance coverage. We are not a wealthy State, and 
about 10 percent of the population--1 in 10 Tennesseans--didn't have 
access to coverage. Not everybody had a Cadillac plan, but they had 
basic health coverage. We did this massive, 2,700-page bill, which I 
have read. I almost hate to admit that I have read it all, but I have. 
We did this with now tens of thousands of pages of rules that add 
absolutely no value for patients whatsoever. It doesn't pay for 
anybody's prescriptions. It doesn't pay for operations, 
hospitalizations, immunizations, and so on--none of those things.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly see the need for health care reform--I 
totally agree with that--but on the premise that if we repeal the 
Affordable Care Act we will go back to where we were is not true at 
all.
  Again, let me say this--and I believe this to the core of what I did 
for 30-plus years, and I believe it today. It is that health care 
decisions should be made between a patient, that patient's family, and 
his doctor. They shouldn't be made by an insurance company. They 
shouldn't be made by a clerk at the insurance company. They shouldn't 
be made by the Federal Government.
  I think one of the problems with the rollout of the Affordable Care 
Act--and it was absolutely predictable what would happen when you 
listed the Essential Health Benefits. Mr. Speaker, if you had read the 
bill and if you had ever run a business, as I had, you would know that 
you make some changes in your health insurance. Every year, we did 
this. It was, maybe, the copay or the out-of-pocket or something that 
changed in that bill. Maybe it was a new procedure. If you the read the 
bill, it said, if those things changed in any significant way, you lost 
your grandfathered status.
  I apologize if Dr. Gingrey has already done this, but I want to read 
the Essential Health Benefits that are required for you to buy and 
purchase. There are 10 categories: ambulatory patient services; 
emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn services.
  Let me just point out that one of my friends who is a sheriff--
Sheriff Seals in Sevier County, Tennessee--came to me the other day 
when I was visiting there. He said he had a friend who had just lost 
her insurance because she is 55 years of age and has had a 
hysterectomy. Her insurance plan, which met all of her needs, did not 
include maternity coverage, so she lost her health insurance, as almost 
90,000 Tennesseans have done.
  Mental health and substance abuse disorder services, including 
behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and 
habilitative services; devices; laboratory services; preventative and 
wellness services; chronic disease management; pediatric services, 
including oral and dental and vision care.
  Those are things that you have to have in a plan or you lose your 
coverage.
  Remember now that this is only affecting about 18 or 20 million 
people. Next year, when the employer mandate kicks in--the employer 
reporting requirement kicks in--many people on ERISA, or if you get 
health insurance through your job, through your work--if you don't hit 
these benchmarks, guess what? You're going to lose grandfathered 
status. That is why these staggering numbers are 50 to 100 million 
people, because, right now, Mr. Speaker, about 160 million people and 
their families in our country get insurance through their employment. 
So that is what we are facing.
  Now, we mentioned what the Affordable Care Act promised it would do, 
and Dr. Gingrey has pointed this out very well. He has pointed out the 
promises that were made:
  Universal coverage, that we are going to cover everybody. It didn't 
do that;
  No new taxes on the middle class. Boy, is that ever something that 
wasn't true;
  An annual savings of $2,500. We have heard the President say that on 
numerous occasions. That is not true;
  No increase in the deficit. We already know that this bill is going 
to cost some two or three times what it was purported to cost;
  Then I think the most famous one we have all heard now enough times 
is that, if you like your doctor, you can keep him. If you like your 
health insurance plan, you can keep it. Not true.
  We were tasked on the Republican Study Committee, the health 
committee, to come up with a market-centered approach to health care, 
which would include no new taxes, no mandates, and would maintain the 
doctor-patient relationship. It is a very short bill of 180 pages. It 
had been reviewed, back during the Bush administration, to increase by 
9 to 11 million people who would have health insurance and, we think, 
far more than that. There are six titles to this bill, and they are 
very simple to understand:
  One is to overturn the Affordable Care Act. That is No. 1.
  No. 2 is to equalize the tax treatment between an individual and a 
company. What does that mean? I will use myself as an example. When I 
worked for my medical group, my health insurance was deductible. I then 
retired from that group to run for Congress, and when I then had to go 
buy health insurance, I had to pay first dollar. I couldn't deduct it. 
This simply says, if you are an individual out there or a farmer or a 
small business person, you get to deduct your health expenses just 
exactly like a huge company like Dow Chemical can do. So it treats you 
the same as an individual. That is a mistake that was made 60 years ago 
in the tax law that we correct.
  We massively expand health savings accounts. I use a health savings 
account. What is that? It is when you put pretax dollars away in your 
own account, and if you don't spend them on health care, you get to 
keep them. I will use myself as an example again. We had a health 
savings account for 2 years that we started 7 years ago. I still have 
$6,000 in that account that I can use for preventative services, for 
buying prescription drugs--for lots of things that my insurance doesn't 
cover. If it is above a $5,000 deductible, my insurance is 100 percent 
covered--all the costs.
  Guess who would have had that $6,000 if I didn't have it? The 
insurance company would have had it as a profit. This allows you and 
your doctor to make those decisions. We expand those to veterans, to 
seniors.
  We also do medical liability reform. Dr. Gingrey has a wonderful bill 
that we do that for.
  We also allow you to buy across State lines. The only insurance you 
cannot purchase is health insurance across a State line. You can buy 
life, fire. I, personally, have never seen an insurance agent. I have 
always used the Web, and have bought my insurance across State lines. 
You can do that, and you can form association health plans. Let's say 
large church groups want to get together. Instead of small churches at 
which there is one pastor or two, you can join with larger churches and 
groups across, maybe, an entire region of the country and get thousands 
of people. That helps take care of preexisting conditions, and we also 
have a high-risk pool for preexisting conditions.
  Lastly, there is no funding for abortion services.
  So it is a very simple bill. It is patient-centered and market-
oriented, and it will work.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee for being with us during this hour.
  I want to hold up this card so our colleagues can see. Basically, 
this is the bill that Dr. Roe--Representative Roe from Tennessee--is 
the author of, and I am a proud cosponsor. It is called the American 
Health Care Reform Act. Dr. Roe described many of the aspects of this, 
I think, 180-page bill. It is not a 2,700-page bill but a 180-page 
bill.

