National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. President, the Presiding Officer has been presiding on many occasions when I have risen to speak about the need to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and although we did not succeed in our last effort in the beginning of August, I, personally, along with Senators Graham, Johnson and Heller, am making one more try, and folks ask why.

The simple answer I can give is, there is a fellow back home by the name of Moon Griffon. He is a conservative talk show host who speaks with passion about the Affordable Care Act. Why does he speak with passion? Moon Griffon is very open. He has a special needs child, and he has to buy insurance. His premium per year is over $40,000--$40,000, with a $5,000 deductible and an additional deductible for his pharmaceutical costs. He has to pay $50,000 a year for insurance, deductible, and pharmaceutical deductible. The mortgage payment for a $500,000 home is what he puts up because he has to buy insurance. He has a child with special needs.

Now, there are many Moon Griffons across our Nation. Someone said, kind of as a wag, but I think there is a ring of truth to it, that ObamaCare, the individual exchange, only works if you don't because if you do work and you don't qualify for a subsidy, then you cannot afford it.

By the way, I think there is bipartisan agreement on this. Senator Bernie Sanders is now putting forward what we would call BernieCare, a single-payer proposal. He would not be putting that forward if he thought the status quo is working. He is putting it forward because he realizes it is not. He has 16 cosponsors, if you will. Cosponsors are a testament to the fact that the status quo is not working. Well, I can tell you, since Medicare is going bankrupt in 17 years, the seniors who are on it will have their benefits threatened by adding another 150 million more Americans to the program. Those who have employer-sponsored insurance, I don't think they will want to give up their employer-sponsored insurance and trust in BernieCare.

So our last hope, we think, is relieving folks from the burdens of the Affordable Care Act in a way that preserves President Trump's goals of caring for all, taking care of those with preexisting conditions, covering all, lowering premiums, and eliminating mandates.

We have the basis of an approach. This past week, the HELP Committee has been having hearings, as well as the Finance Committee. Both Democratic and Republican Governors, insurance commissioners, stakeholders of other sorts, Medicaid directors, and all, whether Democratic or Republican, Governor or Medicaid director or insurance Commissioner, have said that if we give the States the flexibility to come up with their own solutions, they will find solutions that work better for their State than the Affordable Care Act--and it makes total sense. Clearly, Alaska is different than Rhode Island. Louisiana is different than Missouri. If we can come up with solutions specific for each State, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all that comes out of Washington, DC, these Governors, Medicaid directors, and insurance commissioners of both parties think we can do a better job.

We have a model of this. The Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as the CHIP program, has been very successful. It works on a block grant that comes down to States. States pull down the dollars.
They can roll over money for 2 years, and they provide a policy for the children in their State. There are certain criteria and safeguards regarding what that policy must look like.

In fact, Senator Ron Wyden, last night, finished up his remarks praising the CHIP program, that it was reauthorized and what a victory for the health of children because this is a program that will work.
There is a little irony there, as Senator Wyden had just finished criticizing the Graham-Cassidy-Heller amendment, which is patterned after the CHIP program. The irony, of course, is that he says our amendment will not work, and then he goes on to praise the program through which the money will flow and after which it is patterned.

What we do through the program is take the dollars going to States currently through the Affordable Care Act, and we pool them together and deliver them to States in a block grant, very similar and, indeed, through the CHIP program. Along that way, we equalize how much each American receives toward her care, irrespective of where she lives.

Why do I say that? Right now, 37 percent of the revenue from the Affordable Care Act goes to Americans in four States--37 percent of the revenue goes to those who live within four States. That is frankly not fair. I have nothing against those four States, but I don't see why a lower income American in Mississippi should receive so much less than a lower income American in Massachusetts or why someone in Arizona should be treated differently than someone in New York. I think we should equalize that treatment. Americans think that is fair. We do that with Medicare and Social Security and other popular programs. It is something we should do, as well, as we attempt to provide insurance for all to achieve President Trump's goals.

One example of this, by the way--Pennsylvania has twice the population of Massachusetts. Both of those States expanded Medicaid. Massachusetts gets 58 percent more money than does Pennsylvania. Again, Pennsylvania has twice the population of Massachusetts, but Massachusetts gets 58 percent more money. Both Northeastern States have cities with a high cost of living, but somehow Massachusetts does that much better.

Our goal, though, is through this grant that goes through the CHIP program--which Senators like Senator Wyden have praised, and rightfully so, as being an effective program for improving health, with safeguards needed to make sure the money is used wisely and that all States and all residents within those States will receive about the same amount of money toward their healthcare. This would be, if you will, not a Democratic plan, not a Republican plan but an American plan, in which Senators vote to trust the people in their State over a Washington bureaucrat.

We have critics who don't understand our bill. It is a partisan bill, we are told.

No. If you look at the residents of the States who do better under our plan, it includes States represented by Democratic Senators. Virginia does far better because they will get the dollars they currently do not--as do Floridians, represented by a Democratic Senator; Missouri does, represented by the Presiding Officer now but also by a Democratic Senator; and others that are represented by Democratic Senators, but the lower income Americans in those States actually have resources they currently do not have. Indeed, I implore those Senators not to vote a party line but rather to vote for those lower income Americans in their States so they can have the resources needed for their better health.

I will conclude by saying one more time: We have one more chance. On the Democratic and Republican sides, we recognize that the Affordable Care Act is unsustainable. On the Republican side, we want to give power back to the patients, back to the States, fulfilling the wish of those Democratic and Republican Governors, insurance commissioners, and Medicaid directors to give them the flexibility to do what they wish to do.

The Democratic vision, BernieCare, if you will, of which he has 16 cosponsors, is to consolidate every decision in Washington, DC. As for me, I will vote with the States, I will vote with the people, and I will vote with the wisdom of the average American as opposed to the benign ``we know better than you'' attitude of Washington, DC.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source