Facebook icon
Twitter icon
YouTube icon
Instagram icon
Flickr icon
RSS icon

Congressman Bobby Scott

Representing the 3rd District of Virginia

SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH FAIRNESS ACT OF 2017

March 22, 2017
Floor Statements

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill that purports to make it easier for small businesses to obtain coverage, and tomorrow we will vote on a bill that will take away health insurance coverage for 24 million Americans and force everyone else to pay more for less. So not only are we considering a bill today that will make things worse, we are considering it a day before we vote on ruining health security for working families in order to provide tax cuts for the wealthy.

   As we debate the possible replacement of the Affordable Care Act, I think it is instructive that we look back at what the situation was before the ACA passed.

   Listening to some, you would think that the costs weren't going up at all. In fact, costs were going through the roof before the ACA, and small businesses, particularly, were having spectacular cost increases--and that is until somebody got sick. At that point, you were unlikely to be able to afford any insurance at all.

   Every year before the ACA, small businesses were dropping insurance right and left, particularly after somebody got sick. Also, before the Affordable Care Act, people with preexisting conditions couldn't get insurance. Women were paying more than men. Millions of people were losing their insurance every year.

   Since then, the costs have continued to go up, but at the lowest rate in the last 50 years. People with preexisting conditions can get insurance at the standard rate. Small businesses can cover their employees through the Affordable Care Act at the average cost, whether or not anybody in their small business has cancer or diabetes. Women are not paying more than men. Instead of millions of people losing their insurance every year, 20 million more people have insurance.

   In addition to that, families now enjoy strong consumer protections. The full name of the Affordable Care Act is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Now there are no caps on what an insurance company pays, and they can't cancel your policy for anything other than nonpayment. Preventive services such as cancer screenings are available with no copay or deductible. Those up to 26 can stay on their parents' policy, and the doughnut hole is being closed.

   The ACA did not cure every problem, but it went a long way to making Americans healthier and giving them some economic security. It could have gone further if, in the past 7 years, Republicans would have been willing to work with Democrats to build on the progress instead of forcing over 60 votes to repeal all parts of the Affordable Care Act.

   If we do anything now, we ought to improve the situation, not make it worse. The Republican plan makes things worse. The CBO analysis concluded that 24 million fewer people will have insurance, and most of those that get insurance in the future will be paying more for policies that don't deliver as much.

   For seniors, particularly, the costs will skyrocket. And, in fact, the prediction that the rates will go down in the future are a result of the conclusion that so few seniors will be able to buy insurance that they will no longer be in the insurance pool.

   The insurance pool would be younger, and, therefore, the costs would go down. But that is only because seniors won't be able to afford the insurance.

   Therefore, the insurance pool will be younger and cheaper for those who can actually afford it, but that is not a good thing for seniors who need the insurance and can't afford it.

   So today we are considering another failed policy. The association plan ideas have been studied for years, and it has been concluded that it is a bad idea. Under the Affordable Care Act, essentially everybody pays average. If you change that arithmetic so some can pay a little less, then arithmetic matters. Everybody else is going to pay a little more.

   In the association plans, quite frankly, I will admit, they will always work for the few that can get into them. That is because, if you can draw out your own group, if they are healthier than average and can pay less, they will pay less and the association will work. But if you pull out a group and it turns out they are a little sicker than average and the bids come in above average, then the association will dissolve and everybody will go back into the insurance pool.

   So if you can pull out a group, they will always pay less until somebody gets sick, and then everybody jumps back into the insurance pool. The higher cost groups will be left behind. The lower cost groups will segment out, and then the rates will go down for a few and up for everybody else.

   This is exactly why the American Academy of Actuaries has said that expanding association plans ``could result in unintended consequences such as market segmentation that could threaten ..... viability and make it more difficult for high-cost individuals and groups to obtain coverage.''

   One of the other problems is a lack of regulation. If a group is allowed to circumvent State regulations, that policy may be cheaper because the policy is not as good.

   There are a lot of ways that you can save money. You can pull out a group of just young men and save on maternity benefits. That would be cheaper for them but more expensive for everybody else.

   And what happens when a new spouse needs coverage and tries to get it as an optional benefit? They won't be able to afford it.

   Workers and businessowners are likely to get fewer benefits under the association approach and will be disadvantaged compared to those in the regular pool getting comprehensive benefits.

   This is exactly why Consumers Union has stated that the legislation is ``likely ..... to provide minimal and nonuniform benefits.''

   Mr. Speaker, this bill will make it easier to set up these kinds of associations and let them avoid State regulations, which could require solvency, nice solvency requirements, and consumer protections. The protections in this bill are not sufficient to protect consumers, and most States would require stronger capital requirements than the bill requires.

   Much like the Republican replacement bill, this bill goes in the wrong direction, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''