The Repeal of Health Care
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the time for this Special Order of 1 hour to discuss the repeal of health care. And this legislation which passed today is the triumph of the Republican victory in the elections. And the Republicans ran on a campaign platform of repealing ObamaCare, as it was called and vilified, and today accomplished that goal.
ObamaCare became a vilification of health care, really a caricature of what was in the bill. It became a million different bad things to a million different people. But the moment the campaign is over and the partisan political points have been put on the board, each of us who has been elected, Republican or Democrat, has the responsibility to use our office to make pragmatic progress for the American people.
And the purpose of our Special Order tonight is to explain in concrete detail what the American people lost and will lose if the repeal is ultimately successful. We have a number of my colleagues here to join us. And to start it off for us is one of the senior members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a leader in health care reform and elements of the health care reform that have broad bipartisan support, Representative Eshoo from California. I yield her such time as she may consume.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlewoman from California.
The story that Congresswoman Eshoo told is making very real what the consequences are of taking away from families benefits that they have and now depend on.
Just a quick story about Vermont, to make it, again, real. A woman by the name of Donna, from Plainfield, Vermont, a hard-working person, she and her husband both work. Their young son graduated from school, got an entry-level job that paid $8 or $9 an hour. And as the case with most entry-level jobs, it came without health care.
That child was no longer eligible to stay on his parents' policy, and they were doing all they could to pay their bills. Health care is expensive. They couldn't afford to buy a separate policy for their son. And most of the time that works out, but sometimes it doesn't, and it didn't in this case.
Their son had a car accident, $20,000 in medical bills. They are still paying those bills off.
When we passed the health care bill that included the provision that sons and daughters who were starting out in life, taking that first job, usually without health care, but learning job skills, fiscal discipline, personal responsibility, the worst, the bill we passed allowed those kids to stay on our policies until age 26.
It makes an enormous amount of sense in the peace of mind it provided. That assurance to Donna relieved her, her husband, and their son of all this anxiety about whether they'd have the health care they needed in the event of an accident. The action today by this Congress led by the new majority takes away from Donna, her husband, and their son their access to affordable health care. It didn't need to be done. And the question I think all of us have to ask is why?
There are elements of the health care bill that are imperfect. Let's improve them. There are elements that are very controversial. The individual mandate is controversial, and we have to acknowledge it. I supported it, and I'll tell you why. I believe that if everybody is going to have access to health care, and the vast majority of this country believe that's the case, then all of us should share in the responsibility of paying for it, on the ability to pay. That's why I supported the individual mandate, because folks who don't have insurance don't go forever without having the need for health care services. And most States are like Vermont. If somebody gets hit by a truck, the rescue squad shows up, and they take that person to the hospital. The hospital may inquire about insurance, but they don't condition providing full and extensive care on whether that person has insurance or doesn't. And that cost gets shifted on to the taxpayer. That cost gets shifted on to those who do have insurance in the form of higher premiums. So this is real what happened. The consequences to families are real.
I would like to yield to the Member from New York, also a leader on health care, Congresswoman Clarke. Thank you for joining us tonight.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WELCH. I want to thank the member from New York. You talked very eloquently about preexisting conditions. And who of us doesn't have one? There was an article in The Washington Post today that said about 65 percent of Americans have preexisting conditions. So if the insurance companies are able to deny people coverage on that basis, it's a tremendous business model for them. They insure folks who are healthy, that's great for the shareholders, but it doesn't do much for most of us, the majority of Americans who have a preexisting condition. So thank you for focusing on that real provision in the bill.
I'm going to yield in a moment to the Member from Maryland. We have a number of Members here, so maybe we can be interactive.
But one of the things that I was going to ask you was on this question of preventive care. When we were considering this bill, I called Tom Huebner, who is the administrator of a local hospital, Rutland Regional Medical Center; and he had a lot of reservations about the health care bill, whether on balance it was good or bad. He decided on balance that it was good.
But one of the things that he said very specifically was that the free preventive care for seniors is absolutely essential. It was essential for their good health, and it was essential for bending the cost curve because folks do not come in if they don't have the way to pay for it. That was him talking to me telling me about the Rutland population. Whatever your remarks are, Member from Maryland, I am wondering if that is consistent with the experiences you have had in your district.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady.
The example you gave is of Texas, which is where the authorities who have responsibility for health care are pushing ahead to take advantage of the provisions that will allow them to do their jobs better even as we are having this debate about repealing and unwinding, but not replacing.
I mean, the point is that, if you want to improve something, you know, that's our job. Let's do it. There are provisions that all of us who supported this bill know could be improved; but we are hearing now real-world stories about things that are working really well, and we want to keep them.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time available?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. And as I listen, it's a good news/bad news story. The good news is businesses, large businesses and small, that have fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and to their employees have sharp pencils and figure out what makes the most sense for them, and they're signing up for this. So that's an indication that they've kicked the tires and come to the conclusion that this is good for business.
The bad news is, we apparently have done a pretty lousy job explaining this to the American people, and it has gotten obscured with the epithet of ``ObamaCare.'' But when you peel away the specifics of this--and then you provided evidence that businesses that have to make a hard-nose decision, this ain't about doing a ``good thing'' or they want to do the right thing for their company, but they've decided this is the prudent fiscal thing. So I thank you.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, senior member of the Appropriations Committee and one of the Members who is always a voice of conviction and conscience in this institution, Mr. Moran.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source