[[Page 18070]]

  As he points out--and I said this a little earlier, Mr. Speaker--this 
bill, the American Health Care Reform Act, a Republican alternative--
and we do have alternatives--first and foremost fully repeals the 
President's health care law, ObamaCare. It ends billions in taxes. It 
eliminates thousands of pages of unworkable mandates and regulations 
that literally--and I am not kidding you--are 8-feet high. I am not 
barely 6-feet tall, so just imagine that. It forces millions of 
Americans to lose access to their health plans and gets Federal 
bureaucrats, like IRS agents, out of health care decisions.
  What do they know about doctor-patient relationships? They don't know 
a thing about that.
  There are just seven bullet points on here, but they are good, 
commonsense, market-driven reforms.
  Dr. Roe talked about tax reform, which allows families to deduct 
health care costs. If they are sole proprietors--somebody who is a 
craftsman, who makes furniture in his or her basement, and maybe it is 
a husband and wife team--they don't get this break on their health 
insurance that Dr. Roe said was kind of artificially created back in 
World War II, back in 1942 or 1943. When wage and price controls were 
put in place and when companies, big companies, couldn't attract new 
workers because they couldn't pay them enough--they couldn't give them 
a decent raise--they started providing free health care, but the 
individual didn't get that break.
  So that is just one of the seven. I won't read all of them because we 
have been joined also by a great member of the House GOP Doctors 
Caucus, the gentlewoman from North Carolina. Her husband is a general 
surgeon, and she was a surgical nurse before Congress, and is, as I 
say, a member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus. She knows of what she 
speaks.
  I yield to Representative Renee Ellmers.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak here 
with the Doctors Caucus on these very important issues.
  You were bringing up a very important piece to this puzzle. As far as 
the American people are concerned with their health care, they want 
Washington bureaucrats out of the examining room and not between them 
and their doctors. Patients want to be able to have that relationship 
with their doctors.
  Do you know what? I am sorry. If anything has played out over this 
very short period of time since October 1 with the failure of the Web 
site rollout, we have seen that Washington has absolutely no business 
in health care. This is only going to continue to play out, so I just 
want to take a few moments and speak on some of the issues that 
continue to remain in these failures of the Web site.
  I think the administration has spent over $630 million now, with 50 
contractors, fixing this Web site--this Web site that we were promised 
for so long was going to be ready: online, on time, working great for 
the American people. We know that that is simply not the case. Once 
again, it is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the failures that 
we will learn about in the future on health care.
  I am here today to talk about how this is affecting American families 
and those who are reaching out to me in my district, the Second 
District of North Carolina.
  ObamaCare is turning family budgets upside down and is inflicting 
unnecessary pain on millions of Americans. Millions of Americans now 
have learned that their health care policies have been canceled, and it 
clearly states: due to the Affordable Care Act. Nationwide, women in 
this country make the health care decisions. Over 80 percent of the 
health care decisions that are made are made by women. That means that 
wives, mothers, or single women who are choosing health care coverage 
for themselves have now been told by the President and the Democrats 
who voted for this bill, and who knew full well that you wouldn't be 
able to keep your health care plan if you liked it: Do you know what? 
What you chose for you and your family--what was affordable to you--is 
not adequate, and we know better than you do for your family.
  I think that is an incredible problem, and that it has been 
overlooked by this administration and our Democrat friends.
  How many times do we hear that Republicans don't understand women's 
issues? How many times do we hear about the war on women that continues 
to be displayed by our friends across the aisle? This is truly the war 
on women. Taking away health care coverage for millions of women in 
this country is truly the war on women.
  That is why we as Republicans have been working so hard to do 
everything we can to stop this process of ObamaCare's moving forward. 
Yes, we have voted over and over again to repeal it, and for good 
reason, and we are seeing how it is being played out now--for these 
very reasons. This is not patient-centered reform. This is not about 
good patient care. This is not only going to completely and totally--
disastrously--affect the health care coverage in this country but also 
health care, itself, because, as you know, one plays into the other.
  I am worried about what is going to happen to our physicians over 
time. We know that that part of the Web site hasn't even been built 
yet. Physicians aren't even sure what they are going to be paid, and 
patients aren't even sure what coverage they will be able to receive, 
what treatments they will be able to receive and which doctors they 
will be able to go to.

