Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3762, Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015; Waiving A Requirement of Clause 6(A) of Rule XIII with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions Reported from the Committee on Rules; and Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. I do so as somebody who comes from a State which, unlike maybe the gentleman from Georgia, actually embraced this law. The Governor set up an exchange right away, and we have had what Forbes Magazine has described as the highest functioning exchange in the country. Our uninsured rate went from 8 percent down to 4 percent. We have more insurers in the marketplace today than we did before the ACA was passed.

On Labor Day, I was at a picnic with some friends, and there was a gentleman there who was the head of HR for the second largest employer in this community that I was at. It was about a 300-employee firm, a trash hauler, who was actually quite concerned about the ACA's definition of part-time and full-time in terms of raising his rates. For the last 2 years, his rates have gone down. He yelled from the pool where he was playing with his kids, splashing around in the water, saying: Tell President Obama thank you for the Affordable Care Act because our rates have gone down for the 275 people that worked there.

So, Mr. Speaker, then the question is: What does this bill do? The fact of the matter is, by eliminating the individual mandate, by basically destroying the financing of tax subsidies, which is precisely the way that you broaden the insurance market so that you can implement an elimination of preexisting conditions, you, in fact, are totally capsizing the market.

I know that because the State of Connecticut insurance department and the exchange have looked at what this bill is going to do to the individual mandate, and that is precisely what they said the outcome would be, that it would send rates through the roof and basically

shatter the success that our State has accomplished.

What is so ironic about this is that the design of this bill with an individual mandate and tax subsidies for insurance came from the Heritage Foundation. Stuart Butler was the mastermind of this back in the 1990s. I was chairman of the Public Health Committee back then, and I remember vividly that that was the Heritage Foundation, the conservative alternative to healthcare reform, to the Clinton healthcare plan. But, obviously, for political reasons, that is not mentioned very much by the majority as we again debate this ad nauseam.

What is sad is that 2 weeks ago we passed a bill, H.R. 1624, sponsored by my good friend, Mr. Guthrie from Kentucky, which amended the Affordable Care Act. It changed the definition of ``small employer,'' and it was done on a bipartisan basis, completely unanimous. It sailed through the House, and President Obama signed it.

Why did that work? Because they did it surgically, because BRETT was smart enough to understand that if you want to get people to come together, you don't load it up with a bunch of poison pills, that you actually present an idea with focus and with logic behind it. Guess what will happen. You will actually get bipartisan support, the complete opposite of the bill that we have before us here today.

Now, I want to point out, though, that there are some signs of intelligent life in this reconciliation bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, section 305 does, as the gentleman from Georgia points out, eliminate the excise tax on high-class plans.

It is interesting to note that 5 years ago it was the House Members who pushed hard against that proposal with the administration, and we delayed that tax for 5 years. H.R. 2050, which I am the lead sponsor of, I am proud to say we have 166 bipartisan cosponsors. It is verbatim the language that was incorporated into the reconciliation bill.

So I point that out because I do think that it, in fact, will basically sharply increase people's out-of-pocket deductibles because that is what actuaries tell us is the only way you can respond to that kind of tax. It is true that 83 organizations, including organized labor, business groups, and small-business groups have said this is not a workable plan. I mention that here because there is an opportunity here to do what Congressman Guthrie did, which is to take an individual component, an idea, and not load it up with a lot of other baggage which is going to capsize the insurance market, which we know is going to happen if other provisions of the reconciliation bill are passed, that we can actually get it done.

You are giving the White House a perfect excuse to veto this bill and robbing us of the ability to actually address this real problem, which section 305 does recognize, and H.R. 2050 is out there and is on standby for us to move forward on. So let's get rid of the blunt instruments, the baseball bats, and the butchering of this law, and let's focus on bipartisan surgical fixes to real problems.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source