House Republican 'So Be It' Attitude Towards Patient's Rights
Children with pre-existing conditions would once again be denied coverage.Young adults up to age 26 would lose the assurance that they can stay on their parents' plans.
Lifetime caps could once again be placed on coverage
Pregnant women and breast and prostate cancer patients could once again be thrown off the insurance rolls
Many seniors would have to pay more for drugs.
Many small businesses would have to pay higher taxes – because the tax credits for millions of small businesses that choose to offer coverage to their employees would stop being implemented
Leader Pelosi spoke against the Republican amendments to repeal patients' rights on the House floor:
The American people are desperate for jobs. They have sent us here to work together to create jobs. In the sixth week of this new Majority, not one piece of legislation has come forward to create one job. Showing the lack of ideas to do so, the Republican Majority has chosen instead to change the subject, to take up a bill of such consequence without hearings, without really an open process, to make amendments to it with the allusion of open debate. And now, they come before us, again without hearings, in amendment form to this bill and say they want to repeal, have no funds go to enact provision of the health care bill...This is, yet again, another example of our friends standing up for the insurance companies at the expense of the American people, standing up for the insurance company at the expense of the health and well-being of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment which is another manifestation of the 'so be it' attitude of some in Congress at the expense of many in our country.
Rep. George Miller (D-CA) decries the Rehberg (R-MT) Amendment's 'so be it' attitude towards patients' rights—the supporters of the amendment argue for taking away consumer protections and health coverage they themselves enjoy at taxpayer's expense:
The author of this amendment said a few minutes ago that this was a very simple and straightforward amendment. And that's probably true for Members of Congress who have government paid health insurance, have policies that are looked after by people make sure we get benefits. But if you are a member of the American public this is not a simple straightforward amendment. If you are a member of the American public, this amendment changes your life. For millions of Americans and for millions of their children. For millions of their parents. This amendment changes their life. This isn't straightforward. So many of our new Republican colleagues have come to town and said, ‘I'm just one of the folks back home. I'm not enamored with Washington. I'm just one of the folks back home.' Vote for this amendment and you won't be like the folks back home. Vote for this amendment and you'll be very different than the folks back home because you'll have insurance and they won't. You'll have coverage and they won't. You won't have lifetime caps and they will. You won't lose your insurance when you need it for you, your children, your spouse, but your constituents will. You are not just like the folks back home. You are doing grave damage to the folks back home. You ought to think about this amendment before you vote for it. Not only does it add $5 billion almost immediately to the deficit, it adds $1 trillion to the deficit over 20 years. Takes us in the wrong direction. But this punishes people back home. Talk to your constituents who now are the seniors who have that free physical checkup and have been given medicines and told about things that they are doing wrong with respect to their health and now can prevent additional doctors visits and hospital care because of that checkup that they now get that this amendment would take away. Talk to the parents, and you really ought to talk to the grandparents, of the children who now have coverage that didn't have it before. There was concern about the coverage of their grandchildren as they are about their Medicare coverage, which you will change with respect to the cost of pharmaceuticals. No, this isn't simple and straightforward, and -- simple and straightforward, and this isn't just like the folks back home. The folks back home are struggling every day to pay their insurance premiums. Pass this amendment, and once again the insurance companies can rip them off. Once again they no longer have to dedicate 80% of your premiums to your health care. They can write themselves bonuses, the advertising, the salaries, and forget the health care. There won't be that kind of protection for people who struggle every month to achieve health care coverage. For the nine million people who are in the middle of getting rebates now because of the change in the law to make sure that health insurance companies provide you health insurance instead of a funding stream for the executive. No, this isn't simple and straightforward and you are not just like the folks back home once you vote for this amendment.
While young Americans are the most likely to be uninsured, with nearly half of those age 19 to 34 having gone without health insurance at some point last year, during the debate on the Rehberg (R-MT) Amendment, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) called the provisions in the Affordable Care Act allowing young people to stay on their parents' health care plans until 26 an example of the 'nanny state.' Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) "remind[s] the gentleman from Georgia that the taxpayers pay for Congress' health insurance as well. And any children that we have are covered under our health insurance":
In addition to the Rehberg Amendment, Rep. King (R-IA) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in HR 1, or any previous Act, to be used to carry out Affordable Care Act provisions like closing the 'donut hole' and giving small businesses tax cuts. While Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) raised a point of order against the King Amendment stating the Amendment was not in order as it seeks to change existing law and constitutes legislating in an Appropriations bill, Rep. Weiner (D-NY) argued:
The point of order suggests that the Gentleman is legislating on an Appropriations bill. I've watched those guys, they're incapable. There's no way this is legislating. So I believe the point of order should be struck down. It is impossible - after eight weeks they haven't legislated - they had eight years in the majority they didn't legislate. How can it possibly be, Mr. Chairman, that the point of order is correct?
The Chair sustained the point of order.
The House will vote on the Rehberg Amendment later this afternoon.