WASHINGTON, DC – With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on King v. Burwell expected soon, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts today spoke on the Senate floor and said regardless of the ruling on Obamacare subsidies, he will fight to repeal this harmful law and replace it with true health reforms that lower costs and restore the all-important relationship between doctors and their patients.

“If the court invalidates the subsidies, we will be ready with our solutions to help mitigate the pain for those individuals harmed by the administration, provide states greater flexibility, and build a bridge away from Obamacare,” Roberts said.

“However the Court rules, I will continue fighting to repeal this harmful law and replace it with true health reforms that lower costs, lift the burden on our job creators, and restore the all-important relationship between a doctor and their patient. The test to fix health care, not Obamacare, is coming soon. Let’s fix health care.”

Audio and video of the Senator’s remarks here.

The following remarks are as prepared for delivery:

While we await the Supreme Court’s critical ruling on its most recent review of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, it is important to highlight many of the ways this law is negatively impacting our health care system as a whole and my constituents in Kansas. 

Trying to list all the problems with this law is nearly impossible. Perhaps the best way, is to review the promises of the President.

The crafting of this law was supposed to follow his promise of being the most transparent administration in our history. 

There has been a lack of transparency, not to mention oversight of this law, since it was originally being crafted, and throughout its implementation. Despite hearing the contrary from our docs and nurses about practices and hospitals closing, and premiums and copays increasing, the administration continues to turn a blind eye.

The administration continually moves the goal posts through which they measure success and upon which they have claimed victory.

In 2012, the Congressional Budget Office projected there would be 14 million people enrolled in exchange plans this year. Then late last year, the administration backpedaled on its projections for the 2^nd year of enrollment. 

The most recent data out of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows that when you look at how many individuals had “effectual coverage” – or actually paid their first month’s premiums and continue to have an active policy - that number is 10 million.  This is nearly 30 percent below the 2012 enrollment projections.

That is not transparent. That is not victory.

So why is this number lower? Why aren’t folks signing up?

First, we had a website that crashed and that didn’t work. Then, Americans tried to shop around and view the policies available to them.  But, as it turns out, the law didn’t lower premiums for the average family by $2,500 a year as the President promised.  This didn’t happen. Premiums are increasing.

He also promised you could keep your same health plan and your doctor. We’ve known for some time that is just not true, it didn’t happen.

Yet just last week, the President responded to questions regarding his signature law at a press conference following the G7 summit.

He said, “The thing is working.”

I might add, ‘the thing’ is a pretty good term for the Affordable Care Act.

The President also said, and I quote, “I mean, part of what’s bizarre about this whole thing is we haven’t had a lot of conversation about the horrors of Obamacare because none of them come to pass.”

Oh? Really?

President Obama concluded, “It hasn’t had an adverse effect on people who already had health insurance.”

I’m not sure what data has been presented to the president or which American family he’s been listening to, but it’s certainly not the reality that I’ve experienced, and that Kansans are experiencing.

The real-life threats of this law that we hear from Kansans back home haven’t stopped.

A small business owner in Cummings, Kansas, called my office to inform me that his premium this year went up over $500 a month - more than double last year’s.

Eddy in Spring Hill says his premium has doubled and his deductible has doubled. He is being forced to choose between running his company and buying health insurance.  He says he can’t do both.

Let’s go back to the President’s comments about this ‘thing’ having no adverse effect. Just a couple of weeks ago his own administration published the proposed double-digit premium increases for 2016.

The plans on the list affect more than 6 million people across the country and are seeking an average increase of 21 percent. 

The Kansas Insurance Department tells us that premiums for some individual and small-group health plans are likely to increase by as much as 38 percent.

According to the administration’s list, 14 insurance plans are seeking premium increases above 10 percent for next year.  When you look at just two insurance plans – that cover 100,000 Kansans – these increases are 28 and 38 percent.

