Water Resources Development Act of 2016 -- Motion to Proceed -- Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak once again on the failures of the so-called Affordable Care Act and what they mean for hard- working families and taxpayers.
This is far from the first time I have come to the floor to talk about ObamaCare. Indeed, over the past several years, I don't think I have spoken as often about any other topic, and I am not alone. Since the time the Democrats forced the Affordable Care Act through Congress on a series of pure party-line votes, my Republican colleagues and I have been speaking about the poor judgment and shortsightedness that has unfortunately defined the trajectory of this law from its drafting to its passage and now well into its implementation. Quite frankly, we have had plenty of ammunition. It seems like we are treated to at least one new ObamaCare horror story every week.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have done their best to downplay our criticisms and minimize every negative story written about the problems with ObamaCare. In fact, just this morning the Senate minority leader came to the floor and pronounced the Affordable Care Act a success, but the American people have long recognized the truth: ObamaCare isn't working and it never will. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is not just political rhetoric in an election year. By its own standards--and the standards of those who drafted, passed, and implemented the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare has been a historic failure.
Case in point, the American people were promised that ObamaCare would bring down health costs, but in reality costs are continuing to go up. Over this summer, as we moved ever closer to the next open enrollment period for the ObamaCare insurance exchanges, we have learned that insurers throughout the country have submitted requests to raise premiums by an average of 18 to 23 percent over last year's premiums. For some plans, the requested rate hikes are significantly higher than that average, coming in at more than 60 percent according to some recent reports.
Consider the following expected rate increases. In California, policyholders can expect a 13-percent average increase in premiums, which more than triples the increases seen in the past 2 years. In Florida, they can expect a rate increase over 19 percent on average over this year. In Nebraska, they can expect an average increase of 35 percent, with some rates increasing by nearly 50 percent. In Wisconsin, rates are expected to increase on average by as much as 30 percent. These numbers are more staggering when you consider that when the law was passed, the Congressional Budget Office projected rate increases of only 8 percent at this point.
By some estimates, premiums for silver plans--the standard metric-- are expected to increase 11 percent, more than they have at any point since ObamaCare was implemented.
While some of my colleagues have claimed that the evidence of massive premium increases is mostly anecdotal and that tax credits help blunt the overall cost increase, they simply cannot ignore the facts. Premiums in the ObamaCare insurance exchanges are going up in markets throughout the country, and according to CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, 12 million individuals are estimated to have to pay the full price next year because they either are not eligible for credits or they would choose to purchase coverage outside the ObamaCare exchanges. What is more, the middle class is increasingly bearing the brunt of these increased costs.
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, middle-class families are spending 25 percent more on health care costs, which reduces their spending on other necessities. David Cutler, the health care economist from Harvard, is quoted in the article as saying, when it comes to health care, it is `` `a story of three Americas.' One group, the rich, can afford health care easily. The poor can access public assistance. But for lower middle to middle-income Americans, `the income struggles and the health-care struggles together are a really potent issue.' ''
Our focus should no longer be on the question of whether premiums are going up. We should instead be trying to figure out why it is happening. In the end, there are a lot of reasons why Americans are paying more for health insurance under a new system that was supposed to help them pay less, but the overall explanation is actually pretty simple: The President's health care law was poorly designed, and they know it.
Recall when my friends were drafting and passing the Affordable Care Act, they claimed that the system they were putting in place--complete with higher taxes, burdensome mandates, and draconian regulations-- would entice more people into the health insurance market. With the larger pool of insured individuals, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that insurers would be able to keep pace with all the new requirements imposed under the law without passing costs on to patients. We now know that these projections were, to put it nicely, foolhardy. From the outset, enrollment in the ObamaCare exchanges has lagged behind the rosy projections we saw when the law was passed. As time has worn on, more and more people have opted to pay the fines rather than purchase health care on the exchanges.
In February 2013, CBO projected that more than 24 million people would be enrolled in the exchanges. As of this past March, the actual number was less than half of that number.
My colleagues, in their desperate attempts to defend the health care law, tend to focus solely on the number of uninsured people in the United States--a number that has, admittedly, gone down in recent years. However, what they tend to leave out is the fact that the vast majority of newly insured people under the law haven't purchased insurance through the exchanges. They have enrolled in Medicaid, a fiscally unsound program that provides less than optimal coverage options for patients. In fact, there are over 30 million people without insurance, which was the reason we enacted the law--or at least that was the argument. Today there are at least 30 million people without insurance.
The Washington Post recently ran an article on the enrollment shortfalls in the exchanges, plainly spelling out the issues. They said:
Debate over how perilous the predicament is for the Affordable Care Act, commonly called ObamaCare, is nearly as partisan as the divide over the law itself. But at the root of the problem is this: The success of the law depends fundamentally on the exchanges being profitable for insurers, and that requires more people to sign up.