                              {time}  1630

  Think about the women in this country, the moms who are going to find 
out over the next couple of months that the pediatricians that they 
have come to know and trust they are no longer able to bring their 
children to. Think about our parents, the seniors who are receiving 
treatment right now at a different hospital system, in a different 
health care system that are going to find out they can no longer 
receive their treatment there because the networks have been narrowed 
so incredibly. This is what is going to play out over the next couple 
of months.
  On the front page of today's Washington Post, it reads: 
``Healthcare.gov Makes Frequent Enrollment Errors.'' Right there. 
After, again, all the millions of dollars that have been spent and we 
still have errors.
  This isn't what we have come to know in America. We know that 3-year-
old children can get online and get on their iPads and go to town and 
understand computer systems and what-not, and we can't even build a Web 
site that will allow patients in this country, families in this country 
to navigate to get basic health care coverage. That is a problem.
  But there, again, that is why the Federal Government should not be in 
health care. That is why government bureaucrats should not be standing 
in between patients and their doctors.
  This comes only days after the Obama administration claimed victory 
for fixing the disaster-prone Web site and rebranding the error 
messages that continue to pop up as a ``queuing system.'' Since day 
one, ObamaCare has been a complete disaster, and it is only getting 
worse.
  As The Washington Post points out, those who have enrolled through 
the online marketplace may soon discover that their application 
contains errors. These errors have been generated by the computer 
system, which means even if they were one of the few to successfully 
enroll, they can still find themselves without coverage over the next 
few months.
  There, again, think about what is going to happen January 1 when 
there are patients that think they have health care coverage and they 
are going to go to the doctor only to find out that they are not even 
within the system. Those failures include the notification of insurers 
about new customers, duplicate enrollment and cancelations, and 
incorrect information about family members and the States involving 
Federal subsidies.
  I thank my dear colleague for, again, allowing us to speak out on 
these issues because it cannot be stated enough how important it is 
that we be pointing out the inefficiencies that are

[[Page 18071]]

