Affordable Care Act

Floor Speech

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to take a moment to recognize our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives who last week cast the 50th vote in their effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act--their 50th. I know it is a tradition to give gold in celebration of a 50th milestone. I instead would like to gift my colleagues on the other side of the aisle with a reality check.

More specifically, today I would like to talk about a certain group of people who arguably stand to lose if their antics continue. So I have come to the floor this afternoon to set the record straight on the Affordable Care Act and how it is working for women in America. It is not much of a stretch for me to say the Affordable Care Act is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation for women in my lifetime. Not because of the battles we fought to get it to the President's desk, not necessarily because of the size or scope of the law, but because of the tangible and positive impact it has had and will continue to have on the health and well being of women in America.

Four years ago health insurance companies could deny women care due to so-called preexisting conditions such as pregnancy or being a victim of domestic violence. Four years ago women were permitted to be legally discriminated against when it came to insurance premiums and were often paying more for coverage than men. Four years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventive care, such as mammograms and prenatal screenings and more. Four years ago the insurance companies had all the leverage. Four years ago too often women were the ones who were paying the price. That is why I am proud today to highlight just how far we have come for women in the past 4 years.

Since the Affordable Care Act became law, women have been treated fairly with increased access to affordable health insurance, benefits, and services. Deductibles and other expenses have been capped so a health care crisis does not cause a family to lose their home or their life savings.

Women can use the health care marketplaces to pick quality plans that work for them and their families. If they change jobs or have to move, they are able to keep their coverage. Starting in 2012, we saw these benefits for women expand even further. Additional types of maternity are now covered. Women are now armed with proper tools and resources in order to take the right steps to have a healthy pregnancy.

Women now have access to domestic partner violence screening and counseling, as well as screening for sexually transmitted infections. Now women finally have access to affordable birth control. As public servants here, it is our job to help our constituents access Federal benefits available to them, particularly when it comes to health care. Since 80 percent of women are not only making health care choices for themselves but also their families and loved ones, it is our responsibility to serve as a guide when it comes to understanding how to best access these benefits.

It might mean putting them in touch with a navigator to ensure they are getting the most affordable health insurance available or making them aware of an enrollment event where they can get information on available coverage options. But our responsibilities do not end there. It is our job to have an open, honest discussion about what the Affordable Care Act means for our constituents and to talk about ways to responsibly improve it.

Instead, as we saw in the House last week, others have spent the better part of the last 4 years trying to take away the critical benefits that I just talked about, trying to score cheap political points on an issue that can literally mean the difference between life and death. I can understand why some of our colleagues disagree with certain parts of this law or maybe how it was implemented, but what I cannot understand is why anyone elected to Congress would decide to simply ignore real life stories of their own constituents whose lives were changed the day this law took effect.

It is people like Susan Wellman. She lives in Bellingham in my home State of Washington. She is self employed. She has had to pay for individual insurance. Every year she has watched her health care costs rise higher and higher. It got to the point where she was paying $300 monthly premiums with an $8,000 deductible, all for a plan she described as ``paying for nothing.''

So as soon as Susan could access health care through the Washington State health care exchange, she jumped at the chance. She spoke on the phone with a real live person. She was able to sign up for an affordable plan in a matter of minutes. Now Susan is on a plan that costs her $125 a month instead of $300. It is a plan that has a $2,000 deductible that actually pays for things. Guess what. She can afford to go to the doctor, not just in the case of an emergency but for a physical or a mammogram that could save her life, not to mention thousands and thousands of dollars in health care costs.

That kind of preventive care is good for women like Susan. It is good for her family, and it is good for this country because when more people have access to preventive care, it makes health care cheaper for every single one of us.

It is also good for women like Carrie Little. She is a

certified organic farmer who lives in Orting, WA. A few weeks ago she was working outside when one of the rams on her farm attacked her, leaving her with bruises and a broken leg. Fortunately, because of her new health plan, her visit to the emergency room was painless. Well, as painless as it could be with a broken leg. But her hospital bills, her cast, and her visits to the orthopedic physician were paid in full.

Until last year, Carrie had been spending half of her income for a catastrophic-only health plan, forcing her to pay out of pocket for even the most basic of care. Carrie wrote an op-ed, and I want to quote from it. She said:

What a welcome relief that my new health plan covers preventive care, like mammograms, immunizations, and yearly doctor visits. I can keep the primary care doctor I have been seeing for years. And I no longer worry about family members getting kicked around due to pre-existing conditions. Thank goodness. In agriculture, profits and losses shift like the weather, so for our community, it is crucial that health premiums stay affordable.

