BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. This evening we are going to address for the coming hour with a couple of our colleagues the issues of affordable health care and the fact that we see a pattern here that's established by the House that seems to walk away from the needs of a middle class, a working class in this society. Our country depends upon a thriving middle class, one that is given the respect and the dignity it so much deserves. And with the attacks on Social Security with its 76-year old history and the efforts to privatize Social Security, we understand that that would put at risk a number of people.
Not a single cent of Social Security was lost to its recipients during the very painful recession. And likewise, in the mid-sixties we saw the emergence of Medicare, which allowed for, again, the dignity factor to be presented and found in the midst of our senior households where, at that point in time, prior to Medicare, those who would retire would anticipate a decline in their income and their economic security simply because of the impact that their health care costs would have on their retirement years. Since then, not only have we seen a stronger sense of security and stability in those senior households, but we have seen a strengthening of the response to the health care needs of our seniors because of the stability that Medicare produced and the quality of the care that has been part and parcel to the Medicare history.
And so now, in its infancy, the Affordable Care Act is under threats with the repeal measure that was just taken on this House floor to undo the progress that was achieved for, again, America's health care consumers. It is a troubling notion, at best. This hour of discussion will be dedicated to the concerns that we have for the economic ripple effects that befall the middle class, which needs to be a thriving middle class, and the impact of several of these attacks that seem to undermine the very foundations upon which security is provided to America's great populations.
So we're concerned. We're concerned about that repeal and what it means, what is removed from the equation of success that was brought about a couple of years ago as we worked in a bipartisan, bicameral way with the White House to make certain that a growing need out there that found this country as the only industrialized nation to not have a universal health care program, when that is put at risk again because of the efforts to repeal.
We are joined by my colleague from California, Representative John Garamendi.
JOHN, you witnessed this vote just now to repeal health care. The Affordable Care Act was providing hope and opportunity and promise to all generations in this American mosaic. It is a tragic moment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. We, I know, are joined by some of our colleagues. But if you want to go through your chart.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. And interestingly, Representative Garamendi, we've been reminded I think by the general public that the legislature, the legislative body here, Congress, took up the bill. They passed it. It went over to the President. He signed it. The highest court in the land, a conservative-leaning court, reviewed it, made their decision and rendered a decision that said it met with constitutionality.
People are saying go forward. Move on. Get to the issues that now have got to be resolved, and that is the economy, creating the jobs, producing the post-recession responsiveness that people so much require and deserve, and that's where they're at.
We've been joined by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton who has joined us.
Representative, thank you for joining us in the Special Order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative HOLMES NORTON.
You know, you talk about the struggle and the move to repeal. It obviously didn't place consumers first and foremost in that thought process. It was probably listening to those deep pockets of interest that did not want to be pulled to the table to provide better outcomes for our consumers.
Look at the benefits of the health care law for our seniors: 5.1 million seniors receiving savings on their prescription drugs. Actually, I've seen this number as high as 5.3 million, and probably climbing in the short order of time. What an important, significant savings. I hear it all the time from seniors in my district who are always reaching into their pockets after that doughnut hole is hit, and they get the benefit for a while until they hit a certain threshold. As we all know, many, in a short order of months, are digging into their own pockets. These are medications that are required to stay well, and in many cases to stay alive.
There are 32.5 million seniors receiving free preventative services--health care screenings, the annual checkup, flu shots--items that are brought to their benefit in order to, again, underscore the value added of wellness. Strengthening consumer protections for seniors in the part D program, something I heard a lot of favorable review about, and 85 percent of Medicare Advantage plan revenues going toward senior medical care rather than profits for the insurance industry.
So these are big changes. These are changes that were welcomed by the senior community. I can tell you, if you close that doughnut hole by the year 2020, as the Affordable Care Act is to do, you're providing a major benefit for seniors, with the advancement of pharmaceuticals that speak to all sorts of illnesses. This is a wonderful opportunity for them to understand the attachment that is essential.
I heard of far too many people adjusting their dosages of medications to balance their family's budgets. That is not the best outcome for health care. This advances sound decisionmaking, efficiencies, the best use, the wisest use of resources and, again, speaking to the dignity factor of our country's senior citizens.
