Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HEALTH CARE

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on the Senate floor this morning Senator Durbin called on Republican Members to offer to give up what he called their Federal health care. I heard his comments, and he makes an interesting argument. But, once again, Democrats in the Senate are ignoring history, as the Senator did today. They are ignoring the facts and ignoring the Democrats' record on this issue.

The truth is, Republicans in this body have already offered to give up their health insurance coverage. In fact, here is the rest of the story:

During the debate on the health care law--almost 2 years ago today--Republicans offered to forego their private coverage and instead enroll all Members of Congress in Medicaid, the government's safety-net program for low-income individuals. The Democrats in this body unanimously rejected this idea. Every Democrat voted no. This was on an amendment by former Senator LeMieux from Florida, an amendment that asked to enroll all Members of Congress in the Medicaid Program. Yet at least 50 percent of the newly covered individuals under the Democrats' new law are going to get coverage, and they will get their coverage through Medicaid.

So the President's solution for health care in this country is to put 50 percent of the newly covered individuals under Medicaid. Yet the Democratic Members of the Senate unanimously voted no. If Democrats believe Medicaid is good enough for the 24 million people they will soon force onto the rolls, my question is, Why isn't it good enough for the Democratic Members of Congress?

So I am joined today by my colleagues on the Senate floor who continue to raise questions about the health care law and so many broken promises made by this President. I am fortunate to be joined by a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley.

I would ask my colleague from Iowa, as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, who spent a lot of time studying and debating President Obama's health care law, my question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's promises match the reality?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, I say to my colleague from Iowa, it is interesting that we take a look at this and so many promises that reflect one specific promise, ``if you like what you have, you can keep it.''

I practiced orthopedic surgery for 25 years, taking care of families in Wyoming. Many of those families included family members who were on Medicare, the program for our seniors. Senator Grassley has made some reference in his earlier comments about seniors, people who are on Medicare, people who are having a harder time finding a doctor. This health care law clearly had an impact on seniors as well.

So I would ask my colleague from Iowa, are there specific things the Senator has been hearing as he travels around the State and visits with folks at home in terms of perhaps promises made specifically to seniors and those broken promises related to Medicare?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. That clearly points out to the people around the country what they know, and if they are on Medicare that it is that much more challenging for them to even find a doctor because of the $500 billion of cuts to Medicare--and not to save Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare, but to start a whole new government program for other people. So those are several of the promises the President made.

We just heard from my colleague from Iowa, ``if you like what you have, you can keep it.'' We know that promise has been broken, and now the promises by the President--I will protect Medicare--which is clearly not the case, as the American people have seen, which is why this health care law is even more unpopular today than it was when it was passed.

But thinking back to the time it was passed, the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt, who is joining us on the floor, was very actively involved in the debate and the discussions in pointing out the concerns people in his home State had with regard to the health care law and the objections he heard. My recollection is that there was even an issue on the ballot about the health care law and mandates and related issues.

So I ask my friend and colleague from Missouri if there are comments he would like to add to help with this discussion of the broken promises of the Obama health care law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, it does seem that way to me, to the point that now, 2 years out, Senator Coburn and I put together a report on what we are finding. It is a checkup on the Federal health law, and the title is ``Warning: Side Effects.'' That is because there are huge side effects from this health care law. The four that we have written out on the prescription pad, as we see it, on the prescription pad handed out by President Obama, No. 1 is fewer choices; No. 2, we have higher taxes; No. 3, more government; and No. 4 is less innovation. That is what the American people are seeing as the side effects of this health care law. People don't want few choices, they want more choices. People don't want higher taxes, they want lower taxes. They don't want more government, they want less government. They don't want less innovation, they want more innovation. That is what the American people asked for.

There was a reason to do health care reform--because people wanted the care they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford. I know that is what my colleague from Iowa sees when he goes home every weekend and talks to people in his home communities.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. My understanding of the accountable care

organization component is that the very health programs the accountable care organizations were modeled after, the ones the President held up as the models across the country--one was in Utah, one was Geisinger in Pennsylvania, and I believe the Mayo Clinic may have been a third--once those 350 pages of regulations came out, the programs the President said were the models we want to follow, they all said: We can't comply with these regulations. They are too stringent. They are too confining. They will not work in our program.

