Why the Affordable Care Act Must Be Repealed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, I'll be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding for a question.

I am looking at the report that you have referenced that people can go look at online for themselves, and I notice that your home State of Texas has a projected 23 percent premium increase; is that correct?

Mr. BURGESS. That's my understanding.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. And I also notice that the report says, from the data that was obtained from the insurance companies, that my home State of Virginia is going to have a 31 percent premium increase in the small group; again, not talking about the large group rates, while they will be affected by the taxes.

Now, I'm just kind of curious. How come Texas is getting off light with only a 23 percent increase and Virginia is getting hit with that 31 percent increase? Can you explain that, or is that just another one of the mysteries of ObamaCare?

Mr. BURGESS. If the gentleman will yield?

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, let me assure the gentleman from Virginia, I can promise you with absolute certainty that there was no favoritism on the part of the Obama administration toward the great State of Texas. If anything, Texas seems to be singled out for special consideration on some other areas. But perhaps it actually relates to the differences in the insurance market and the type of coverage that's sought. I really can't explain that 5 or 6 percent discrepancy.

What I can tell you--and, again, this is with dead certainty--that the Obama administration did not--did not--show favoritism to the State of Texas or its Governor Perry.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. If the gentleman will yield further, perhaps for a colloquy, I would ask the gentleman if he suspects that this is because up to this point in time this has always been a State-driven market and, therefore, there are some differences between the States, but that the vast majority of States, according to this report, in the small-group market are going to be facing significant double-digit increases? Is that his understanding from the report?

Mr. BURGESS. There are going to be double-digit increases. And, of course, as the gentleman is well aware, there are different State mandates that have governed the State-regulated insurance market over time, and that may result in some of the discrepancy that you're seeing.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. And I would further ask the gentleman if it makes him a little nervous that the folks who are going to be trying to get out there and get records and make sure that folks are doing what they're supposed to, either paying the tax or buying the insurance, are in fact the IRS? That would be the same IRS that we found out for political reasons slow-walked and made it difficult for some conservative groups, particularly from Texas and other parts of the country, to actually get their tax exempt status. Does that make the gentleman a little bit nervous?

Mr. BURGESS. It should concern and make nervous every man, woman, and child in this country that the Internal Revenue Service is going to be administering their health care in the future. I think that's an important point that the gentleman has brought up.

One other difference, if I may add, between the cost in Texas and the cost in Virginia. Do bear in mind that Texas enacted significant medical liability reform 10 years ago, and we have seen the benefits of that. If there's one thing that was the missing link in the Affordable Care Act, it was where was their commitment to reforming the medical justice system in this country, which we all know tends to drive costs up, and the creation of defensive medicine, which in turn drives costs up.

Texas has a 10-year history now of caps on noneconomic damages in medical liability suits. I don't know for certain if that has played a role in the lower premium increase in Texas; but if it has, I'm sure they'll be happy to take credit for it.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would say to the gentleman that I'm sure some of those things have played out, not necessarily the differences between Texas and Virginia, because Virginia has a longer history with medical malpractice caps. And we, too, have seen that it has helped us in many ways in the State of Virginia.

I would point out to the gentleman, and I doubt that he is aware of this, and I don't know the truth or veracity of it, but it is reported in the Courthouse News Service, which is a service for lawyers and press folks, that in California the IRS has actually been sued because they had a search warrant to go in to look at a specific employee's financial records. And in the process, according to the allegations made by the attorney, Robert Barnes, when they went in, it happened to be an insurance company or a company that had medical records--we're not sure because it's called a John Doe company--but it had medical records for something like 10 million Californians, including everybody in the judicial system in California. And notwithstanding the fact that they were told those were not financial records of the individual but personal medical records and that they were probably violating some HIPAA rules, they seized these records and they have now been sued by, as I said, the attorney's name is Robert Barnes in the State of Texas.

That gives me some concern that perhaps what we are seeing in regards to the IRS's callousness towards political parties and political philosophy and the Constitution of the United States groups that were trying to promote that, they may also just have a callous disregard that they can be untouched by anybody, when you see that this lawsuit actually was filed in March, and I don't think it got much attention because people probably thought it was not part of their regular pattern.

But now that we have seen what has happened in other parts of the country in regard to those exemptions, that may also be of some concern to people that they're out there compiling all of these records. And, again, we don't know whether it's true. But some of those records that they got from some of the Tea Party groups allegedly, and alleged by a left-leaning or a liberal group, the IRS gave them the information as to who their donors were, is the IRS also going to give out our medical information to folks that we don't necessarily want to have it?

That's the question that we have to ask when you have a scandal like this at the IRS and it directly impacts ObamaCare. Because right now, before ObamaCare comes into effect, the gentleman, I think, would agree with me the IRS really doesn't have anything to do with your medical records. But now we are opening up the door and taking those 16,000 agents, and they are very likely to be looking at your medical records and your company's medical policies as well as the medical records, and that causes me some concern, and I suspect it may cause the gentleman some concern also.

