Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have been able to sit in and listen to the debate today about bringing forward a bill that will do two simple things: remove funding from the single largest provider of abortions in the country, an organization that has recently sold the body parts of children to the highest bidder. Also, we would deal with one of the main issues that I face every single day in my State, as people struggle under the harmful effects every day of the Affordable Care Act, which has proven to be neither affordable nor caring to many people in my State.

Let me say some of the things that I have heard recently--that this is all about going after women's health. As a very proud husband of a very beautiful lady and a proud dad of two beautiful daughters and as a son of a breast cancer survivor, this has nothing to do with going after women's health, nor demonizing women, nor the war on women, nor all the other accusations that I have recently heard. This is not about protecting what I have heard called a lifesaving health care organization where 325,000 children died in it last year. This is about a simple thing: children.

In the past, back in the old days, they used to identify tissue as just tissue. The wart on your skin and other tissues in your body were expendable, and it was just tissue, so why does it matter? In the past people used to think that way, but now science is able to look inside the womb and is able to count 10 fingers and 10 toes on a child and watch a child suck its thumb. Scientists can look inside and take a sample and see that that child has different DNA than the mom and dad. We are now able to look inside the womb and see a unique fingerprint that is different from the mom and dad's fingerprint. We understand something different now because in the past there was a belief that it was just tissue, but now we understand it is not tissue. It is a child. As Americans we believe in a simple thing: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It has been what we have been all about from the beginning. This is not some attack on women's health. These are millions of voices rising up around the Nation and saying: We are better than this as a nation.

Why would we continue to supplement the death of children? Why would we do that? Can we be better than that? In the days ahead, I firmly believe we are on the right side of history, those of us who stand up for children and for those who cannot speak for themselves. The most innocent and vulnerable in our society need our protection. Just because they are small and just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not valuable and can be thrown away. These are children we are talking about--little girls, little boys--and we think it is important that someone in this country speaks out for them.

I have heard of late that those of us who speak for life should be quieter because there are irrational people in the country who would attack a Planned Parenthood clinic. I just have to reinforce this point: No one who speaks for life goes and takes a life. No one who speaks for the lives of children runs out and takes the life of an adult and says that is justifiable. It is not justifiable. It is horrific. But just like those individuals who speak tenaciously against religion shouldn't be silenced because there was a shooting in a church, saying people who are anti-faith should suddenly have no voice in America because some irrational person shoots someone in a church, the same is true that individuals who speak out for the lives of children shouldn't suddenly be silenced by being screamed down because an insane person does a shooting in a clinic. Both of them are wrong.

It is reasonable for us to ask a simple question: Can we, as a nation, start a conversation again about children with 10 fingers and 10 toes and unique DNA with life and promise? Can someone speak out for them? I think we can.

This conversation today is also about the Affordable Care Act, its promises, and what has actually occurred. There is no question we have major health care delivery issues in America. There is no question we have major insurance issues in America. It has been that way for a while, and it needs desperate resolution.

My State, like many other States, started stepping into this. A Democratic Governor from my State led the way with our legislature in 2004 to pass something called Insure Oklahoma and start the process in our State, asking: What can we do to try to help the most vulnerable in our State? How can we help provide some supplement to another plan?

We received waivers around Medicaid and started working through a process both for those who are employed and not employed to help provide that safety net for those individuals. It was a very successful plan until the Affordable Care Act was passed, and then the waivers were removed from our State and those individuals under that plan lost their plan and had to change to another one. In fact, I had some of those individuals approach me and say: I know this is a plan that is provided by our State so it will be grandfathered into the Affordable Care Act, won't it? I had to tell them: No, it will not. We have been denied on that.

It is remarkable to me, as we deal with these two topics side by side, how some of the opponents of life can say: We want freedom of choice and Big Government out of our lives, but when we get to health care delivery, the bigger the government, the better. We want less choice. We don't want States to have the option to do that. We don't want businesses to be able to choose how they are going to do that. We don't want individuals to be able to have that choice. We want Big Government to step into people's lives and their health care delivery and tell them how it is going to be done. It is fascinating to me to be able to see those two issues juxtaposed all of a sudden--get government out of our lives but get more government into our health care.

Now what do we do?

In 2010, President Obama made this statement in his State of the Union Address:

By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Co-pays will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans and neither should the people in this Chamber.

It is an interesting statement based on what actually occurred then after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was actually passed, which is another issue to me. It is interesting to me how now this is really called ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act. Almost no one calls it the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, when that was originally its name, and now for some reason patient protection has been dropped from our vernacular when this bill is discussed.

So he made the statement that more Americans will have lost their health insurance. I have already referenced how we had thousands of Oklahomans lose their health care coverage as soon as the Affordable Care Act went into place because they were on Insure Oklahoma. That coverage was lost for them. We now have fewer options in Oklahoma for health care.

