John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, yes. I have been a truthful son.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me just talk to that for a moment. This is astounding.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I was the insurance commissioner in California from 1991 to 1995, and then 2003 to 2007, so I've got 8 years as the insurance commissioner in the biggest State in this Nation, with a lot of seniors. Our seniors haven't grown quite as fast as our friend talked about from Nevada, but in total numbers we are so much bigger. Major, major problem for seniors. You're looking at the most expensive part of the population, the senior population, and it is absolutely true that the insurance companies do not want to ensure people that are going to get sick. Who's going to get sick? It's the seniors. And that's why Medicare came into place, as was described earlier, because that population has the most difficult time of obtaining insurance, and it happens to be the most expensive part. We figured out here how to provide it. The Republicans are going to do what? They're going to give you a voucher. So if I'm 54 years old now--let me see if this is correct. I'm 54, and if the Republicans had their way, when I become 65 in 11 years, I don't get Medicare, which provides me with a comprehensive policy that I can take anywhere in this Nation. I can go to Maine and get the policy. I can go to California and get the policy. I don't get that. I get a voucher, and I'm going to go to an insurance company that I know does not want me because they know that at 65 I'm going to be expensive.

Mr. GARAMENDI. This is the Republican program? Thank you, no.

Mr. GARAMENDI. You're suggesting you go back and take your privatized Social Security savings? They're going to do away with Social Security, too. So they're going to do away with Medicare and Social Security, the two programs that provide security for seniors. The Republican Party has said clearly they want to do away with those. That's not where we are as Democrats. This program, as Representative Schakowsky has said very clearly, strengthens Medicare, extends its life for at least 5 years, some would say 10 years.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We'll just take 5, 9, whatever. It strengthens it and pushes it out so it has the financial strength, reduces the doughnut hole by $500 immediately, and you get----

Mr. GARAMENDI. And if you're a senior of low income and moderate income, some of your prescription drugs are reduced by 50 percent.

Mr. GARAMENDI. This is a good deal, and yet we see the TV ads out there scaring seniors that somehow this is a bad deal for seniors. This program is a very good deal for seniors, wherever they happen to be, and for every other American. We're talking about seniors here, but for every other American they will get access to affordable, good quality health insurance because of this legislation. Those are the facts.

Mr. GARAMENDI. These are the worthless insurance policies that are sold across State lines today. They have a very low lifetime cap. You get a serious illness and you blow through that and you have no more health insurance from that company. Not only that, but now you've got a preexisting condition and you can't get insurance from any company. The legislation changes that. Thank you for pointing that out.

Mr. GARAMENDI. That, too.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, that's so unfair to the insurance companies, that you would take away their bonus for doing nothing more than you can do in another system.

Mr. GARAMENDI. That current unnecessary bonus that's given to the insurance companies will be brought back and reinvested in the Medicare program so that the Medicare program's solvency will be extended into the future. So we're not taking that money away from the Medicare program; we're taking it away from the insurance companies and bringing it back to the Medicare program. The senior Advantage program is not a free program for seniors. They're paying for it. They're paying a premium themselves, and the Federal Government is paying an unnecessary premium to the insurance companies to do what doesn't cost any more in the regular system. So it's a great savings. It's something that should be done. And oh, the tears. The wailing and crying by the insurance companies.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes, exactly.

Mr. GARAMENDI. It's about 2 percent.

Mr. GARAMENDI. A big piece of what is going to happen in this reform is that there will be a continuing study going on through the Medicare offices and the Department of Health Services to find better ways of treating seniors. You've talked about the home care, which we know is a better way of doing it, the continuity of care. We know that over time, new medical devices are found. New medical services are brought online, and other services that have become obsolete are taken off the benefit list, and new ones are brought on over time. That's the way it is because medical services are constantly evolving and changing--drugs, the kinds of services, the hospital services. All of those things are evolving over time. So change is constant in this program. And specifically in the legislation is an effort to bring online those new techniques and technologies that enhance the care of seniors. And, I will also say, for other Americans. So all of us, as a major part of the program, but specifically for seniors. And it would roll on. Proven, clinically proven services, evidence-based services. And these kinds of things save costs. Again, the insurance companies are going to cry. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending over $100 million in this last month or two with advertising designed to kill the reform effort.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Because they are greedy, profit-driven, profit-before- people-oriented companies.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly.