Long story short, people are not signing up on the exchanges in the numbers that were promised. As a result, health insurance plans have been forced to adhere to the law's burdensome mandates and regulations without the benefit of an expanded and healthier risk pool. So as we have seen in recent months, plans in many of the exchanges have reported massive losses, leading a number of major insurers in important markets throughout the country to terminate their plans altogether. The result: patients and consumers are being left with fewer and fewer options.
According to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly one out of every three counties in the United States is likely to have only one health insurance option available on the exchanges in 2017. Another third of U.S. counties will only have two options available. Thus, what had been approximately 35 percent of the counties with two or less options on the exchanges is likely to double to around 67 percent.
Furthermore, more than 2 million individuals are expected to have to change plans for 2017 as a result of insurers leaving States, which is nearly double compared to those who had switched carriers at the end of last year.
You don't need a Ph.D. in economics to know that, generally speaking, fewer options means higher costs for consumers and lower quality products being offered. That is exactly what the American people are dealing with when it comes to health insurance. This includes people from my home State of Utah. For example, one of my constituents, Mr. Chris Secrist, wrote to me. He said:
Since the new health care law was forced on us my premiums along with my deductibles have skyrocketed. With my premium, deductible, and ``out of pocket'' expense . . . my total out of pocket expense for insurance now tops $20,000 per year . . . can anyone . . . explain how this can be considered ``affordable health care''?
Over the August recess, I met with the Utah board of directors of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and there I heard from many Utahns about the skyrocketing cost of care over the past 3 years. These constituents repeatedly emphasized that they had initially hoped ObamaCare would help them, but in their experience, it had only made things worse and much more expensive.
The downward spiral of ObamaCare is a circle that cannot be broken without some kind of intervention. While there are a number of ideas out there to address these problems, there are really only two major paths we can take. We can enact reforms that are patient-centered and market-driven or we can expand the role of government in regulating, mandating and, in the end, paying for more and more of our health care system.
Republicans in Congress, myself included, have proposed plans that would take us down the first path toward more patient-centered reforms. My friends on the other side, when they are not doubling down on the status quo under ObamaCare, are advocating for even more government involvement. Case in point, the Democrat's nominee for President has outlined a number of ``reforms'' she would like to add to the ``progress we've made'' under ObamaCare. Each of her proposals amounts to an expanded role for the Federal Government, including the renewed idea of the so-called ``public option'' or a government-run plan.
In other words, in this election season, the Democrats' answer to the failure of ObamaCare is more government control of our health care system.
It is funny, beginning in 2009, when the health care law was being finalized, I argued that Democrats intended to keep expanding the role of the Federal Government in health care to the point where they could argue that the only workable option after a series of failures would be to create a single-payer health care system; in other words, socialized medicine.
Some pundits and even my colleagues declared that I was paranoid, that I was trying to scare people into opposing ObamaCare. Yet 7 years later, those claims look relatively prescient, if I do say so myself.
Faced with the failure of ObamaCare to live up to its many promises, my colleagues are not arguing for a change in direction. Instead, they are clamoring for more authority to dictate the terms of what had been a private health care marketplace before. In a world where the government dictates both the products on the market and the prices at which they are sold, the eventual result is a marketplace in which the government is the only available provider. In other words, while many of my friends on the other side will deny they want to create a single- payer or socialized medicine health care system in the United States, that is the direction they have us headed.
Fortunately, the march toward a single-payer system is not a fait accompli. We can take action to right this ship now. We can control costs. We can take government out of the equation and give patients and consumers more choices. Of course, to get there, more of my colleagues on the other side will have to acknowledge the failures of the current approach and agree on the need to plot a new course.
Perhaps once the upcoming election is over, we can begin to make progress on these issues. It is my hope that with the current administration in the rearview mirror, people will be more willing to acknowledge the failures of the ObamaCare status quo. I recognize that the coming election may embolden those who support even more rigorous government involvement in the health care sector to try to take us further down the path of a single-payer system. If that is the case, we are looking at an even more contentious environment than the one we are in now.
Don't get me wrong. I want to see more bipartisanship around here. I want us to find more opportunities to work together and get past the blind partisanship that currently fuels so much of what we do here and that caused 100 percent of the Democrats and not one Republican in either House to support ObamaCare. But make no mistake, if the next administration or the next Congress tries to take us further down that path, they are going to have a heck of a fight on their hands. It is a fight that I personally am prepared to win so that we can eventually have a health care system that works for everyone.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source