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. It certainly is a concern, because not only do you have the IRS with these new 16,000 agents, and we already know that it has come from multiple sources in multiple States, the issue with regard to not only going after conservative groups, but also pro-Israel Jewish groups, the issue of them going into the Gibson Guitar Company, multiple things where they tend to use the heavy hammer for political purposes on those who may not agree with some others.

At this point, there still certainly is a lot of information yet to be garnered from this, but it should give p Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Absolutely.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would say to the gentleman that it was very interesting when you talked about the cost of the insurance, and while he said overall that he thought the rates were going to go down, my recollection was--and correct me if I'm wrong--that when you were asking him those questions, part of his position was, Well, we don't know for sure, but we think they'll be lower than what they would have been if we hadn't passed the law, but they're going to be higher than what they were when we passed the law. Wasn't that pretty much his reasoning?

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Yeah, that was pretty much the case. I started to challenge him to a Monopoly game because that's funny money. That's a way of manipulating the numbers, and that's more of the dishonesty that's being perpetrated on the American people with this law.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would also have to point out that, with everything that we've gotten to so far, it appears that their numbers have not been right. They told us that they could produce a long-term care insurance plan, and they backed out of that because they couldn't make the numbers work as they had originally thought they would work on long-term care insurance.

Then we had the whole situation with the catastrophic illness fund that, from the time the bill was passed, was supposed to get folks who had catastrophic illnesses, it was going to cover all of them until ObamaCare came into effect in 2014, but they ran out of money March 1. Do you recall that?

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Absolutely, I do.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. So those numbers weren't right, and they apparently thought they had enough money built into the budget and gave the Secretary large latitude to take money out of various funds to make things happen, but now she seems to be going around the country asking the very companies that she's overseeing as part of her job for money because they didn't calculate how much money they were going to need to sign everybody up to get into ObamaCare.

So every time we turn around on the committee, it looks like we're finding something new where their numbers were always funny money numbers, Monopoly money, however you want to look at it. And it seems to me that your point is exactly right, that it's not only going to cost the people of southern Ohio, but it's also going to cost the people of southwest Virginia and every part of these United States more money than was ever projected, and it's going to come right out of the pockets of the working poor and hurt them the most.

eople pause and understanding--what happens if you don't cooperate with the health care plan, will these be the folks who will basically come in and try and enforce that as it goes through?

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would ask you in that regard, if someone sees these premium increases that we've been talking about and they decide that they don't want to buy the insurance, what then happens from the IRS's standpoint, or from the government's standpoint in general?

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, I'll be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding for a question.

I am looking at the report that you have referenced that people can go look at online for themselves, and I notice that your home State of Texas has a projected 23 percent premium increase; is that correct?

Mr. BURGESS. That's my understanding.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. And I also notice that the report says, from the data that was obtained from the insurance companies, that my home State of Virginia is going to have a 31 percent premium increase in the small group; again, not talking about the large group rates, while they will be affected by the taxes.

Now, I'm just kind of curious. How come Texas is getting off light with only a 23 percent increase and Virginia is getting hit with that 31 percent increase? Can you explain that, or is that just another one of the mysteries of ObamaCare?

Mr. BURGESS. If the gentleman will yield?

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, let me assure the gentleman from Virginia, I can promise you with absolute certainty that there was no favoritism on the part of the Obama administration toward the great State of Texas. If anything, Texas seems to be singled out for special consideration on some other areas. But perhaps it actually relates to the differences in the insurance market and the type of coverage that's sought. I really can't explain that 5 or 6 percent discrepancy.

What I can tell you--and, again, this is with dead certainty--that the Obama administration did not--did not--show favoritism to the State of Texas or its Governor Perry.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. If the gentleman will yield further, perhaps for a colloquy, I would ask the gentleman if he suspects that this is because up to this point in time this has always been a State-driven market and, therefore, there are some differences between the States, but that the vast majority of States, according to this report, in the small-group market are going to be facing significant double-digit increases? Is that his understanding from the report?

Mr. BURGESS. There are going to be double-digit increases. And, of course, as the gentleman is well aware, there are different State mandates that have governed the State-regulated insurance market over time, and that may result in some of the discrepancy that you're seeing.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. And I would further ask the gentleman if it makes him a little nervous that the folks who are going to be trying to get out there and get records and make sure that folks are doing what they're supposed to, either paying the tax or buying the insurance, are in fact the IRS? That would be the same IRS that we found out for political reasons slow-walked and made it difficult for some conservative groups, particularly from Texas and other parts of the country, to actually get their tax exempt status. Does that make the gentleman a little bit nervous?

Mr. BURGESS. It should concern and make nervous every man, woman, and child in this country that the Internal Revenue Service is going to be administering their health care in the future. I think that's an important point that the gentleman has brought up.

One other difference, if I may add, between the cost in Texas and the cost in Virginia. Do bear in mind that Texas enacted significant medical liability reform 10 years ago, and we have seen the benefits of that. If there's one thing that was the missing link in the Affordable Care Act, it was where was their commitment to reforming the medical justice system in this country, which we all know tends to drive costs up, and the creation of defensive medicine, which in turn drives costs up.