Mr. GARAMENDI. She must have been a teenager at that time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, we have several of my colleagues here to join us. We will just continue the discussion that we had before. I think I'll move to the other side so I will have the easel available to me. If Ms. Jan Schakowsky will come join us. Mr. Ellison can carry on. I see Mr. Tonko is now in the Chair. We've got things we want to talk about here. Let's just continue this discussion that we had a few moments ago. Our friend on the Republican side is either late or has decided it wasn't worth continuing to discuss their position. We were covering the Medicare issues here in some detail over the last hour, and some of that we want to continue and make sure that people understand what's happened in Medicare. We want to also talk about the rest of America, those that are not yet 65 or will not soon be 65. We'll go through those issues. I want to just start off by laying out what's happening here in Congress. I'm a newbie. I haven't been around all that long, and I'm going, Wow, how's this all work? And as I've watched it, I've listened to what our Republican colleagues talk about, ramming through this legislation. And I'm going, gee, I was the Lieutenant Governor in California until November 5 when I was sworn in here. And as near as I can recall, this debate started 14 months ago. It was the President standing right there in the Well here giving his State of the Union--it wasn't the State of the Union at the time. It was his first speech to the House. He said, We have got to reform the health care system. And immediately, this House and the Senate took up the issue, debated it. We all listened to that debate. All year long it went on and on and on and on and on and on. And it was my good fortune, following my November 3 election, to come back here, and on November 6, be one of the people that were able to put before Americans from this House, the Democratic version of health care reform. It was Christmas Eve that the Senate finished their work and put that out on a 60 vote-- not a simple majority, but on a 60-vote bill. So now you've got both Houses having completed their work and doing what has been the tradition of Congress since the very inception of our government--more than 200 years--doing the conference work, putting together the House and the Senate versions and finding the compromise between the two of them. And the mechanism that's going to be used is a majority vote of both Houses--51 in the Senate and 216 I think it is now because some of our Members have retired--to pass an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. So the process is not jammed down anybody's throat. This has been debated more than most bills will ever be debated, and the debate actually goes back to the turn of the 20th century. It's been here for a long time. So we're moving, as we should, in a way of openness. It was the President who had his health care summit for 7 hours on television. That has never happened before. Discussing all the issues. Republican ideas, many of which are going to be in the final rescission vote that we'll take up this week. So this is not ramming anything through. This is a very deliberative process. It's gone on for a long time. So I want the public to understand that. I want them to understand that as somebody that watched it from the outside and now somebody that's watching it from the inside, this is an extraordinarily open public debate that's gone on for 14 months this session, and this issue has been around for a long, long time--decades. So here we are. Let me call upon my colleagues. What's that sign behind you, Mr. Ellison?

Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm joined with three individuals that have done that throughout their entire career here. Mr. Holt, I know you're going to have to go off to another meeting shortly, so you wanted to fill us in and carry on part of the conversation we were having early about the Medicare program.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Holt, you raised a very, very important point, and I want to just follow up. And Ms. Schakowsky also raised this point, and it's the rescission issue. Now, I was the insurance commissioner in California 2003 to 2007. And during that period of time, we received complaints about rescission, about people that had health insurance, had an illness and suddenly the insurance company canceled them. And I'll tell you that we took action against the largest insurance companies, Wellpoint Anthem, that Blue Cross program in California, and others on this specific issue. And it is a very, very, real issue. I am so happy to be here in Congress and to vote on a bill that says no more, no how, will you be able, Mr. Insurance, to continue that very pernicious, very, very damaging and grossly unfair practice. Lawsuits have gone on. This bill will put a stop to that practice. Let me just take one other thing. Mr. Ellison had a chart: 45,000 die for lack of insurance. Yes, but there are other things here. America, because of the way in which we've structured our health insurance programs, we rank 19th among the industrialized nations of the world in preventing illnesses. And in the general health care statistics, we ranked below the country of Colombia on how healthy our population is. We also know--and this is one that has really upset us as it came to all of our attention--I knew this in California, but now America knows, that over the last 2 years, in California alone, and in most other States, and I think in your State, 94 percent rate increase for individual policies. Ninety-four percent. How in the world can they do that when health care inflation has been less than 10 percent? Well, they do it because they're more interested in their bottom line profits. And I think Mr. Ellison's going to come to that in the next few moments. In California, a study done by the State government, the six largest health insurance companies in California have denied 21 percent, this is the average, 21 percent of all claims. The range goes from 39 percent down to about 20 percent. So if you take the six largest companies, the number of times that they denied claims--you want to talk about a death panel, then you talk about the insurance companies that deny necessary treatment to keep people alive. That's what they're doing in California. One-fifth. And, finally, the number of Californians, 24 percent of Californians, without insurance. Ms. Schakowsky.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Ellison, what's that thing behind you?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, we all know the stories of the insured. We all know the stories in our own districts and our own States about those people that have health insurance, but they blow through the deductible and then they blow through the annual, or they hit the maximum benefit package of that insurance, and then they're on their own. At that point they sell their house, and they often wind up in bankruptcy. The other part of what's happening is the downturn of the economy. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs. You lose your job, you lose your health care, you have no way of paying for COBRA. Even though this bill and the previous bills that this House has passed and the Senate has passed and become law do provide a subsidy to help people stay on COBRA, if you're unemployed, you have a heck of a time trying to make that payment. So people lose their jobs. They lose their insurance. They lose their health. They go bankrupt. And 45,000 Americans die because they've lost their insurance, or they never had it to begin with. So this is the story of America. The legislation that will be before Congress in the days ahead specifically deal with that problem. They deal with it, as Ms. Schakowsky has said, by saying that no longer will you lose your policy when you get sick with medical underwriting or post-event underwriting. That's one thing. Secondly, you will not be denied insurance because you have a preexisting condition. And who doesn't have a preexisting condition? It was at the summit that Representative Miller held up three pages, and he read. Each of these pages, in small type, was from an insurance company that listed the preexisting conditions that they would use to deny coverage. Everything from acne, the story that you told earlier, to kidney illnesses or colds or whatever. I know a young lady, 23 today, that came off her family insurance, tried to go back to the insurance company that she had been with for her whole life, from the day she was born. They had all of her medical records, denied her coverage because she had acne. I think the real reason was that she was a female in that child-bearing age. She wasn't pregnant, wasn't married, wasn't likely to have a child anytime soon. But she was in that child-bearing age. I said, This is not right. What's going on? She said, Well, I tried to go online to get a policy. I said, That couldn't be. I said, Give it a shot. So we went online, put down her name, female, the health statistics: denied, no coverage available. I said, let's try something. Let's just change one thing here. Let's say instead of a female, you're a male. Bingo, she got coverage. The present system discriminates in the most pernicious ways. If you're a young female, you're likely to be expensive, medical care of different kinds; you're going to give birth to a child. You talk about family-friendly policies? Not from them. So these are things that are corrected in this legislation.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Before you go there, let me just make this point. This is the point to the insurance companies. The day the President signs this bill, your discriminatory practices are over. You will not be able to discriminate against Americans because of their health status, their marital status, whether they are male or female. Those days are over. Listen carefully, health insurance companies. I know why you are spending that hundred million dollars trying to oppose this bill, because you know that the day we pass this legislation, the day this is signed by the President, your discrimination is over and every American is protected. Please go ahead.