Providng for Consideration of H.R. 525, Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 525, SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 26, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying measure of H.R. 525. This country leads in medicine and technology. When combined with increased education and awareness, we have made diseases more preventable and treatable. We have made huge strides, for example, diagnosing and treating breast cancer. Women are now going in for annual mammograms. In and of itself, mammograms do not prevent breast cancer, but they can save lives by finding breast cancer as early as possible.
For example, mammograms have been shown to lower the chance of dying from breast cancer by 35 percent in women over the age of 50. And studies suggest for women between 40 and 50, they may lower the chance of dying of breast cancer by 25 to 35 percent.
Having worked on educational campaigns for over a decade, I know that it has not been easy to convince women that they should be asking their doctor for a mammogram, nor, I might add, has it been easy to ensure that health insurance companies cover the cost of these mammograms. But through the tireless efforts of doctors, survivors, and advocates, the insurance companies relented.
Today we are increasingly catching and treating breast cancer in the early stages, yet the legislation we are debating here on the floor today would effectively roll back these advances, and, even worse, doctors would now have to tell the 28-year-old woman who thinks she has found a lump in her breast that her health care insurance does not cover a mammogram to better see the abnormality; that her health care coverage is no longer subject to minimum standards established by her State because she is covered by an associated health plan, an AHP, which is located in a different State with far more relaxed laws on health care coverage.
Too many Americans are already without sufficient health care coverage. They are being forced to accept health care that does not provide what they need when they fall ill, whether it is breast cancer exams, diabetes medication, or childhood vaccinations. Why would we increase the number of these individuals without adequate health care coverage?
Some may claim that these standards for health care treatments, like those that require insurance companies to cover mammograms, are nothing but burdensome regulations, but these safeguards go to the heart of what responsible health care is all about: providing necessary care to those in need. And AHPs would not even reduce the cost of the premiums. Under the legislation we debate today, AHPs could skim off a small minority of small businesses, those with younger and healthier workforces. As a direct result, 80 percent of small businesses would see an increase in their health care premiums.
Mr. Speaker, I truly question what we are doing today. Why would we create a situation that increases the already skyrocketing health care costs for four out of five small businesses? Sadly, this is what we are doing. We are putting our small businesses in the awkward position of not being able to offer health care coverage to that young woman facing the possibility of breast cancer, or offering access to a health care plan that will not cover her diagnosis and certainly not a treatment.
We could do better by that young woman and our Nation's small business owners. Congress could pass the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), which would allow small business employees to access the same quality health care coverage which Federal employees enjoy. The substitute's Federal partnership would allow this plan to be offered at an affordable price. This alternative would truly have a positive impact, ensuring that Americans have access to affordable and quality health care. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Unfortunately, the legislation we debate on the floor, H.R. 525, which would create AHPs will most likely worsen health care situations. Mr. Speaker, if we, Members of Congress, would not accept a health plan that does not include minimum coverage, why then should the American people?
We have an opportunity today. We can support the Democratic alternative and pass legislation that actually addresses the critical health care problems facing small business owners, or we can pass the legislation in front of us that does the opposite. It should not be a difficult decision. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to votes against the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that only 1 out of every 14 people enrolled in an AHP will be newly insured. Overwhelmingly, this is a bill that shifts the already insured into plans with lower coverage.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that I think cuts to the heart of this discussion. It is the story of a husband and wife living in Southern California. After successfully battling bone cancer 7 years earlier, Doug did what so many Americans would like to do. He started a small business making boat parts. Soon, he was approached by an AHP offering a $400-a-month health insurance policy which even included special cancer coverage.
Tragically, a few months after he purchased the policy, his cancer returned and it became quite clear that the quality of that association plan was not what Doug or his wife, Dana, expected. It turned out that this particular plan covered less than 18 percent of Doug's $550,000 treatment cost. Doug and Dana rapidly found themselves buried under hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills. And as his wife recounted to the Los Angeles Times, at several points before the cancer ultimately claimed his life, Doug begged her to divorce him so that she would not be responsible for his debt.
I cannot believe this is the solution we are offering to small business owners like Doug and Dana. The American people deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, this bill offers no health care solutions for small business owners. It raises premiums on 80 percent of small businesses; will increase the number of uninsured by 1 million people; and reduce coverage for another 7 million individuals who are most in need of care. My friends on the other side might find these facts inconvenient, but that does not make them less true. And it will accomplish all of this by loosening or removing consumer protections and by walking away from State mandates that guarantee treatment for diabetes and screenings for breast cancer.
We can do much, much better than this for America, Mr. Speaker. I urge Members to oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bill, and support the Kind-Andrews substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov