Health Care

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I wasn't here when they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This week will mark the second anniversary of what I call a very Orwellian name for that piece of legislation because I personally do not believe it is going to protect patients, nor do I believe it is going to improve the affordability of our health care system.

The reason I ran for the Senate was primarily because of this law. I certainly recognized how it was going to result in a lower quality of health care, how it was going to lead to rationing, and how it was going to severely limit the amount of medical innovation we enjoy in this country. In particular, I was offended by the political process demonizing doctors and health care providers, demonizing the health care system in order to pass this health care law.

The reason that offended me is a very personal story. It has to do with my daughter who was born with a very serious congenital heart defect, her aorta and pulmonary artery were reversed. So her first day of life, the doctors--who President Obama said would take out a set of tonsils for a few extra dollars--saved her life within the very first few hours of life. Then, 8 months later, when her heart was only the size of a small plum, another incredibly dedicated and incredibly skilled team of medical professionals totally reconstructed the upper chamber of her heart. Her heart operates backwards now, but she is 28 years old and now she is a nurse herself in a neonatal intensive care unit and she is taking care of those babies.

So when they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I knew the health care system that saved my daughter was at risk. I also knew this health care law was in no way, shape or form going to reduce our Federal deficit. It is just not possible. How can we expect to add 25 million people to government-run health care and reduce the deficit at the same time?

The reason they were able to put forward that fiction is they proposed a piece of legislation that would have revenue, fees, taxes, and penalties for 10 years, while at the same time only providing benefits for the last 6 years of that time period. Basically, what they did was to say we will raise revenue for 10 years of about $1.1 trillion, and we will have 6 years' worth of cost, a little under $1 trillion. That was the fiction.

Half of that revenue generated is going to be in taxes, fees, and penalties. Personally, by increasing taxes and increasing fees on things such as medical insurance, on medical devices, and on pharmaceuticals, I don't see how that bends the cost curve down. It would not bend the cost curve down. It is the same logic this President has used when he is talking about high gasoline prices. He says by increasing taxes on oil companies we will reduce the price of gas. It is just not possible. Increasing fees on providers, reducing reimbursement rates to providers is not going to bend the cost curve down. It is basically not going to happen.

The other half of the pay-fors--the other half of that $1.1 trillion--was proposed reductions basically in payments to Medicare providers. Congress, I would say wisely, has not enacted the sustainable growth rate cuts to providers because they realize, if they do that, access for seniors to medical care will be reduced. I don't see how, if we reduce Medicare by $529 billion, that same access also would not be reduced. From my standpoint, I think it is highly unlikely Congress will actually enact that $529 billion worth of reductions to Medicare. When they do not do that, the $143 billion reduction in our deficit, that fiction, will totally go away.

Another reason for that fiction being exposed is because, fortunately, Congress realized the CLASS Act portion of ObamaCare simply wasn't going to save the money they said it was going to save. It simply wasn't sustainable. Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad actually called the CLASS Act a Ponzi scheme. So this administration has decided not to move forward with its implementation. In doing so, that is removing $70 billion of revenue from that budgetary fiction.

I know Senator Kyl has been following this very carefully, in terms of what is going to happen to our Federal budget, and I am wondering if Senator Kyl would want to comment on how he sees the real effect of the health care law on the Federal budget and why that is not going to save us $143 billion in the first year and probably result in far greater costs to the Federal Government if this thing is actually implemented.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I wish to point out, the numbers Senator Kyl is talking about are CBO projections, just using a different timeframe. That isn't even taking into account what I have been talking about is an even more significant risk to the deficit, and that is one particular CBO estimate that says, on net, only 1 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored care.

There are 154 million Americans who get their employer-sponsored care from employer-sponsored plans. To assume that only 1 million people will lose that coverage and get forced into the exchanges is absurd, particularly when we have a study by a very reputable firm, McKinsey & Company, surveying 1,300 employers, which said 30 to 50 percent of employers plan on dropping coverage and having their employees go into the exchanges. It is pretty easy to understand why that might happen. Right now, the health care law is 2,700 pages; there have been another 12,000 pages of rules and regulations. So employers looking at the health care law are looking at, Do I try and comply with, do I try and understand 15,000 pages of regulations and then pay $20,000 for a family plan--which is the new CBO estimate for a family plan in the year 2016. Do I do that or pay the $2,000 penalty?