Perhaps the President does not categorize these 100,000 Kansans as being ‘adversely effected’ by this “thing”. Simply put, premiums will continue to spiral upward if we do not act.

Facts and reality are stubborn things.

It wasn’t hard to predict the promise that decreased premiums for all Americans could and would not happen. Mandating that all policies contain richer benefits packages was only going to lead to higher costs.  Then you add to that an annual fee on insurers that will simply be passed along to small businesses and individuals in the form of higher premiums.  The writing was on the wall for these premiums increases from the beginning.

Even Obamacare’s chief architect, Jonathan Gruber, was quoted last year, if “you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”

Still quoting, “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the “Thing” to pass.”

Those comments belittle the American people and try to rationalize why when you have an agenda, the government should not be transparent. 

The President and proponents of Obamacare all said publicly this was the first step to nationalize health insurance. That is not transparent.

Now, not only are individuals adversely effected in terms of their own insurance coverage, but also due to the law’s mandate on employers – many are seeing the laws negative repercussions at their jobs.

The law’s employer mandate hinders job creation and growth. Its new definition of full-time employment at 30 hours a week has been a real problem.

According to one estimate, 2.6 million workers could potentially have their hours and, therefore, paychecks reduced as a result of this provision. 

Most concerning is that this new definition of full-time employment hits low-wage earners who work in the service industries. Of the individuals at risk, about half work in retail and half in restaurants. If these folks were previously working the traditional 40 hours per week, you are not just taking away 10 hours from them, you are reducing their paycheck by 25 percent a week. That is a very noticeable adverse effect.

The concerns I have outlined today are only a few of the many reasons why we need to repeal this law – both the individual and employer mandates.

We need to fix health care, not Obamacare. We need to give peace of mind to the families hurt by Obamacare. 

Now, no one is saying go back to the system we had before. We need reforms to our health care system; ever day Obamacare is hurting millions.

But with this law, what the President has called “this Thing,” we may have mandated greater coverage for all, but not access to care – and at a cost that is unaffordable.

Perhaps some can afford the rising premiums, but can you actually go see your doctor and receive treatment? Or is your deductible too high? And is your doctor still available to you?

Will your doctor spend at least 5 minutes with you or more time filling out forms or electronic medical records?

Any day now, the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in King v. Burwell. This is the case that will determine the legality of the administration’s regulation extending health insurance subsidies to people in states that use the federal insurance exchange. 

We’ll see if the Court decides that the law should be implemented as written by Congress or implemented as interpreted by the administration.

This is similarly troubling for Kansas where we have a federally-facilitated exchange.  If these tax subsidies go away, 77,000 Kansans – and millions of Americans - would be affected.  These individuals will be confronted with Obamacare’s true cost and would face much higher premiums, with only the Administration to blame for recklessly offering tens of billions of dollars in subsidies they had no authority to offer. 

A ruling against the administration would also free many of these Kansans from the individual mandate penalty if that coverage is too expensive for them, and they therefore qualify for an affordability exemption.

The employer mandate penalties would also be unenforceable.  Employers can then add employees above the 50 threshold without fear of penalty and increase workers’ hours to more than 30 hours per week.

If the court invalidates the subsidies, we will be ready with our solutions to help mitigate the pain for those individuals harmed by the administration, provide states greater flexibility, and build a bridge away from Obamacare.     

However the Court rules, I will continue fighting to repeal this harmful law and replace it with true health reforms that lower costs, lift the burden on our job creators, and restore the all-important relationship between a doctor and their patient. The test to fix health care, not Obamacare, is coming soon. Let’s fix health care.

Since the health care reform debate in 2009, Senator Roberts has been an outspoken opponent of Obamacare. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Roberts fought against the flawed plan in both committees, and voted against the legislation on the Senate Floor. Senator Roberts, the co-chair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, has supported several measures to repeal Obamacare in the five years since its enactment, and continues to support full repeal.

 

###