Representative Marcy Kaptur from Ohio, a great Representative, a strong voice for consumers in this House, thank you for joining Representative Garamendi and me. It's great to have you here. I know that you're hearing a lot in the State of Ohio.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Kaptur. Please feel free to share more information with us. The anecdotal evidence that you provide from your region alone speaks to the empowerment that is part of this transition, this progressive policy.
And to now attempt to repeal, just as you've given people the sense of hope that there will be a doable outcome, that they won't have to cut medication in half so that they could have enough money to do all the other items that are required of them, to pay utility bills, or to afford to eat for that given month--the fact that they would cut their medication in half is not a sound thing. They're spending money, and it's probably ineffective.
And so tethering people to a system that is sound and secure. You know, when people say, well, I don't want to pay for someone's insurance, I don't want to pay for this health care program. You're paying today through premiums and through taxes. You're paying for the worst sort of outcome by putting people into emergency rooms and having them visit with a different doctor each time they visit and not having the stability and the standardized outcome that is predictable and effective and efficient.
These are the dynamics that are driven by the soundness of a policy like this, that, yes, will take investment, but will get far greater bang for the buck than what we're getting today with a haphazard sort of response that does not provide continuity or direction or
standardization or predictability and certainty. We will be far better off and a much more compassionate response is rendered.
From a taxpayer perspective, from a consumer perspective, it's a far greater, stronger, more intelligent outcome; and it speaks to, I think, the core fabric of this wonderful country that we do truly care. And this is a way to show it and still be economically sounder in our attempts.
Thank you for sharing the anecdotal evidence.
Representative Garamendi, you and I have done a number of these Special Orders on this House floor, and I find it fascinating to see what the response is out there from the public, who always call to engage and get more information. And so the fact that we can provide more information on what is included in the Affordable Care Act, I think, is a good opportunity here.
And I know you always have a lot to say and a lot to share, and your walk in your professional life as insurance commissioner was an important bit of strength for all of us in the caucus.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. The gentleman from California speaks of the Medicare Advantage programs. Obviously, they came about because there were those who suggested they could do it cheaper. Give us a special model out there and launch it as a pilot, and we'll show you how we can do this special programming and give us a return.
After reviewing now what is the history of all of that, it was deemed that there were overpayments of anywhere from 10 to 14 percent. So the dollars were slid over to programs like filling the doughnut hole and providing for screenings for our seniors, not taking it away from a category of health care consumers--in this case, an age demographic of seniors--but taking those savings, as we sweep those savings, and then reinvesting them in a way that provides balance and more sensitivity for the consumer rather than having record profits developed for an industry. To me, that was progressive policy. And for people to then take those savings and use them in their own budget presentations for other purposes was disingenuous.
Now, when you talk about the efforts today of the Affordable Care Act to include an exchange, what I think is oftentimes lost, Representative Garamendi, is people see this as some sort of public exchange that is going to be run by the government. In fact, when we set up an exchange and when private sector sources come to the table, if they're willing to abide by the rules, if they're going to govern themselves by the parameters that have been established in the legislation, they can then offer services through the exchange. So it's a private sector solution but with new caveats of parameters that are established so as to provide benefit for the consumer.
When you think of it, if there are firms that hire 10 people and one of those 10 becomes catastrophically ill, the actuarial impact of that one individual circumstance can drive premiums up for that small business in very high order. That kind of impact is unacceptable for the small business community that today pays some 18 percent more for its insurance and oftentimes gets weaker coverage.
With the benefits of an exchange that is private sector-driven, you now have the opportunities that people can have that actuarial measurement made in a pool of perhaps millions so that the unsteady and unpredictable kind of outcome for small business is now rendered more efficient and more sensitive by shaving the peaks that may occur in a universe as small as 10 people.
So there is a science to this. There is thoughtfulness that has been pumped into the discussion; and by inserting that thoughtfulness, we have come up with reforms that really speak to a wiser use of this country's health care dollars. It was a folding in of progress over the course of several years that was initiated with its passage a couple of years ago that needed time to work. To then move to repeal before a
number of these programs are even implemented and for people to just play politics with the lives of individuals, with the health care quality of individuals, is regrettable, and then for us to be asked to visit for the 31st time a repeal exercise in some 19 consecutive months.
We used this week of session in Congress to debate for hours, to message for hours, to come to the floor for votes. These were session days that were used up for the repeat of an exercise that time and time and time again has been conducted just to politically posture when, in fact, the American public is saying, Look, you voted on this. Look, the President signed it into law. Look, the Supreme Court--the highest law in the land, the conservative-leaning Court--has ruled constitutionality.