created with ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act--which we all know now 
is completely and totally unaffordable.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from 
North Carolina.
  It is now my pleasure to yield time to the gentleman from Indiana, 
Representative and Dr. Larry Bucshon, a cardiothoracic surgeon, and 
also a member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey, and thanks again for having this 
time for the Doctors Caucus to talk about health care reform.
  What I want to focus on in my brief time is the Republican 
alternatives that we have had all along. When the Affordable Care Act 
was brought to the floor, there was only one amendment allowed, and 
that was a ``motion to recommit'' amendment, and guess what, the 
Republicans had an alternative health care plan which we put forth.
  Since that time, we have had multiple plans, almost 200 other 
proposals from Republicans, to reform the health care system in a 
patient-centered way. As a physician, that is what we want. We want 
this to be focused around the patient, not around Washington 
bureaucrats, not around decisions made here in Washington. We want 
patients to have access to quality affordable care. We want everyone to 
have that, just like the Democrats say that they do, even though with 
their plan, the Affordable Care Act, in 2023 the CBO says 31 million 
people will still be uninsured, which is a fact that not a lot of 
people are looking at in the media at this point. But we have had all 
kinds of alternatives.
  Dr. Tom Price has had a bill that he has put up many times, H.R. 
2300, in this Congress. The Republican Study Committee in this 
Congress, led by Dr. Roe, has a very good health care reform proposal, 
and, again, along with almost 200 other proposals to reform health 
care.
  So I want to dispel this myth that Republicans don't have 
alternatives to a near-government takeover of the health care system. 
As Congresswoman Ellmers just stated, that is the plan here. The plan 
is to have the government nearly control the system, and we can't have 
the government in health care because it doesn't work.
  We are finding that out now with what is happening with the 
Affordable Care Act. Access is actually going to be inhibited by the 
Affordable Care Act. In some States, 80 to 90 percent of the people 
signing up for the Affordable Care Act are in the Medicaid program, a 
program already underfunded, a program already that is poor insurance 
that limits the very access to health care that we are all fighting 
for.
  The exchanges, which are going to be overly costly, look at the 
deductibles you are seeing in some plans across the country, look at 
the price you are seeing on the monthly payments across the country. 
Again, over 5 million people had health care that they liked, but they 
have lost it. We may see 50 million people or so next year when the 
delayed employer mandate comes into place that was unilaterally delayed 
by the administration, I would argue, against the will of Congress 
because it was in the law and is in the law.
  So I want to just focus on the fact that Republicans have 
alternatives. The GOP Doctors Caucus has been involved in all of these. 
I don't recall, but you probably can tell me, were you consulted in 
2009, the doctors in Congress, when the health care law was passed? 
From what everybody tells me, no. The answer to that question is, no. 
If you were going to talk to anyone about what might be good health 
care reform, wouldn't you think you would actually consult with people 
that have been in the field practicing medicine for years--the doctors, 
the nurses, the other health care providers in Congress that could give 
you that firsthand experience that they have had in the health care 
system as part of the equation if you are going to do this right?
  So, again, Republicans are for patient-centered health care reform. 
We realize that people were uninsured; we realize that the cost is too 
high. We want to bend the cost curve, get people insured by getting the 
cost of health care down and making sure that all of our patients have 
access to quality, affordable health care in a timely manner without 
Washington, D.C., government bureaucrats telling them what is a good 
policy, what is a bad policy and, I will argue, in the future telling 
them what is good health care and what isn't.
  With that, Dr. Gingrey, I yield back.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Bucshon, the 
gentleman from Indiana, for those remarks.
  I want to read a little bit from one chapter in Sally Pipes' book 
``The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care.'' The title of this 
chapter, Mr. Speaker, is ``Solutions: Markets, Consumer Choice, and 
Innovation.'' That is really what Dr. Roe's bill is all about, the 
American Health Care Reform Act.
  Listen to this. Listen to what Sally Pipes says:

       None of the preceding chapters is meant to suggest that 
     America's health care system is perfect. It is not. Costs are 
     high, and too many Americans get left behind. Reform is 
     desperately needed.
       But true reform of the health care system requires less 
     government interference--not more. Only with a freer market 
     can we lower costs and achieve quality universal health care. 
     If we have universal choice in health care, we will reach 
     universal coverage--a goal supported by all of us.

  Republicans and Democrats.
  Now, consider this: Mr. Speaker, I know you are familiar with LASIK 
corrective eye surgery. Most insurance providers, including government 
programs, won't cover the procedure. The market isn't distorted by 
excessive regulations. Providers operate in a free market where 
technology is constantly advancing, price competition is fierce, and 
the consumer is the king. Companies rise and fall according to their 
ability to provide customer satisfaction.
  In the past decade, more than 3 million LASIK procedures have been 
performed. During that time, the average price of LASIK eye surgery has 
dropped nearly 40 percent from $2,200 per eye to $1,350 per eye. 
Unfortunately, LASIK is a rare exception to the general rule.
  In just about every other area of health care, the government is 
heavily--heavily--involved. So the key to lowering cost and expanding 
coverage is to expand the LASIK model. That means encouraging 
competition by decreasing the government's role in the health care 
marketplace, not increasing it.
  Again, she goes on to mention many of these bullet points in Dr. 
Roe's bill, the American Health Care Reform Act--a better way, indeed a 
better way.
  At this point, I have just a few more minutes remaining, and I want 
to yield back to Dr. Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Just a couple of points I would like to make, 
Dr. Gingrey.
  This bill is not perfect, and it is open for amendment, as opposed to 
the Affordable Care Act that was not open for amendment. As I recall--
you and I were both here then; that was my first term--when we had that 
debate, some 80 amendments were brought to the Rules Committee here and 
none of them--none, zero--was ruled germane to the bill.
  As Dr. Bucshon was speaking, there were nine of us physicians in the 
Doctors Caucus 5 years ago. Not one of us was consulted about the 
health care bill. Really rather astonishing, I thought.
  And to Congresswoman Ellmers--she made a point a minute ago and 
wasn't as passionate about it as I am--I think one of the most arrogant 
things I have heard stated in this town was that what you have bought 
that you like is no good. I still find that amazing that somebody--a 
talking head--could be on television and say with a straight face, not 
knowing what I purchased that I am perfectly happy with, that it is no 
good. That is beyond arrogance. We have heard people over and over in 
this town say that very thing.
  That is why people are turning against this. When you tell me when I 
have sat down with my family and worked out what I can buy, and it 
seems to work for me just fine, that it is no good, that I know what is 
better because I have got it right here that you have to buy, that is 
the height of arrogance. I just was a little more passionate about it.

