Hearing of the House Rules Committee - Opening Statement of Rep. Cole, Hearing on

Hearing

Today's hearing is quite extraordinary. We are here today to consider H.R. 1384, the Medicare For All Act of 2019. Unlike our usual weekly hearings, today's hearing is an original jurisdiction legislative hearing, covering a bill over which the Rules Committee has some original jurisdiction.

I say "some" because out of the 120 pages of bill text, the Rules Committee only has jurisdiction over one of those pages. That's it: just one page. Yet we're about to hold our first original jurisdiction legislative hearing in nearly three years on this bill. That is what makes this hearing extraordinary.

I also think it's worth noting that Speaker Pelosi's personal committee is the one to take the first swing at this bill--when three other committees in the House can claim wider jurisdiction than Rules. Energy & Commerce, Ways & Means, and Education & Labor could and should all conduct multiple hearings on this legislation as well.

Of course, there is a reason it's coming to the Rules Committee first, and that is because this bill too is extraordinary. The bill Democrats are proposing today would completely change America's health care system, and not for the better.

Medicare for All would require all Americans to pay more in taxes, wait longer for care, and receive potentially worse care. Even worse, it would put our current Medicare recipients at risk.

As Medicare is structured now, current Medicare recipients and Medicare Advantage plan holders are by and large satisfied with the health care they receive. In particular, Medicare Advantage plans are extremely popular.

However, this radical bill puts Medicare itself at risk by enrolling millions of new recipients who have not paid into the program in the same way current recipients have. It would reduce the quality of services and force longer wait times and ban Medicare Advantage entirely. For current Medicare recipients, Medicare for All really means Medicare for None.

Indeed, this bill is a socialist proposal that threatens freedom and choice and would allow Washington to impose a one-size-fits-all plan on the American people. Private health insurance would be completely banned. EVERYONE -- every man, woman, and child in America with private, employer-based, or union-based health insurance -- would lose their plan. Even if you like your plan, you really can't keep it.

More than 150 million people will lose health plans they like, plans that they have bargained for, and in many cases plans that they have earned through years of hard work. Medicare for All throws it all out the window in favor of a one-size-fits-all government-run health plan. We will hear from one of our witnesses, Grace-Marie Turner, on the impact this will have on employer-sponsored insurance, the method by which roughly half of all Americans receive their health coverage.

In the midst of all of this, I think the majority needs to be honest about the phenomenal cost of this new program. We're going to hear from Dr. Charles Blahous, a former public trustee for Social Security and Medicare. He reviewed Medicare for All for the Mercatus Center and authored a very telling study on the topic. Dr. Blahous' work showed that a previous, more basic version of Medicare for All would cost at least $32 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

The majority has not told us how much this massive new program will cost, how they will raise the money to pay for it, or whose taxes will have to go up to pay for it. On the last concern, I can assure you that the answer is everyone -- everyone's taxes will have to more than double to pay for this program. The majority needs to be honest with us and with the American people about the costs.

Beyond this, I'd also like to point out one of the most egregious provisions of the Democrats' health care bill, and that relates to the federal funding of abortion. As many know, the federal funding of abortion has been limited for well over three decades by several legislative provisions.

The Hyde amendment limits taxpayer funding of abortion;The Weldon amendment prohibits states from discriminating against providers that do not support abortions;The Church Amendment protects the conscience rights of health practitioners; andEven Obamacare maintained limited conscience protections.
However, this bill contains none of them. It requires coverage of "comprehensive reproductive…care" which includes elective abortions. Section 701 of the bill explicitly states that this bill must ignore these federal laws dating back 33 years.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that you are encouraging your leaders to pursue hearings and markups within the committees that have primary jurisdiction over the majority of health care issues, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, so that we can ensure these longstanding life protections are included as you move Medicare for All to the floor for a vote.

Mr. Chairman, I'm looking forward to today's hearing. I hope our witnesses can shed some light on these and other questions as we review this proposal that, if passed into law, would dramatically change the American health care system for absolutely everyone -- and not for the better.

Thank you.

Source