Blue Cross Blue Shield began notifying 40,000 Oklahomans it will no longer offer the Blue Choice provider network to individuals. CommunityCare of Oklahoma, a Tulsa-based company offering health maintenance organization plans, has notified the Federal Government it plans to drop out of the Affordable Care Act market. GlobalHealth, another Tulsa-based HMO insurer, said it has already notified Oklahomans it is leaving the Affordable Care Act market. Assurant Health, a Wisconsin company that has also covered Oklahomans, has now notified the government it is leaving the health care coverage area. UnitedHealthcare, the new participant in Oklahoma's Affordable Care Act market, has not announced the details of the plans it will offer, but State officials said its rates will be competitive. That will be interesting because next year the rates in Oklahoma will go up, on average, 35 percent. That is not some projected number. That is the actual number that rates will increase in my State--35 percent.

It is interesting to me that yesterday on this same floor I heard arguments back and forth about the cost-of-living increase and the need for individuals who are in a vulnerable position and are receiving Social Security--need that help for a cost-of-living increase. I completely understand the dynamic of that, but at the same time individuals who would support a cost-of-living increase for Social Security recipients don't seem to bat an eye when people in my State have health insurance increases of 35 percent next year. Do you know how difficult it is to cover a 35-percent health care premium increase?

While the President was speaking in 2010, he said that the premiums will go up. Under the plan he put into place, the premiums will dramatically go up in my State in 2016. The President said while speaking in 2010: ``The copays will go up unless we don't do something.''

The editorial board of the great Oklahoma newspaper, The Oklahoman, on November 30, said:

Numerous reports have noted that policies sold through ObamaCare exchanges increasingly rely on very high deductibles with limited provider networks. For someone with a major illness such as cancer, these policies are still beneficial. But for relatively healthy people, the deductibles are so high that there's little functional difference between being uninsured and insured when it comes to an impact on one's personal finances.

I cannot tell you the number of Oklahomans I have talked to who have said this one thing to me: I have insurance because the law requires me to do it, but it is so expensive I cannot use it. So I literally pay for something because I am forced to, but I can't actually use it on a day-to-day basis because the copays are so high.

I hear the same thing from doctors and hospitals. Hospitals were told that their charity care would go down because everyone will be forced to have insurance. Here is what I actually hear from the hospitals in Oklahoma: Their charity care has gone up, all of them. Their charity care and their writeoff have gone up because now those individuals walk into those hospitals and say: I have insurance. But when they get the bill and realize how high their payment will be, they say: I cannot pay it. So the charity care at hospitals has actually gone up.

This is from a statement President Obama made in 2010: ``Patients will be denied the care that they need.'' Well, let me give you an example. On June 4 of this year, there was a highlight of Kaylen Richter, a 4-year-old who was denied coverage under the marketplace for a prescription she needed for her asthma. We have a loss of choice and a loss of competition in my State. Instead of more options, we have fewer options.

Doctors' offices are selling out because physicians can't seem to make ends meet. There are so many requirements on them, they are selling their private practice and going into larger hospital practices. Hospitals are actually having to take in diagnostic facilities. Hospitals are taking care of individual physician practices. Hospitals are combining with other hospitals.

Instead of greater competition, we see a smaller number of hospitals and a smaller number of entities. Instead, hospitals and entities are becoming larger and larger to be able to sustain that. We have even seen that nationally in the insurance market. Because of what is happening in the Affordable Care Act, it is pushing out insurance around the country. Remember the great statement: It is not government-controlled health care, it is insurance. Right now, Anthem, Cigna, Aetna, and Humana are all going through a combining process, where those four insurance companies that are national, large-scale companies realize they cannot make it under the Affordable Care Act and are merging into one giant company to see if they can make it as a giant company, resulting in fewer options, fewer choices, and centrally controlled health care.

How do we turn this back? I will tell you in some ways, you can't. The Democrats and President, who have passed this, have succeeded in permanently changing health care in America.

Those individual physicians who used to practice individual medicine all over the country and have now merged into larger hospitals, you don't undo that. Those individuals who were going to go into medical school but chose not to now, you don't undo that for a generation. These insurance companies that combined into large groups, you don't undo that. The diagnostic facilities that are going out of business and merging with large hospitals, you don't just quickly undo that. They have succeeded at permanently changing health care delivery in America.

The challenge now is, How do we help in the days ahead? What do we do? I will say that some things can be done. We can continue to provide greater options, but the first thing we can do is stop the hemorrhaging. First, do no harm. First, engage and try to help the people who are affected by this.

I have offered an amendment in this bill that deals with something called the health care compact. It allows individual States that want to be able to manage their health care to be able to manage the health care in their State. This may seem like a crazy idea except it is already done in every single State right now. Every single State already has a Medicaid process, has a health care authority, and has already made decisions which are severely limited by Federal regulations, but that structure is already in place to take care of the most vulnerable in our Nation.

The health care compact would allow States to be able to broaden their authorities and to be able to do what needs to be done in order to take care of the individuals in their State, as my State has tried so hard to do with Insure Oklahoma and other options to be made available to people in my State that are being forbidden by the Federal Government. This would open that back up and would allow that competition.