[[Page 18072]]


  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, reclaiming my time and yielding it back 
to Representative Ellmers, let's hear some more passion from the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you to my kind doctor colleagues on that issue.
  Dr. Roe, you hit on one of the very important parts, again, which is 
if you had something that works for you, if a mom was buying health 
care coverage for her family, she was the one that did the research, 
she was the one that did the time, she picked the appropriate plan. 
Maybe it was offered through an employer; maybe it was an individual 
plan. But she sat down at her kitchen table and decided what was 
working for her, and guess what, now the Obama administration says no.
  And I agree with some of the talking heads that are out there on the 
24-hour news cycles telling everyone that these plans were subpar, that 
they weren't adequate. The constituents who are reaching out to me are 
saying, I liked my plan.
  I was having my hair done the other day and my hair stylist, Cindy, 
and her husband, Lee, they have a health care plan. She said, Renee, I 
don't understand this. I had a health care plan that Lee and I picked. 
We have had this plan, we like our plan, it is affordable to us, it is 
providing the health care coverage that we need, and now I am being 
told that it is not adequate and the cost of my premiums every month 
are going to go up and my deductible is going up. For what?
  Well, I will point out to you one of the issues. One of the flaws 
that the Obama administration and our President himself has made over 
time is saying that as people learn about this thing--because if you 
remember when it was passed, and you were here, you both were here, 
they said, oh, well, let's just get it passed and then we are all going 
to find out what is in it. Some of our esteemed colleagues across the 
aisle had made that comment; and now when the American people are 
finding out what is in it, they don't like it. Things are changing. 
They are finding out what is in it, they don't like it, and they are 
rejecting it.
  One of the reasons that those costs have gone up is the essential 
health benefits that have to be covered. For every American, there are 
10 essential health benefits. My friend Cindy, she and her husband do 
not have children, and yet they are forced to purchase maternity 
coverage; they are forced to purchase pediatric coverage.
  Now, these are wonderful things for families, young families, growing 
families; but they are not appropriate for every American. So what is 
lacking here in ObamaCare is choice, the ability to choose your plan. I 
am all for getting health care coverage for every American. I want 
every American to be able to have affordable health care coverage; but 
you can't do it by forcing individuals to buy something that they will 
never use, they will never need, paying a premium price, and costs out 
of pocket. I am sorry, it is just not affordable for American families.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, as we draw to a close, I 
said earlier, 61 percent of the American people are opposed even today, 
3\1/2\ years after passage of this law, and they can't even get on the 
Web site. They can't get signed up. Wait until they get signed up and 
find out what they are going to have to pay and the amount of the 
deductible. I guess I would call that sticker shock. I think instead of 
61 percent, it will be 80 percent will be opposed to it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Just one comment. I tried today for the sixth 
time to get signed up, and I couldn't. So I am going back Thursday for 
the seventh time.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time as I close, I tried to get 
on today. I couldn't. I got the error message. I didn't even get put in 
the queue to make it a little softer. I got the error message and got 
kicked offline--and Monday is the last day. So I am going back to my 
office to try to get on once again. I am really feeling for the 
patients, the American people, the seniors who are in one heck of a 
mess because of this not well-thought-out, rushed bill that was totally 
partisan. You just can't do that in this Congress with a bill this 
important. We are talking about human lives here; life and death, and 
that is not the way to do it.
  We will come back with a solution, and I hope we will do that in a 
bipartisan way. I love the American Health Care Reform Act. I am a 
cosponsor.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________