So if it is not going to work in the places where the President said they are doing it well, to me that means they are not going to work anywhere in Wyoming and very likely not anywhere in Iowa or anywhere in Missouri as we try to make sure patients get the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford.

That is why I continue to look at this health care law and go home every weekend and talk to people, and I continue to hear that this bill is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of the patients--and bad for taxpayers.

When we take a look at Medicare--and Senator Blunt made a comment about Medicare and some of the changes--who is going to make these decisions? It looks to me as though, from reading through this law, it is about 15 unelected bureaucrats with this so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board who will decide what hospitals will get paid for providing various services. So in small communities, the hospital may say: Well, we can no longer offer that service. I have heard my colleagues talk about the specific loss of the ability of hospitals to even stay profitable with some of the cuts, from taking $500 billion away from Medicare, again, not to save and strengthen Medicare but to start a whole new government program for others.

Those are the things we are dealing with and why, at townhall meeting after townhall meeting, people continue to tell me they want this repealed and they want it replaced with patient-centered health care--not government-centered, not insurance company-centered, but patient-centered health care. That is what people are asking for, and they get tired of all these broken promises the President has made.

I remember the President said he was going to bring down the price of premiums by $2,500 per family per year. What family wouldn't want that? The whole purpose of the health care law initially was to get the costs of health care under control. This didn't do it.

If I go to a townhall meeting, as I did not too long ago in Wyoming, and say: How many of you under the new health care law are finding that you are paying more for health insurance, not the $2,500 less a year the President promised, but how many are paying more, every hand goes up. Then we ask the question: How many of you believe the quality and the availability of your own care is going to go down as a result of this health care law, and every hand goes up. I know that in the Show Me State of Missouri, that is not what people want. They don't want to pay more and get less. I don't know if my colleague has been hearing things similar to that at home.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. It is interesting--because I know the Senator goes home, as I do, very often to talk to many of the small business owners in the State of Missouri, as I do in Wyoming, and as Senator Grassley does in Iowa--one of the promises the President made is, he said 4 million small businesses may be eligible for tax credits. Well, it turns out that the key word there by the President is ``may''--may be eligible.

Even the fact that the White House has sent out postcards to all these small business--the IRS spent over $1 million of taxpayers' money to send out millions of postcards promoting the tax credit--the Treasury Department's inspector general recently testified that ``the volume of credit claims has been lower than expected''--as a matter of fact, only 7 percent of the 4 million firms the administration claimed.

Why? Well, because of the complexity and the whole way the system was set up, the President was able to talk big and deliver very small. That is why so many people are very unhappy with the claims in the health care law because they know these promises have been broken.

With regard to Nancy Pelosi's famous quote--that first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it--that is why I come to the floor every week with a doctor's second opinion because it does seem just about every week we do learn some new unintended consequence, something new about the health care law and another reason why Americans are unhappy with it, why it remains as unpopular, if not more unpopular, today as when it was passed, and why so many people believe the Supreme Court should find this bill unconstitutional, for the reasons that do have Americans at home in an uproar, and very unhappy that the government can come into their homes and mandate that they buy a government-approved product and pay for it or pay a fine. Nothing like this has happened before, and people are, frankly, offended.

We do not know what the Supreme Court is going to do, but I know what this body ought to do. This body ought to vote to repeal and replace this broken health care law and get a health care law in place which is what the American people wanted, which is, the care they need, from the doctor they want, at a price they can afford.

We have not seen that yet. But that is why we are here on the second anniversary of the President's health care law, to continue to point out the flaws of this legislation. Quite interestingly, when you take a look at some of the national poll numbers, for people who have talked to a health care provider--whether that be a nurse, a doctor, a physician's assistant, a physical therapist, a nurse practitioner, no matter who--they are even less supportive of it than the general public.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source