Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009
Floor Speech
SERVICE MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - December 23, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the health insurance system in our country has been broken for a very long time. For far too long, families and businesses across my home State of Washington have been forced to make some tough decisions, spending nights struggling or whispering after their kids go to bed about how to pay the bills and praying they do not get sick.
I am proud to say that is about to change. Over the course of months of work on this issue, I have noticed it is very easy for this debate to tip into the realm of abstractions, to focus on numbers and charts--to devolve into petty partisanship or ideological inflexibility. Too often real people get left out of this conversation--mothers and fathers who are scared they are going to lose their jobs; families scared they are going to lose their insurance; people with preexisting conditions who cannot get coverage and who know they are one hospital visit away from bankruptcy; small business owners who cannot afford another premium increase and who want to cover their employees but they cannot keep up with the rising costs; senior citizens who are forced to cut their pills in half to make them last twice as long; people who pay their premiums and like their doctors, but when they get sick they find out that some of the most personal choices in their lives are being made by their insurance companies.
These are the real people who need real health insurance reform. Most Americans seem to fall into one of those categories.
Over the past few months, I have tried to ensure that the struggles of people in my home State are represented in this debate. I told my colleagues the stories that I have received in over 10,000 letters and e-mails and at roundtables and on the phone, stories told to me too often by men and women with tears in their eyes or a quiver in their voice, people who are not looking for a handout or a free ride but who are pleading for a fair system--a system that works for families or businesses like theirs.
I shared the story of Janet from Seattle. She lost her job, lost her insurance, and succumbed to cancer after being forced to wait 6 weeks to see a specialist after her throat began to hurt. Janet's story is why we need to reform the health insurance system.
I told my colleagues the story of Joseph and his wife who was denied an MRI after complaining of pain in her chest, and only after 3 years of fighting her insurance company were they able to determine she had breast cancer and begin the treatment she desperately needed. Their story is why we need real health insurance reform.
I told the story of Mark Peters from Port Townsend who owns a small technology company. He told me he is being crushed by skyrocketing premiums. He offers health insurance to his employees. He does the right thing. But he told me he just got a letter from his insurance company raising his rates by 25 percent. Mark told me his small business cannot sustain increases such as that; no business can. But in our current health insurance system, small businesses are often at the mercy of the insurance companies. This company's story is why we need to reform the health insurance system.
I told the story of Patricia Jackson from Woodinville who has private insurance but cannot keep up with the rising premiums. To provide care for her family of four, Patricia told me she paid $840 a month in 2007. The next year it was $900 a month, and then $1,186 a month, and again her rates were raised recently to a hike of $1,400 a month. That is an increase of over 66 percent in just 3 years. Patricia and her family's story is why we need to reform the health insurance system.
I told my colleagues the story of Marcelas Owens. Marcelas Owens is a young man I have thought about every single day since I actually met him back in June. Marcelas is only 10 years old. He has two younger siblings whom you can see in the photo with him. This is his grandmother. He and his
siblings have been through a lot. Two years ago, their mother Tifanny lost her life because she was uninsured. She was 27 years old. Tifanny was a single mom who worked as an assistant manager in a fast food restaurant. She had health care coverage through her job. But in September of 2006, Marcelas told me that she got sick, she lost her job, she lost her insurance, and ultimately she lost her life. Marcelas and his sisters lost their mom.
Health insurance reform is coming too late for Tifanny. But her story and the story Marcelas tells me why we need to reform health insurance.
Real people, real stories, real needs--that is why we are here now and that is why we have to get this done. When we pass this bill, Americans will be able to shop for coverage that meets their needs. For the first time, insurance companies will have to compete for our business, for the business of the American people.
When we pass this bill, we will end discrimination based on preexisting conditions and make it illegal to drop people when they get sick.
When we pass this bill, we are going to give tax credits to small businesses and help the self-employed afford care.
When we pass this bill, we are going to make preventive services free, end lifetime coverage limits, and cap out-of-pocket fees. We are going to extend the life of Medicare without cutting guaranteed benefits while shrinking the doughnut hole gap in drug coverage for our seniors.
When we pass this bill, people such as Mark and Patricia and Joseph and his wife will be helped. The memories of people such as Janet and Tifanny will be honored. That is why we need to reform the health insurance system.
I thank the more than 10,000 people in my home State of Washington who sent me their personal health care stories. Their input has helped guide me as I worked on this bill and served as a constant and welcome reminder about who I am here to represent.
I urge my colleagues to stand with these families and with the families of the small business owners in their States and across the country who desperately need this reform.
Health insurance reform has been a long time coming. But today we stand closer than ever to making it a reality.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
DEFINITION OF FULL TIME WORK
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friends, the Senator from Iowa and Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and the Senator from Montana and Chairman of the Finance Committee, in a conversation about how ``full time'' is defined in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and clarify any misunderstandings about how the legislation resolves the potential for exclusion of certain work group such as flight crews and rail workers due to the definition of ``full time'' work and the unique way their work hours are calculated.
Is it the Senators' understanding that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act resolves a potential problem of excluding from employer incentives to provide coverage for employees who work in professions that use unique calculations for hours worked, such as flight crews and rail workers? And that it does this by indicating that the Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall prescribe such regulations, rules, and guidance as may be necessary to determine the hours of service of an employee, including rules for employees who are not compensated on an hourly basis?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, the Senator is correct. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is designed to expand access to high quality and affordable health coverage for all workers. Because of the nature of work, some industries uniquely calculate total daily and monthly working time to determine full-time schedules. That is why this legislation gives the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Labor discretion to establish rules and regulations for the hours of service for workers outside of standard hours. This provision is meant to be construed broadly.
Mr. BAUCUS. I would concur with my friend, the Senator of Iowa, in his understanding of the act. This provision is meant to be construed broadly, and to expand access to high quality and affordable health coverage for all workers.
Mrs. MURRAY. Of particular concern to me are groups such as pilots and flight attendants, cabin crews who, under ``full time'' contracts, ``work'' on average only 70 hours per month due to the unique way their hours are calculated. For obvious safety reasons, a pilot is limited, through Federal regulations, to flying 100 hours per month, or 1,200 hours annually, even though he or she contributes many more hours of service outside of the time spent flying planes. This unusual work schedule, however, raises the potential that a pilot might not be considered a full-time employee for purposes of this legislation under a rule that defined full time status as simply ``working'' upwards of 30 or 40 hours per week. The same is true of other flight-crew employees.
Additionally, railroad hours-of-service employees, who work by the mile or by the day, could also find it difficult to meet the definition of full-time employee under a strict ``hours worked'' standard. Many train and engine service railroad employees are paid by the mile and or by the day or paid for time available to work, and are not paid by the hour. Although these workers are undoubtedly full-time employees within their profession, the annual or weekly hours they are calculated to work might not satisfy a narrow minimum hour component that did not take into account a more flexible hours of service concept for certain types of jobs.
Currently all flight and cabin crew members employed by Part 121 commercial air carriers and train and engine service railroad employees paid by the mile or by the day are full-time employees and receive the same benefits afforded other full-time workers. Is it the Senators' understanding that this bill is intended to allow these working groups to be encompassed in the definition of ``full-time employee'' for purposes of the employer incentives to provide quality health care coverage?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, that is my understanding, that the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Labor will establish standards to govern workers in these industries so they are fully entitled to the protections under this bill. It is not the intent of Congress to exclude or prevent workers with unique work schedules from the benefits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or from incentives for employers to provide these workers with quality healthcare coverage.
Mr. BAUCUS. Again, I am pleased to concur with the Senator from Iowa in his understanding. The Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Labor will establish standards to govern workers in these industries so they are fully entitled to the protections under this bill.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senators from Iowa and Montana for their time and clarification on this issue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source