[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 360-361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE COSTS

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come here to speak about a couple items. 
We are now in a second-day delay as the majority leader and his caucus 
decide whether Republicans will be allowed to offer alternatives and to 
offer amendments to the proposal before us, and that is extension of 
the Unemployment Insurance Act.
  I was one of six who voted for the motion to proceed for the very 
purpose of achieving the opportunity to offer ideas which I have had 
and to allow others on our side of the aisle to offer their ideas as to 
how we can improve this program, and how we ought to address it at this 
point in our continuing effort to struggle out of the great recession 
now into its fifth year.
  Unemployment is still high in my State--over 7 percent--as a number 
of States, which is unacceptable, and particularly into the fifth year 
after a recession. The growth has been so anemic and so tepid, we are 
sort of staggering our way into a better position.
  Nevertheless, while some people are finding jobs and getting back to 
work, there are many who aren't. That is a serious subject and 
something we ought to be debating and talking about.
  Unemployment insurance is one of the programs which has been proposed 
to help those in need. There are people who are genuinely in need of 
that help and have made every possible effort to get back to work and, 
for many reasons, have not been able to do so. But we also know, and it 
has been documented, that there are many people who have taken 
advantage of this program and basically said, I don't have to work hard 
to get back to work because I am getting enough support from the 
government.
  We have to acknowledge the fact that there are policy issues which 
have to be discussed as we go forward without automatically extending a 
program where we know reforms would make the program better and would 
put us in a better position to help people get back to work and to move 
our economy.
  We also know, working now to just pass a budget for the first time 
here in several years to work off of, the number we agreed on we 
wouldn't go over is now being violated. The very first legislative 
piece which has come before this body violates the budget agreement 
which was agreed to a short time ago. So a number of us would like the 
opportunity to propose ways to offset the spending if this program goes 
forward.
  The combination of those two things--reforms which will allow us to 
continue to support those who are genuinely unable to find work from 
those who are taking advantage of the program and abuse of the program, 
as well as suggestions as to how we can support efforts toward more 
full employment through training programs, through any number of 
initiatives--my colleagues would like to at least talk about, at least 
debate, and at least have a vote on. We are in the minority here. We 
are not sure we are going to win any of those votes. Although I think 
if we make persuasive enough arguments and it makes enough sense, 
perhaps we will.
  Given this 2-day delay in terms of a decision from majority leader 
Harry Reid as to whether to allow us these opportunities, it appears 
that through this tactic of supporting the motion to proceed we have 
literally put the ball in Harry Reid's office and his caucus court as 
to what they want to do.
  We went through the year 2013, and since July, Republicans have been 
offered a total of only four amendments to all the things done in the 
last 6 months of this year. That is not how the Senate is supposed to 
work. That is a dictatorial dictate by the majority leader, 
unprecedented in 200 years or more of operation of this Senate.
  So we are waiting for that decision, and, obviously, that decision 
will have a bearing on my position on this particular issue.
  I would also comment on the fact that lately we have been hearing a 
lot from the President about income inequality, and I anticipate we 
will be hearing a lot more as we move toward the 2014 elections in 
November. There

[[Page 361]]

will be a debate on this, and I hope there will be a debate which 
allows both sides to look at this in a serious way and try to find ways 
to address the issue. But if we do that, I think it is important we 
understand that the President's signature accomplishment, the 
Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, as it is called--is contributing to the 
problem of income inequality. So any debate on that issue, to be 
factually accurate and to be truthful, needs to incorporate a 
conversation about the impact of ObamaCare.
  As recently as 2012, we were told by the President that the health 
insurance premiums paid by small businesses and individuals ``will go 
down.'' Yet even as the administration recently has admitted that many 
Americans will pay more for health care because of ObamaCare, this week 
the latest report on health spending trends from CMS--the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid--disclosed that health care spending in the 
United States rose 3.7 percent in 2012. That is less than it rose in 
previous years, and that is a good sign.
  Many are saying, well, the reason for this is the Affordable Care 
Act. Had we not passed the Affordable Care Act, this wouldn't have 
happened. Apparently, though, they did not read the rest of the report 
because the report also states that the provisions in the Affordable 
Care Act had minimal impact on total national health care spending. So 
while the administration may claim that their bill, ObamaCare, is 
lowering overall health care spending, the report says it has only had 
a minimal impact.
  What is happening is that there are reforms being made through the 
private sector, through the providers, in terms of more efficient, more 
effective ways to deliver health care. That is not operating because of 
the health care act. In fact, the health care act, if we are truthful 
about it, is contributing to the problem of inequality.
  Many Americans are experiencing, despite what the President has said, 
higher premiums or paying outrageous deductibles when they purchase 
coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges. Let's bring this down to a 
personal level because I have been receiving hundreds, actually 
thousands of emails, phone calls, letters, comments that I hear back 
home from Hoosiers who basically say: This ain't working. It is sure 
not working for me.
  But I want to bring it down to the personal level so we can 
understand what individual families are going through at this 
particular time with this mandate imposed upon them relative to their 
health care coverage.
  Thomas from Indianapolis wrote to me and said he went on the 
ObamaCare exchange to take a look at health insurance plans that would 
be available to him and he was, as he said, ``shocked to find that it 
was at least $200 a month.'' That is $2,400 a year more than he had 
been quoted just a few months before from a broker. He added, ``I have 
thought about just going without insurance''--as we know many 
individuals are thinking about and have decided not to sign up for this 
program. Of course, the program is built financially on the fact that 
millions will sign up and that is not happening. I predict that is 
going to break the back of the program. He added:

       I have thought about going without insurance, but my family 
     suggested that I not do that. The Affordable Care Act has 
     created a terrible quandary for me. At this point I feel as 
     if the Federal Government is like a mean Big Brother, making 
     my life miserable.

  William from Granger, IN, emailed me to tell me his wife, who works 
as a part-time nurse, now is no longer offered health care because she 
is part time. So William then decided, OK, I will have to go into the 
exchange and find insurance for my wife and my family and discovered 
that their premiums will rise to $19,076 a year. He goes on to say, 
``So much for `if you like your plan, if you like your doctor . . . 
your costs will go down by $2,500.'''
  Let me repeat that. The President has said your costs are going to go 
down by an average of $2,500 a year. William's costs increased over 
$7,500 a year. That is a $10,500 swing. That is not what was promised.
  Brandy from Cambridge City, IN, told me:

       I have been offered insurance through work at a cost of 
     $318 or $80 a week. I then checked HealthCare.Gov and have 
     been given a quote of $450 a month. I work a minimum wage job 
     and work as many hours as I can to get by as it is. After 
     taxes and child support, neither option is an option that I 
     can afford.

  He also cannot even afford to pay the penalty of the payment.
  These are just a few of the hundreds, if not thousands, of Hoosier 
comments I have heard from people who are experiencing sticker shock 
when they search for so-called affordable care under ObamaCare. I don't 
know if these people are Republicans or Democrats, conservatives, 
moderates, liberals, nonvoters or voters. These are just human beings 
who live in my State, regardless of their political affiliation, who 
are basically saying this thing is killing us. All these examples, 
multiplied by hundreds if not thousands, are contributing to the 
inequality the President is talking about.
  The inescapable truth is that the Democrats forced an unwanted, 
unpopular, and unread--the famous quote from then House Speaker Nancy 
Pelosi--``We have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it''--
and we are finding out about what is in it--an unwanted, unpopular, and 
unread 2000-plus page, one-size-fits-all health care bill, dictated by 
one party without any support from the minority.
  I am questioning whether this is the best way to deal with health 
care issues. Jamming this thing through on Christmas Eve day in 2009 
has turned out to be a disastrous Christmas gift for the American 
people. Families across our country who are being forced to redirect 
money they would have used to pay rent, to help their children attend 
school, to put food on the table, to pay the electric bills, are 
finding many cannot even do that.
  As we discuss the issue of income inequality, and it appears the 
President is going to want to do that throughout this coming election 
year, let's not pretend that ObamaCare is helping the situation. It is 
not. We need to face up to the fact that the Affordable Care Act--I bet 
the writers of this bill, if they could do it over again, wish they had 
not used the word ``affordable.'' They could call it the health care 
act or health care act for American people or whatever. If they went 
back and rewrote it, I bet you they would drop the word ``affordable,'' 
based on the facts, not the perception, the fact of what this health 
care bill is.
  I suspect they would have wanted to pass this in a bipartisan way so 
that at this point in time they would not have to take full 
responsibility for this act. Too many hard-working American families 
are paying more, not less, for health care because of ObamaCare, and it 
is contributing to the inequality the President continues to talk 
about.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________