With ObamaCare, they are not exposing their employees to a financial risk. They are making them eligible for huge subsidies, $10,000, if they have a household income of $64,000.

So I will throw it over to Senator Sessions on the Budget Committee. My concern is we are not even beginning to contemplate what the effects of that might be. What does the Senator think of that?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I wish to ask Senator Sessions a question. We have talked about this in the past. I know a lot of people talked about the Medicare cuts being double counted, and I never quite understood exactly what that was. Can the Senator maybe explain a little bit to the American people what that means.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Does the Senator believe those Medicare savings will actually be realized? Does the Senator believe Congress will actually enact those savings?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. That is one of my concerns. Let's say we actually do enact those cuts to Medicare and we don't reimburse providers and doctors in some cases to even cover their costs.

I know this is hard to get to, but I have read where only 60 percent of providers are willing to see and treat Medicaid patients. Now what we are going to be doing is adding 25 million new individuals onto Medicaid rolls, where only 67 percent of providers are seeing those.

I would ask Senator Boozman, because he is not only a new Senator but also a doctor and he ran a business, would he comment on that as well. I think he has some comments in terms of how this health care law will be affecting employment and jobs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank Senator Boozman. I think it is extremely important for us, in the next coming weeks and months, to paint a very accurate picture for the American people about what our health care system is going to look like, what our Federal budget is going to look like, the effect on American jobs and our economy, and the effect on our freedoms that we are going to witness if this health care law is fully implemented. I think it is critical we provide the American people that type of information.

Of course I know Senator Roberts has some thoughts in terms of how this health care law will affect jobs and our economy. He has been very good at describing some of the nonsense regulations that are being undertaken by this administration. I want Senator Roberts to share his thoughts about what he thinks--paint us a picture of what is America going to look like under this health care law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I appreciate the comments of the Senator. He mentioned rationing. What is the Independent Advisory Board for? Do you have a clue? To me that would somewhat lead, potentially, to rationing. I would be suspicious of that. Senator Kyl stood up here. He may have some additional comments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I remember back in Oshkosh, WI, President Obama famously promised: If you pass this health care law, the average costs per family would decline by $2,500 per year. That is one of those broken promises that Senator Roberts was mentioning earlier.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Earlier Senator Roberts mentioned the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Wasn't that the agency that proposed denying women mammograms until they reached the age of 50?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. If this is implemented, we are just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg of the assault on our freedom that this is going to represent.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I think the bottom line of this health care law is that it is basically going to increase demand while at the same time reducing supply, and that is not a good thing. It is certainly not the way you bend the cost curve down.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I certainly appreciate Senator Sessions' comments and those of Senator Roberts, Senator Kyl, and Senator Boozman.

There are two points I would like to make. It is important to understand that all these numbers we are talking about are estimates. The Federal Government is not particularly good at making those estimates because if you think back to 1965 when they first passed Medicare, they projected out about 25 years and said that in 1990 it will cost $12 billion. In fact, it ended up costing $110 billion--nine times the original cost estimate.

The other point you were making is, Does it make sense for the Federal Government to take over one-sixth of our economy? When I went back to Wisconsin, I asked that question of thousands of individuals. Do you really believe the Federal Government can take over one-sixth of our economy--the health care sector--and do it effectively and efficiently? I asked that to thousands of people. I have had two brave souls raise their hands. The fact is, the American people do not believe the American Government is capable of doing that.

In closing, I would like to remind everybody what Speaker Pelosi very famously said: We have to pass this bill so we can find out what is in it.

I know Senator Sessions and Senator Boozman are dedicated to making sure we don't have to fully implement the health care law before we did figure out what it truly costs us because it could bankrupt this Nation.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source