Healthcare

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on healthcare, last night we began to see reports of a new version of the Graham-Cassidy bill. Faced with stern resistance from several Members of their own caucus, it appears that the authors of the legislation have tweaked the bill in an attempt to gain the support of the holdouts. Despite sending more money to the States of those Members, this new bill, if anything, is worse in many ways than before and, in the long run, will still result in a net cut for every single State in the country.

It still contains a massive cut to Medicaid, it still defunds Planned Parenthood, and it actually further weakens consumer protections, and almost completely does away with protections for those with preexisting conditions--even worse than in the first version.

The S&P has just come out with a study that estimates that Graham- Cassidy would result in 580,000 lost jobs and $240 billion in lost economic activity by 2027. That is not a Democratic propaganda machine, that is Standard & Poor's; down the middle, 580,000 jobs lost and $240 billion in lost economic activity if Graham-Cassidy is enacted.

Under the latest version, States would be able to lift the regulation that caps out-of-pocket costs, meaning insurance companies could offer barebones policies with sky-high deductibles and copays.

Under the latest version, States could do away with lifetime limits, meaning insurance companies could cap the amount of coverage you receive for a given illness. Imagine the parent of a child suffering with cancer being told your policy only covers 4 months of treatment; you are on your own after that--devastating to too many families in this country.

Under the latest version, States could remove the benefit of getting preventive services at no cost, such as birth control, cancer screening, and immunizations. Under the latest version, States could opt out of the preexisting condition without even applying for a waiver. So even more so than in the old bill, preexisting conditions are not protected.

States just have to submit a plan that allows for adequate and affordable insurance. In other words, the new Graham-Cassidy makes it even easier and even more likely that States will allow insurance companies to discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions. Again, that parent of a child aching with cancer is in real jeopardy. Maybe they can't even get insurance at all.

In short, the new Graham-Cassidy tells every American with potentially high medical costs, you are on your own. If you have diabetes, cancer, congenital illness, or asthma, Graham-Cassidy says that you are on your own. It eviscerates the protections that make healthcare affordable for those who need it most.

It is no wonder that it is so unpopular with Americans. Recently, even though the bill has just been introduced, a majority of Americans say they don't like it. The more they learn--just like with the old TrumpCare--the less they like it.

Americans want good healthcare, lower premiums, and more coverage.

This bill does the opposite--higher premiums, fewer people covered, and it makes it harder to get good insurance.

Guess what. We are expected to vote on this bill in just 2 or 3 days.

There will have been only a single hearing, which Republicans scheduled almost as an afterthought, just to say they had one. Certainly, there will not be any amendments to the bill. It is not going to go through the committee process. There will not be a shred of input from the minority, despite all the complaints that ObamaCare, which did have input from the minority, was passed by one party's vote.

The Senate's former Historian said he could not think of ``anything comparable'' to the process Republicans are employing in the entire history of the Senate. The Senate's former Historian, a scholar, said that there is nothing comparable to the process being employed now-- one-sixth of the economy, no amendments, one hearing, no changes.

Add to that fact that the CBO will not have enough time to properly analyze this legislation. We will not know how it actually impacts our healthcare system. At most, we will get a barebones analysis sometime today that may not tell us a thing about how Graham-Cassidy would impact coverage--the cost of care, the quality of care, and the stability of marketplaces.

It is shockingly incomplete not to have our CBO tell the American people and tell us--the representatives of each State--how it affects their State and rush it through. Even after the minimal CBO report today, Republicans will still be voting on a healthcare bill with thick blindfolds on their eyes. They will not be able to see it. My guess is that I don't think they want to see it.

When the American people learn what is in this bill, they are going to dislike it intensely--intensely. The new TrumpCare is bad policy. It is being jammed through this body at an alarming, ludicrous pace. To say it is hastily constructed and considered barely scratches the surface.

New versions are coming out every few hours. The websites of the Senators from Louisiana and South Carolina keep saying: We are changing this; we are changing that.

It is Monday. We are voting this week. The Republicans are basically scrawling a healthcare law for 300 million people on the back of a bar napkin. The bill should go down. I believe my Republican colleagues who were skeptical about this policy and this process are too principled to be swayed by last-minute formula tweaks.

Governor Walker of Alaska, an Independent, has said he will not support a healthcare bill that is bad for the country, even if it might be good for his State, which the bill isn't. That is principled leadership. I believe the same kind of principled leadership exists in this body as well. I know it does.

I wish to say to all of my Republican colleagues directly: Vote down this bill. If it goes down, we Democrats are pledged to work in a bipartisan way to improve our healthcare system. We are pledged to work through committee, to support the efforts of Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, and to find a bipartisan consensus on a healthcare package.

[[Page S5875]]

We welcome bipartisan change. We know there is always give and take when that happens, but usually the product is better. A bipartisan process led by Alexander and Murray to make the present system better will be a whole lot better for both the process in this body and for the health of the American people than this rushed-through, half-baked proposal.

We disagree in the Senate a lot. Very rare are the times when there is a clear right and wrong, but this bill and the process it has gone through are clearly wrong. The bill would hurt so many people in our great country. The process has damaged this institution and would do much greater damage if it were to pass.

We have a chance--a chance--to legislate the right way, through regular order, by resuming bipartisan work already started by the HELP Committee, which has had hearings and intends to--at least, as I understand it--go through a process with amendments. We Democrats are at the table. We ask our Republican friends to join us at the table once again.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source