[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2910-2911]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I want to talk a little bit about the 
letters I have received and the messages we have received in the office 
in the last week regarding the changes we see going on in health care. 
There was quite a bit of discussion last week about how health care 
impacts the workplace, and I think a lot of misinformation is out. The 
Congressional Budget Office projection, as some people have alleged, 
does not say that 2 million more people are going to have part-time 
jobs. It says the equivalent job loss because of the Affordable Health 
Care Act is the equivalent of 2.3 million people losing full-time jobs. 
That may mean that 10 million people who otherwise would have had full-
time jobs have part-time jobs.
  The other thing is, it is three times as big as the number that was 
on the table when people voted for the Affordable Care Act. At that 
time, the Congressional Budget Office said: If this law passes, there 
will be 800,000 fewer jobs than if this law does not pass. The 
collective impact on the economy is 800,000 fewer jobs.
  Last week they said there would be 2.3 million fewer jobs--roughly 
three times the amount that the earlier estimate was. Similar to so 
many other estimates in this law, the reality of the law turns out to 
be different than the estimates. Surely that was an estimate that 
nobody wanted. I cannot imagine anybody who voted for this bill--and I 
did not vote for it--but I cannot imagine anybody who voted for this 
bill thought: That is a really great thing. We are going to lose 
800,000 jobs if this bill passes. I assume they thought: The good this 
bill will do will offset losing 800,000 jobs.
  Now we find out it is 2.3 million jobs and all kinds of information 
that the good that was supposedly going to be done is not what people 
had hoped for.
  While we are talking about the workplace, I have a letter from a 
person who is the president of one of our community colleges in the 
State of Missouri. He says because of the Affordable Care Act ``we have 
reviewed all part-time employment to ensure compliance with the 
Affordable Care Act . . . which defines full-time as 30 hours or more 
per week. Without specific guidance in converting credit hours to clock 
hours, we have reduced part-time faculty's teaching loads to ensure'' 
nobody works more than 30 hours.
  This is not the only letter or contact all of us have had on this 
topic. We know the unintended consequence of this law on the workplace 
is that people are now told whom they do not have to insure. State 
governments, community colleges, big companies all looking at a law for 
the first time that supposedly says whom you have to insure--though the 
President certainly feels he has the authority that none of us can find 
anywhere in the law to decide when the law is going to go into effect 
and when it is not--but the law says whom you have to insure, and 
suddenly people who for a long time have provided health care benefits 
because they thought it was the right thing to do or the competitive 
thing to do now respond to this directive from the Federal Government 
that says what you have to do, and that means that is all you have to 
do.
  So all of these employees who may have worked 25 hours, 28 hours, 32 
hours in the past who all got insurance now are suddenly working less 
than 30 hours. I have talked to enough of these employees to know this 
is not because they do not want to work more; this is not because they 
want to make less money; this is not because they want to teach one 
less class; it is because the law has had that kind of impact on the 
workplace.
  The other promises--we are going to get better coverage for less 
cost--surely, somebody is getting better coverage for less cost. But my 
guess is that is a much smaller group than the people who are losing 
their insurance and because of the so-called broader and better 
coverage have more costs.
  Here is a letter from Kathy in Wentzville, MO. She says:

       I carry insurance through a large corporation and my 
     premium increased this year because the minimum standards [in 
     the law] affect my plan.
       Premiums increased by 25 percent.

  She goes on, in no uncertain terms, to suggest that she does not like 
the Affordable Care Act or think it is affordable.
  Jeff from St. Joseph said:

       Thank you for the opportunity to share my family's opinion 
     on ObamaCare. First off I would like to state that we have 
     experienced increases in our health insurance. My employer's 
     insurance has doubled of which I pay \1/2\. My family's 
     separate insurance policy has risen as well with a 
     cancellation due in December. I have considered canceling my 
     [own] health insurance through my employer so that I could 
     provide for my family's [health insurance at their new 
     rates].

  This is a family that a few months ago thought they were going to be 
able to continue to keep what they had. They liked what they had. They 
thought they could afford what they had. Now they are deciding who is 
going to go without insurance so other people can have insurance in the 
family at the higher rate.
  William from St. Louis, MO, says:

       My insurance was canceled in December.

  He says:

       . . . my insurance rates have been drastically increasing 
     each year since the law was passed.
       Four years ago, I had a policy for my family with a $500 
     deductible and the ability to go to any hospital/doctor in 
     St. Louis for $1,000 per month. Now I have a policy with a 
     $2,000 deductible and I can't go to [the doctor I used to go 
     to].

  He says his policy now--that does not allow him to go to the doctor 
he used to go to--does not cost $1,000 a month any longer; it costs 
$1,500 a month.
  Ted in St. Joseph said his doctor has changed the way he does 
business. He says his doctor has downsized the types of plans he 
accepts and is moving to a customer base with higher incomes.
  So Ted's doctor, according to Ted in St. Joseph, has stopped taking 
patients with Blue Cross/Blue Shield because of increased costs, and 
Ted, who by the way liked the doctor he had, now has to find another 
doctor who will take the coverage he can get.

[[Page 2911]]

  Steve, in St. Joseph, and his wife are raising their 14-year-old 
grandson, and all three have seen their insurance costs increase--they 
think because of the Affordable Care Act. His grandson's policy went up 
$50 a month, from $104 to $154. His wife's deductible went from $1,000 
per year to $5,000 per year and her insurance costs over $800 a month.
  He goes on to say--and I thought about whether I should read this; I 
assume they have talked about this too. He said: ``If we were to get 
divorced, her premium would be less than $200 per month.'' I think 
Steve is not suggesting that he and his wife should get divorced, but 
he is just talking about, again, the unintended consequences. A family 
who is together cannot afford to have the coverage they had. Her 
coverage is $800 a month, but as a substitute teacher--I believe that 
is what this letter says she does--her income would qualify her for a 
$200-a-month policy instead of the $800 they are paying now.
  Sandy from Armstrong, MO, says she received a letter from her 
insurance company notifying her that her premiums were about to 
increase. She went on healthcare.gov to find plans she and her husband 
could qualify for, and the plans she found were double the premiums she 
had been paying.
  Kelly from Farmington, MO, works in the HR department, the human 
resources department, at a bank. She feels healthy groups will be 
paying more for insurance because of the ACA and because of the 
expanded coverage.
  Her department has received many questions, she says, about health 
care coverage but feels limited in how much they can tell anybody 
because they do not know how the new law is going to apply.
  The law of unintended consequences continues to be the law that 
applies here. Missourians and people all over the country are 
contacting us and asking how much damage we are willing to do to the 
health care system that was working to get more people included in that 
system. There were ways to do this, every one of which I believe was 
legislatively proposed in 2009--small changes that would have made a 
big difference in a health care system that was working for people who 
were in that system. We needed to figure out the few ways to get more 
people in that system. Instead, we have had a dramatic impact on the 
best health care system in the world, and people are beginning to 
figure that out.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________