I can assure you that every time I speak to smaller rural hospitals in my State, they cannot get the attention of CMS and the Federal Government because they are small and rural and people in DC don't know where they are located and they don't have a big enough lobbying voice. They are just another one of those community hospitals out there. That doesn't happen if they are interacting with people in my State. Because those health care parameters are being set by people in Oklahoma City and our State capitol, they know every small rural hospital and the dynamics and difficulties there. They are not last in line. They are a part of the family.

Allowing individual States to be able to make health care decisions through a health care compact that actually allows that State to be able to manage health care in their State is a tremendous asset. My State, along with eight other States, has asked for that. It is not an unfair request. It is something we should make available to States that choose to do that.

Will every State choose to do that? No. Some States will probably want the Federal Government to be able to manage their health care. Those States are free to do that, but for States that want to be able to have that choice, allow them to have the freedom to do that. If they have the structure in place to fulfill the needs within their State, why would we forbid it? Why in the world would we say that those of us in Washington, DC, know and care more for Oklahomans than Oklahomans? When the folks in Washington, DC, say: No, we care more about that State and those people in that State rather than the people of that State, I think they are misguided.

This can be done differently.

What are we up against? We are up against real people who face real issues. It has been incredibly difficult for them to be able to walk through the ObamaCare transition. This is not about patient protection, and it has been far from affordable as prices continue to go up.

Let me read one story from my State. It is from a lady who lives in a rural area in my State, which has been one of the toughest areas. The Affordable Care Act assumes everyone lives in New York City or some metropolitan area. Welcome to the rest of America. Not everyone lives in big, urban settings. This is one of those folks. She lives in a rural area, not too far, but a good distance, from Oklahoma City.

She said she sold some land recently--and by the way, she is on a health care exchange. She sold some land recently, which we do in rural America. That made her income go up significantly for that 1 year--one land sale. She said the marketplace doesn't see it as a 1-year thing, so they take all the information about her subsidies on that before taxes. So it raised her premium from $43 to $400. She said she is going to try to figure out a way to be able to manage that.

Then she says this: Why does she have to pay so much for a plan that is not even usable in her area? No one will take her insurance, and providers are dropping it because they are not getting paid. She has to travel now all the way to Oklahoma City so she can find care at all. All she is looking for is an affordable option and providers in her area that will actually take it. It is one thing to say it provides an option. It is another thing to say people can actually access that option.

We can do better as Americans. This is a conversation we should have. Let's have it. Let's talk about a better way to be able to do this. This is not about fixing something. This is about a transition that is happening in health care in America that needs to be corrected. We can never go back to where we were. There has been too much permanent damage in the system. Now it is a matter of what can be done that is best for people--not what is best for the Federal Government but what is best for the people of our States. Let's do it.

I encourage the adoption of my amendment, and I encourage the adoption of this reconciliation package that is before our Nation and this body in the days ahead.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. President.

That was actually the first thing I was going to say, that we refer back to Senate rules that we are to address the Presiding Officer rather than each other, and I appreciate the Presiding Officer acknowledging that, according to Senate rules.

My simple statement today was not intended to be offensive. In fact, I think if I went back through the transcript of what I said--I am looking for what was offensive rhetoric that was stated multiple times by the Senator from California. As I try to think back through what was offensive rhetoric, my saying that children have ten fingers and ten toes, unique DNA, and a unique fingerprint doesn't seem to be offensive. I think also if I went through the legislative record, I never talked about criminalizing anything. I heard multiple times through a conversation on the floor that I was criminalizing, criminalizing, criminalizing. I was actually speaking out for millions of children each year that die and saying: Would we not want to reconsider the new science that has been available in America for decades now, to look inside the womb and see ten fingers and ten toes and unique DNA and a fingerprint that is different from the mom or the dad, and to understand that we have a basic principle as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? That is a unique value.

Even the Supreme Court, when they ruled on Roe v. Wade, talked about viability. Current science continues to press on what is viable. A friend of mine delivered last year a little girl that was 14 ounces. That little girl is a healthy little girl now over 1 year old, continuing and doing fine. In 1973 that child would not have been viable. She is very much a child. She is beautiful.

As for this whole conversation about millions of people losing insurance if ObamaCare goes away and don't I care about millions of people and insurance, the issue is not millions of people being covered. There are other ways to be able to help millions of Americans. As I acknowledged when I spoke, there are real issues in health care delivery in America and there are significant issues that continue to this day. My simple statement was that those issues get larger and larger, and my concern is that while individuals would stand up and say we have millions of people covered, they ignore a 35-percent increase of premiums in my State. They ignore the reality of a growing copay in my State and that people are forced by law to buy a product they cannot actually afford to use. My simple statement is this: Can we not acknowledge--not that there are not millions of people not newly covered--that we have millions of people now that have a coverage that they cannot use and cannot afford to keep yet they are compelled by law to do it. In fact, they become criminals if they don't buy the health care coverage required by law. These are real issues and they really do need dialogue. Good civil dialogue will help us work these things out--and centering in on the facts.

With that, I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source