Or women like Ingrid Gordon. Ingrid is a small business owner from Seattle who immediately enrolled in coverage when it became available. After an hour on the Web site, she told us, with minimal technical difficulties, Ingrid was enrolled and received her insurance card in the mail a few days later. Since her coverage began on January 1, Ingrid had her first dental and physical exams in 14 years. She cured a skin disorder thanks to prescription medicine. She scheduled a colonoscopy now that she is 50, and finally had her bothersome knee x-rayed.

All of those exams, visits and prescriptions would have cost Ingrid thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket just 1 year ago. But thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Ingrid paid a grand total of zero dollars in copays.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, women like Susan and Carrie and Ingrid are now fully in charge of their own health care, not their insurance company. That is why I feel so strongly that we cannot go back to the way things were. While we can never stop working to make improvements, of course, we owe it to the women of America to make progress and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs.

As we all know, unfortunately, there are efforts underway all across the country, including here in our Nation's capital, to severely undermine a woman's access to some of the most critical and life-saving services that are provided by the Affordable Care Act. No provision of this law has faced quite as much scrutiny as the idea of providing affordable, quality reproductive health services to the women of America.

We have seen attempt after attempt to eliminate access to abortion services and low-cost birth control all while restricting a woman's ability to make personal decisions about her own care. I guess we should not be surprised. The truth is that the tide of these politically driven, extreme efforts continues to rise.

In 2013 our Nation saw yet another record-breaking year of State legislatures passing restrictive legislation barring women's access to reproductive services. In fact, in the past 3 years the United States has enacted more of these restrictions than in the previous 10 years combined. That means that now more than ever, it is our job to protect these kinds of decisions for women, to fight for women's health, and to ensure that women's health does not become a political football.

For this reason I was very proud to lead members of my caucus in filing a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., where a secular corporation and its shareholders are trying to get in between a woman and her health.

Just like the many attempts before this case, there are those out there who would like the American public to believe that this conversation is anything but an attack on women's health care. To them it is a debate about freedom, except of course freedom for a woman to access her own care. It is no different than when we are told that a tax on abortion rights is not an infringement on a woman's right to choose; they are about religion or State's rights; or when we are told that restricting emergency contraception is not about limiting a woman's ability to make her own family planning decisions; it is about protecting pharmacists; or just like last week, when an Alaskan State Senator said he did not think there was a compelling reason for the government ``to finance other people's recreation.'' That was in reference, of course, to contraception coverage in health care. In fact, after doing some research, this State Senator concluded that since birth control costs about ``four or five lattes'' the government should really have no reason to cover this cost to women.

The truth is that this is about contraception. This is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access her own health care. This is about women. Allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age, and it would take us back to a place in history when women had no voice and no choice.

In fact, contraception was included as a required preventive service in the Affordable Care Act on the recommendation of an independent, nonprofit institute of medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families.

After many years of research, we know ensuring access to effective birth control has a direct impact on improving the lives of women and their families in America. We have been able to directly link it to declines in maternal and infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall health outcomes for women, and far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we all should share.

But what is at stake in this case now before the Supreme Court is whether a CEO's personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act.

Every American deserves to have access to high-quality health care coverage, regardless of where they work. Each of us should have the right to make our own medical and religious decisions without being dictated to or limited by our employers. Contraceptive coverage is supported by the vast majority of Americans who understand how important it is for women and their families.

In weighing this case, my hope is that the Court realizes women working for private companies should be afforded the same access to medical care regardless of who signs their paychecks. We can't allow for-profit secular corporations or their shareholders to deny female employees access to comprehensive women's health care under the guise of religious exemption. It is as if we are saying: Because you are a CEO or a shareholder in a corporation, your rights are more important than your employees', who happen to be women. That is a slippery slope that could lead to employers cutting off coverage for childhood immunizations if they object to that idea or prenatal care for children born to unmarried parents if they think it is wrong, or blocking an employee's ability to access HIV treatment.

I was proud to be joined in filing the brief by 18 other Senators who were here when Congress enacted the religious protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and who were also here when Congress made access to women's health care available under the Affordable Care Act of 2010. They are Senators who know Congress did not intend for a corporation or, furthermore, its shareholders to restrict a woman's access to preventive health care.

In the coming weeks, as the Supreme Court prepares to begin oral arguments in this case, these Senators and our colleagues who support these efforts will echo those sentiments, because we all know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and good economic policy. It means healthier women, healthier children, healthier families, and it will save monies for our businesses and consumers.

I know many of our colleagues here believe that repealing the Affordable Care Act and access to reproductive health services is a political winner for them. But the truth is this law and these provisions are a winner for women, for men, for our children, and our health care system overall.

I am very proud to stand with my colleagues who are committed to making sure the benefits of this law don't get taken away from the women of America, because politics and ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure women get the care they need at a cost they can afford.

I yield the floor.

Source