They want us to move forward with job creation, with responding to the cures this economy needs. We started with a terrible pit of a recession: 8.2 million jobs lost and 800,000 jobs being lost per month as this administration started and, ironically, when I started my service in the House of Representatives. We were in a dark, deep hole. To come out of that with 29 consecutive months of private sector job growth and to come out of that with over 4 million jobs created in the private sector and to go forward with an effort to reform our health care system in a way that extends greater opportunity and beacons of hope to families, individuals, those who are catastrophically ill, those denied because of preexisting conditions, pharmaceuticals unaffordable for many seniors, to have all that turned around and to have all of this progress of the comeback trail from the recessionary period that was far too long and far too deep and far too painful than anyone ever forecasted--to strike that kind of progress and then have it met with 31 consecutive efforts to repeal the situation is regrettable. It's regrettable.
Representative Garamendi, you've been here for those 31 efforts. Has anything changed? It's the same old, same old that is being expressed out there that does not, I think, meet the concerns of individuals out there from coast to coast.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, I couldn't agree more with the need to exchange statistics here, the real stats on what is happening. We only have a short history, but already it's a powerful statement.
When you look at healthy pregnancies, that front-end life investment which this embraces, what a soundness to the rationale for progressive policy.
When you think of the dignity factor for those senior years so that people aren't chopping a pill in half so as to meet their family budget and take care of half of their medical needs, this is an exercise of foolishness to repeal at a time when we've just started the engine of recovery and transformation and transition and reform.
We also know that--and I hear it from my constituents all the time--repeal. What's the replacement? There is no hint of a replacement because you took it halfway and said, We're just going to repeal this. That's the political posturing that is so painful, because you have now delivered to society a new opportunity to better steward our resources, to better provide for the dignity in the equation so that people can have that comfort zone, knowing that if they get impacted by some sort of catastrophic illness--and we've seen it in our communities, in our neighborhoods, in our families where peoples' lives are turned around in an instant. To those who you suggested might not buy the insurance, who then bears the burden if there is a catastrophic outcome?
They're saying, Oh, you're asking them to pay a tax if they don't want insurance.
If they don't have insurance and they get a catastrophic illness, they fall into some sort of huge accident, who's going to pay? You're right, Representative Garamendi, there are those that get in charity situations where premiums cover it, taxpayers cover it.
This has been thought out in a very meaningful way. We talk about a global competitiveness. We talk about our industries going to the marketplace, international marketplace, wind contracts, produce in America, and grow jobs. Part of the price that they have to calculate is the cost of health care. If we're providing a benefit to our business community, if we're having a smarter approach taken to the health care dollars being utilized in best fashion, there's a corresponding benefit that befalls the economic recovery opportunities because our businesses will be able to have the benefit of the soundness of that universal health care system to more effectively compete in the international marketplace, to secure those contracts that then translate into jobs.
There is an interconnectedness here that goes well beyond health care policy. It falls into the realm of economic recovery and business creation and all sorts of quality-of-life issues that market our neighborhoods, our States, and our Nation for jobs.
We know what's happening in other Nations. They have taken the bull by the horns, and they have put together a good, sound system, and we were comfortable to have status quo be our rule, our guiding light. It was the boldness of those leaders that came forward and said: There is a better way to use those dollars out there. There are better ways to reach people. There is a need for preventive and wellness programs, for screenings and for those annual checkups, making certain that pharmaceutical needs are something that are within the grasp of our senior community and our middle-income community and our middle-aged community.
To cite scenarios like that of your staffer and his child, to provide that hope in the middle of despair where people have abandoned the hope for a better tomorrow for their children because of lack of affordability, to cover those health care situations, that's what this is about.
This is the old American spirit coming forward. It's about speaking as a community, not as individuals disconnected from one another. It's about thinking as a society, of a greatness of America at her best: compassionate, resolved to make a difference, determined to use our resources in a way that is most effective, most efficient, most smart. It is America at a great, shining moment. And to denounce all of that progress and to move for repeal speaks volumes about greed and about injustice and the desire to turn progress around.
Representative Garamendi, we close in the next minute or two. Any closing thoughts from you? I thank you for joining us this evening.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT