Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2006--Motion to Proceed
HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE MODERNIZATION AND AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2006--MOTION TO PROCEED
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. This is a good bill, with good intentions. The lack of health insurance, particularly for employees of small businesses, is a significant problem in Utah and throughout the Nation.
We cannot afford to sit by the sidelines and bemoan this problem, taking little action while millions of American families suffer. The House of Representatives has acted and we should do the same.
Immediately upon its passage though, we were besieged by complaints about House legislation, principal among them the complaint that it overrides State insurance law.
[Page: S4172]
I give the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman MIKE ENZI a lot of credit.
Chairman Enzi didn't sit idly by.
He studied the House bill, he held extensive hearings, and then he drafted a compromise that resolved many of the concerns expressed about the House bill. This was no easy job.
Immediately, the HELP Committee effort--a solid effort I might add--was besieged by criticism. Much of this criticism I must hasten to add, is not valid.
``It isn't going to cover cancer care,'' the naysayers decry.
``It isn't going to cover diabetics and their supplies,'' they allege.
``It isn't going to cover prenatal care or OB/GYN care for women,'' is a recent complaint.
``It is going to run chiropractors, podiatrists and optometrists out of business,'' say hundreds of form letters that have flooded our offices.
The problem is, these complaints aren't even true. While the standard plan employees must be offered under this bill may not cover all those things, S. 1955 clearly provides an alternative. Employees must be offered an enhanced plan, based on the coverage that public employees receive in the five most populous States, if their employer's standard plan is not consistent with State law.
Most, if not all, of these services would be included in those enhanced plans that employers must offer under S. 1955.
But, let's talk about our basic goal here.
We want to provide affordable health insurance coverage to those who currently do not have coverage.
If we could afford to give them coverage for every possible illness, condition, or procedure, if small businesses could afford to give them coverage for every possible illness, condition or procedure, don't you think it would have been done by now?
Of course it would.
That is the genius of the Enzi bill. It allows a basic level of coverage--perhaps not every single service imaginable, but good solid health care insurance--and for those who want to pay more, there is a plan with more coverage.
In that way, the millions of Americans without health insurance will have access to coverage.
You may ask yourself, ``Who doesn't have health insurance coverage?''
Today, over 45 million Americans do not have health insurance.
Over 25 percent of self-employed individuals are uninsured.
Over 30 percent of people who work for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees are uninsured.
Over 20 percent of the people who work for small businesses with fewer than 100 employees are uninsured.
Something clearly needs to be done.
And that's why we are here, today, debating S. 1955.
I want to illustrate why passage of this legislation is necessary.
Ramona Rudert and her husband, Michael, have owned Professional Automotive Equipment in North Salt Lake for 28 years. They have 12 employees and they offer health insurance to them.
The Ruderts contribute $200 per month to their employees' health care premiums.
Their employees have to pay approximately $500 per month for family coverage.
Their health insurance plan has a $1000 deductible.
So at least there is potential coverage. But here's the kicker: only one of Professional Automotive Equipment's 12 employees decided to be covered by their company's health policy, besides the Rudert family. The rest of their employees cannot afford it.
The interesting twist about this story is that Ramona and Michael have a daughter with juvenile diabetes. They recognize that the basic plan may not cover all the services their daughter needs.
But when asked why she supports S. 1955, Mrs. Rudert replied that she is ``always looking for ways to improve her employees' access to health care'' and that while she has a daughter with Type 1 diabetes, her greatest concern is about the affordability of insurance premiums for her employees.''
Passage of this bill is the top priority for Mr. and Mrs. Rudert, and thousands of Utah businesses. They recognize that affordability is a key component to making that happen.
Let us not make perfect the enemy of the good.
It is an economic fact of life that a Federal requirement for small businesses to cover every small business employee for every possible health care-related service is neither appropriate nor affordable.
Those who decry this bill because it does not guarantee small business employees a comprehensive plan, must be reminded that most employees of small businesses do not have a choice today, if they are fortunate to have health insurance coverage. The legislation before the Senate will create new options for small businesses and, the potential for more choices.
Today, smaller employers do not have the purchasing power of larger employers. If they offer different types of health plans to their employees, the administrative costs of offering these choices are much higher for small employers.
But by leveraging their combined purchasing power, some local small business associations are offering plans that give employers more choice. I believe that similar models could be created regionally and nationally through S. 1955 through regional and national associations.
The goals of S. 1955 are simple. We want to create more affordable health insurance options through choice and competition.
And we want to end the decades-long deadlock and give real relief to America's small businesses and working families.
Who can argue with that?
And small businesses support the freedom to band together across state lines, even without self-funding. Insurance companies support the creation of a level playing field with Small Business Health Plans.
Most important, according to a Mercer study released on March 7, 2006, it is predicted that costs will go down 12 percent for small employers and coverage of the working uninsured will go up 8 percent, approximately 1 million more working Americans.
An added benefit is that the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, believes that passage of S. 1955 will reduce net spending in the Medicaid Program. This is due to the enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance plans of people, who under current law, would be covered by Medicaid.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 1955 would reduce direct spending for the Federal share of Medicaid expenditures by $235 million over the 2007-2011 period and $790 million over the 2007-2016 period. In addition, the bill would result in estimated Medicaid savings to States totaling $180 million over the 2007-2011 period and $600 million over the 2007-2016 period.
CBO estimates that by 2011, approximately 600,000 more people would have health insurance coverage. The majority of these newly covered individuals would be employees of small companies and their dependents.
S. 1955 has been endorsed by a host of organizations: The Small-Business Health Plan Coalition; the National Association of Realtors; the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business; the National Restaurant Association; the National Association of Manufacturers; the Associated Builders and Contractors; the National Association of Home Builders; the National Retail Federation; the Association Healthcare Coalition; the Textile Rental Services Association of America; the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; the Precision Metalforming Association; the American Council of Engineering Council; Women Impacting Public Policy; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; Wendy's International which includes Tim Hortons, Wendy's, Baja Fresh and Cafe Express; Cendant Corporation; American Institute of Architects; Federation of American Hospitals; National Funeral Directors Association; HR Policy Association; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; and the Society of American Florists.
Mr. President, that is an impressive list of supporters.
And I believe that the main reason that we have such an impressive list is due to the leadership of the Chairman MIKE ENZI.
He and his staff did something that the Senate has not been able to do for
[Page: S4173]
over a decade report small business health legislation out of the Senate HELP Committee.
For months, Chairman Enzi spearheaded meetings with the major stakeholders of this legislation the insurance companies, the small business groups, and the insurance commissioners. These meetings produced the bill that we are considering today.
Again, my colleagues may ask themselves, is this bill really needed? Will it truly make a difference?
Just last week a 42-year-old woman from Provo, Utah called my office. Both she and her 9-year-old daughter are diabetics. And she had heard from the American Diabetes Association that S. 1955 would hurt their health coverage.
But as my staff explained the bill's important role in allowing small businesses to provide insurance for their employees, including diabetics, she became very emotional. She recalled how, several years ago, she had her own small business. And buying health care for her employees was forcing her toward bankruptcy. So my constituent had to take away their health insurance. This was extremely difficult for her because she herself had a chronic illness and fully understood the implications. She ended up with an individual health insurance policy. And she found that for the same insurance coverage that she had had in her group insurance policy, she had to pay nearly twice as much.
This happened for two reasons. First, as an individual, she was not eligible for the tax benefit that supports the cost of insurance paid through employers. And, second--because she had diabetes, a chronic illness, her insurance rating caused her to pay significantly more than someone without that disease. There was no risk pool for her to join.
Passage of S. 1955 could have prevented these problems.
I urge my colleagues to think about the health care needs of small business employees in their states before voting on this legislation. This legislation will improve their health care options. Today, they rarely have options when it comes to health insurance and when they do, it is extremely expensive.
Let me conclude by sharing the sentiments of Chris Kyler, the CEO of the Utah Association of Realtors.
Small business owners in Utah are facing a growing crisis with health care availability and affordability. Our profession represents 17% of Utah's gross state product and yet we're arguably the most uninsured working segment in our state simply because we're small business people. As productive contributors to the economy, as a younger, healthier populous, we're supportive of S. 1955 because it will provide us with the opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance.
I believe that Mr. Kyler's sentiments sum up why the Senate needs to pass this legislation as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that employees of small business will have access to affordable health care.
I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/