Texas has a 10-year history now of caps on noneconomic damages in medical liability suits. I don't know for certain if that has played a role in the lower premium increase in Texas; but if it has, I'm sure they'll be happy to take credit for it.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would say to the gentleman that I'm sure some of those things have played out, not necessarily the differences between Texas and Virginia, because Virginia has a longer history with medical malpractice caps. And we, too, have seen that it has helped us in many ways in the State of Virginia.

I would point out to the gentleman, and I doubt that he is aware of this, and I don't know the truth or veracity of it, but it is reported in the Courthouse News Service, which is a service for lawyers and press folks, that in California the IRS has actually been sued because they had a search warrant to go in to look at a specific employee's financial records. And in the process, according to the allegations made by the attorney, Robert Barnes, when they went in, it happened to be an insurance company or a company that had medical records--we're not sure because it's called a John Doe company--but it had medical records for something like 10 million Californians, including everybody in the judicial system in California. And notwithstanding the fact that they were told those were not financial records of the individual but personal medical records and that they were probably violating some HIPAA rules, they seized these records and they have now been sued by, as I said, the attorney's name is Robert Barnes in the State of Texas.

That gives me some concern that perhaps what we are seeing in regards to the IRS's callousness towards political parties and political philosophy and the Constitution of the United States groups that were trying to promote that, they may also just have a callous disregard that they can be untouched by anybody, when you see that this lawsuit actually was filed in March, and I don't think it got much attention because people probably thought it was not part of their regular pattern.

But now that we have seen what has happened in other parts of the country in regard to those exemptions, that may also be of some concern to people that they're out there compiling all of these records. And, again, we don't know whether it's true. But some of those records that they got from some of the Tea Party groups allegedly, and alleged by a left-leaning or a liberal group, the IRS gave them the information as to who their donors were, is the IRS also going to give out our medical information to folks that we don't necessarily want to have it?

That's the question that we have to ask when you have a scandal like this at the IRS and it directly impacts ObamaCare. Because right now, before ObamaCare comes into effect, the gentleman, I think, would agree with me the IRS really doesn't have anything to do with your medical records. But now we are opening up the door and taking those 16,000 agents, and they are very likely to be looking at your medical records and your company's medical policies as well as the medical records, and that causes me some concern, and I suspect it may cause the gentleman some concern also.

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. It certainly is a concern, because not only do you have the IRS with these new 16,000 agents, and we already know that it has come from multiple sources in multiple States, the issue with regard to not only going after conservative groups, but also pro-Israel Jewish groups, the issue of them going into the Gibson Guitar Company, multiple things where they tend to use the heavy hammer for political purposes on those who may not agree with some others.

At this point, there still certainly is a lot of information yet to be garnered from this, but it should give people pause and understanding--what happens if you don't cooperate with the health care plan, will these be the folks who will basically come in and try and enforce that as it goes through?

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would ask you in that regard, if someone sees these premium increases that we've been talking about and they decide that they don't want to buy the insurance, what then happens from the IRS's standpoint, or from the government's standpoint in general?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Absolutely.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would say to the gentleman that it was very interesting when you talked about the cost of the insurance, and while he said overall that he thought the rates were going to go down, my recollection was--and correct me if I'm wrong--that when you were asking him those questions, part of his position was, Well, we don't know for sure, but we think they'll be lower than what they would have been if we hadn't passed the law, but they're going to be higher than what they were when we passed the law. Wasn't that pretty much his reasoning?

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Yeah, that was pretty much the case. I started to challenge him to a Monopoly game because that's funny money. That's a way of manipulating the numbers, and that's more of the dishonesty that's being perpetrated on the American people with this law.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would also have to point out that, with everything that we've gotten to so far, it appears that their numbers have not been right. They told us that they could produce a long-term care insurance plan, and they backed out of that because they couldn't make the numbers work as they had originally thought they would work on long-term care insurance.

Then we had the whole situation with the catastrophic illness fund that, from the time the bill was passed, was supposed to get folks who had catastrophic illnesses, it was going to cover all of them until ObamaCare came into effect in 2014, but they ran out of money March 1. Do you recall that?

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Absolutely, I do.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. So those numbers weren't right, and they apparently thought they had enough money built into the budget and gave the Secretary large latitude to take money out of various funds to make things happen, but now she seems to be going around the country asking the very companies that she's overseeing as part of her job for money because they didn't calculate how much money they were going to need to sign everybody up to get into ObamaCare.

So every time we turn around on the committee, it looks like we're finding something new where their numbers were always funny money numbers, Monopoly money, however you want to look at it. And it seems to me that your point is exactly right, that it's not only going to cost the people of southern Ohio, but it's also going to cost the people of southwest Virginia and every part of these United States more money than was ever projected, and it's going to come right out of the pockets of the working poor and hurt them the most.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source