Congressional Disapproval Of Rule Relating To Grandfathered Health Plan--Motion To Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my friend from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Iowa, if the Senator from Wyoming prevails in what he is seeking to do this morning, it is my understanding that almost half the people in America who currently have health insurance through their employers, people who are so-called grandfathered in under this bill, would not get the new protections that are coming in the law, protections that say that under their health insurance, they will not be subject to a lifetime limit. For example, if someone gets into long-term cancer therapy that is going to be very expensive over a long period and the insurance company decides halfway through they will cut them off, we now protect people so that they can continue to get the care they need. They can't be limited.

Isn't it also true that the effort of the Senator from Wyoming would protect the right of the insurance companies to literally cancel one's policy because of an error made in the application for the policy, to rescind the policy?

I might add, it is my understanding that this rescission is abused in my State more than any other in the Nation. The rescission rate on health insurance in Illinois is three times the national average. We have had over 5,000 people who have had their health insurance canceled. When they went to the company and said: I am facing surgery, I am facing cancer therapy, and I need coverage and want to make sure I have it, they ended up getting their policies canceled.

I ask the Senator, would the effort by the Senator from Wyoming take away these protections we are now building into the law to make sure health insurance is there when people need it the most?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have two things here. We have the Patients' Bill of Rights which just went into effect. That covers everybody. That covers all plans. That covers grandfathered plans. They can't escape that. However, if a plan wanted to be grandfathered, we left it up to the Department to write rules and regulations as to what grandfathered means. For example, let's say the Senator from Illinois and I have a contract. We both have agreed to it. We say we are going to let that contract go into the future. After a certain date, you are grandfathered in that contract.

What the Senator from Wyoming would say is that if you are the insurance company and I am the individual covered, we will grandfather it, but you can change it any way you want. You can raise my copay. You can raise my deductible. You can reduce the annual limit on claims you will pay. You can eliminate benefits, such as the Senator just pointed out, for cancer or diabetes. And guess what. You would still be considered grandfathered. But I am stuck with that. That is what is so important here. That is what people have to understand about what the Senator from Wyoming is trying to do. He is saying that basically we will grandfather it in, but the insurance companies can change it however they want, and you are stuck with it.

Mr. DURBIN. So if the Senator from Wyoming prevails and I am one of the grandfathered plans--in other words, I have my health insurance plan that I like through my employer--my health insurance company on my grandfathered plan can literally cut me off when I need health insurance the most, can literally put a limit on the amount they are going to pay on an annual basis?

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

Mr. DURBIN. Can really take away my health insurance protection.

I ask the Senator from Iowa, hasn't he heard, as I have from people in my State, how vulnerable they are when you empower health insurance companies to bail out when you need them the most? If we voted with the Senator from Wyoming, we would empower the health insurance companies at the expense of vulnerable people who may face an accident or a diagnosis tomorrow that changes their lives. Isn't that what this gets down to in its most basic form? Do we want to give power to the people who are insured or power to the health insurance companies? As I understand the Senator from Wyoming, he thinks the health insurance companies should have the power and we should not be providing protection to the people who need it most.

Mr. HARKIN. That is the way I see it. It just seems that we have rules and regulations. What the Department has said is that, OK, to be a grandfathered plan, you have to fall under these items: You can only raise your copayment a certain amount. By the way, it is quite a bit. You can raise your copayment either the greater of 5 bucks or medical inflation plus 15 percent. That is pretty good. It says you can change different things but within certain limits. They can't, for example, raise your coinsurance charges--that is, if you have a percentage. For example, if it is 20/80, they can't just raise that. It has to stay the same percentage. They could raise the copayment if it is a dollar amount.

That is why the Senator from Illinois is so right. If this resolution passes, all of the protections for consumers are wiped out.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just listened to the Senator from Arizona, who is my friend and whom I respect. I cannot remember how many pages were in the McCain-Feingold bill. I voted for it. I believed in it. I did not count the pages. I thought he was on the right track to change campaign financing in America. It was a bipartisan bill, and I supported it.

Has that now become the measure in the Senate--we will count the pages, and if it goes over 1,000 pages, we are not going to pass the bill? I hope not because this bill, the underlying bill on health care reform, to make it more affordable and more accountable, took on one of the major industries in America, where the cost of health insurance has gone up 10, 15, 20 percent a year.

We know the health insurance industry and the companies behind it are not going to go down without a fight. They are going to hire the lawyers and the lobbyists--and they did--to fight the passage of the bill and to fight its implementation in court and everyplace you turn because what is at stake is their money, their profit. What is at stake is the way they do business, and they know it. So when this administration writes the rules and regulations to make sure that when we are challenged in court, this is going to stand up under the law, it is the reasonable thing to do, and I think even the Senator from Arizona would acknowledge it.

Now, I know the Senator from Wyoming does not feel this way because he told me personally this morning that he does not favor repeal of the bill. I do not know what the position of the Senator from Arizona is. But I would say to those who want to repeal the health care bill that the President signed into law, this is what they want to repeal. They want to repeal the consumer protections which we have finally put into the law which say the health insurance companies cannot cancel your coverage when you need it the most. They cannot deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. They cannot deny to children under the age of 18 coverage under health insurance for a preexisting condition. They cannot deny to you the right to keep your kids under your health insurance policy, your family's policy, until they reach the age of 26.

In that bill was also a new deduction for the cost of health insurance for small businesses so they can afford to find health insurance for the owners and the employees of the businesses. In this bill was closing the doughnut hole on the Medicare prescription Part D, sending a $250 check to the seniors who needed it this year and increasing that amount over the year and still not adding to the deficit overall with this bill. That is what they want to repeal.

Well, I am not going to stand before you and tell you that the bill we voted for was a perfect law. The only perfect law I am aware of was carved in stone tablets and carried down a mountain by Senator Moses. All the other bills that have been passed are going to need some changes over the years. But the change the Senator from Wyoming brings to the floor is a bad change--a bad change--because what he wants to do is empower the health insurance companies to increase the amount of money Americans pay for their coverage. That is it. Give them more protection so they can raise costs.

The Senator from Wyoming said we should not be embarrassed to say these companies are in business for a profit. I understand that. But this underlying bill limits the profits of the company and says that 80 percent of the premiums they collect need to be spent on health care. That leaves them 20 percent for their bonuses, for their salaries, whatever they want. But we want to make sure people across America have a fighting chance to have health insurance protection when they absolutely need it the most.

I see my colleague on the floor, the Senator from South Dakota. He and I had an unexpected experience in the month of August. We were both in a hospital for surgery. Lucky for us, Senator Johnson and Senator Durbin--and also the Senators on the other side of the aisle--are protected by the best health insurance in America. Shouldn't the people of this country have that same kind of peace of mind so that when they need medical care, even expensive medical care, their health insurance is there to protect them?

All of the people standing on the floor railing against government-administered health care are covered by government-administered health care. Our health insurance plans in Congress are administered by the Federal Government, and not a single Senator on the other side of the aisle has said: In principle, I am going to give up my health insurance to show you how much I hate government-administered health care. They have not done it because the plans are too darn good. We want to give every American the same peace of mind Members of Congress have.

We have to defeat the Enzi approach today. It empowers health insurance companies at the expense of people who need health insurance when they face a diagnosis, a surgery, a cancer treatment that could literally bankrupt their family unless they have health insurance protection.

I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Enzi's effort on the Senate floor today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source