San Marcos Daily Record: A conversation with U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett

Editor's Note: U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett visited the Daily Record Friday, May 5 and was interviewed about several topics including healthcare, the political climate and the media by Managing Editor Anita Miller. The congressman was supplied the questions a day ahead of the meeting.

MILLER: After yesterday, I think the order of my questions have changed just a bit… Please share your thoughts on the (healthcare) vote and what this means for the future.
DOGGETT: Well, I think that there are two aspects I would focus on. The first is the substance of healthcare. I believe that we need to be working toward the goal of everyone having access to a family physician. The Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, has a number of deficiencies— things that need to be corrected about it— but all of the focus has been on totally eliminating it, essentially replacing Obamacare with "Nothingcare." I had hoped that after the defeat of the first bill, there would be more of a "coming together," but as you know, Speaker Ryan said "Don't negotiate with the Democrats, let's keep this a Republican-only bill," and as a result we have a bill that's even worse than where they started out. The biggest problems I see with it are, number one: Pre-existing conditions. Almost half of Texans have something that can be defined as a pre-existing condition. I was just visiting a woman at our luncheon with the Women's Center here. Domestic violence has been defined by some insurers as a pre-existing condition. Jimmy Kimmel is not the only one to have a child born with a disability. We need to protect people with pre-existing conditions. President Trump has said this bill would do that— but it clearly does not. Second problem is for people who are too young to be on Medicare— particularly in the 50-64 range. Under the existing law, they can be charged by insurers three times as much as younger people for their premium. Under this bill, it goes up to five times. In fact, though five times is in there, other provisions of the bill will allow it to be even higher than that. Those who are in that age group, beginning to have more, need to see a physician probably. In some cases, being transitioned out of a job, need insurance very much and they're gonna be priced out of the market. Those are two of the biggest problems with the bill. The third one is what is called "essential benefits" and they're called essential benefits because they are essential. What this will mean is that insurance companies can write into the fine print of their policy, not only for poor people or people going through the insurance exchange, but someone who has the best group health policy for some major Fortune 500 company— they can begin to write provisions in there. So you think you have coverage but you find limitations on how much they'll pay per year or for your life. I remember, so well, the sister of a woman who called me in the original Obamacare debate and she was in tears talking about her sister having breast cancer. Her sister had coverage for chemotherapy, but it had a limit of $25,000. While that seems like a lot, the hospital didn't want to treat her because she didn't have a way to explain what was going to happen to the $100,000 that she needed. That's the kind of problem that we will encounter. As far as the process – that's equally important. The fact that though President Trump said that this will be insurance for everyone, it will cost less and will be better. It clearly doesn't do that— they decided to do this as a totally partisan exercise. You will recall that the bill was actually under lock and key with a guard at the capital. Even some Republicans like Rand Paul couldn't see the bill until like less than 48 hours before we began the markup. That we've never had a single person from the Trump administration come to hear a hearing— in fact, we have not had any hearing at all on this bill. Unheard of. In the process that led up to the Obamacare bill, we accepted over 100 Republican amendments. No democratic amendments were held and they ran all night sessions. And the same thing happened again this week. Another kind of "Jack in the Box," or surprise attack. We finished up our work on Wednesday night with no notice that the bill would be on the floor and at 9:15 the next morning, the bill was up on the floor. They must rely on stealth in order to pass this. It's not only the people who would come to defend the bill that need to testify, but every healthcare professional group that I've heard of— the physicians, nurses, public health, hospitals— every one of them came out against this bill and said it was bad. The groups that represent those with major diseases— heart, cancer, multiple sclerosis, March of Dimes— all these groups came out against this bill. As I said during the debate on the floor yesterday, it's as if the Republicans are hearing the "Pied Piper of Trump Tower." They feel they've got to dance. Another aspect of this bill— that it's $1,000,000,000 tax giveaway. $27,000,000 of that goes to pharmaceutical manufacturers who do not get asked for a thing in return— at a time that they're involved in massive price gouging all across this country. So I put that into the process end, because it may be that having finally passed this bill through the house that will be mode of the future— stealth attack, no hearings, no explanation, running through totally partisan bills. That really would be bad for our democracy even beyond the threat of healthcare.

MILLER: This is backing up a little bit after that, but how is the political climate in the House of Representatives and in Washington changed since the election?
DOGGETT: Well I think it's deteriorated significantly. Things weren't great a year ago but the quality of dialogue during the presidential campaign led by Donald Trump went straight down. Now we have him basically saying that anybody that is opposed to him or gets bad ratings is evil, is unpatriotic, is crazy. I'm willing to accept the fact that I don't have a monopoly on truth and that a number of Republicans with whom I deal may have a good idea– they certainly aren't unpatriotic. They hold their views strongly in many cases, but the level of respect for one another has deteriorated led by President Trump— and that is an unfortunate thing.

MILLER: President Trump's dislike of the media is well-known. Do you agree that the press is an enemy of the American people or a necessary component of a free and democratic society?
DOGGETT: Well, I view the press as vital. There's a natural tension between those who are in elected in office at all levels of government and the press. There probably isn't a month that goes by that I don't have some personal complaint about something that I read about in the press— either on me or on something that I feel that I have some insight on. One of the biggest problems we have in our country today has been the challenges that the press faces as print gets less and digital gets more. We haven't perfected that transition. It is vital that we have good investigative reporting, and just because it reaches a conclusion I don't like, doesn't mean that it's not valuable or good. I think that we need more press involvement, not less— exploring every level of government, exposing faults. I think we need a press that is focusing more on substance than just personalities, but I believe everything Trump has said about the press sets up a view that no matter how credible the evidence, we are to disregard it and believe whatever he says and that's very dangerous to democracy.

MILLER: You've been seen at marches and townhall meetings, unlike many of your colleagues. What are the biggest concerns you're hearing from your constituents?
DOGGETT: I have had a number of townhalls, I'm doing another one on the south side of San Antonio this coming week. I feel that I've learned a lot from those townhalls, but I would say the main thing— the number one issue– is Trump himself, what he's doing to our democracy. If we don't stand up to it and resist it, things will get worse than they are now. Beyond that, as far as specific areas of concern— they're concerned about health, concerned about education, both the attacks on our public schools and the attempts to divert resources from them and to denigrate them and public education. And the attacks being made on higher education, both here in the Texas Legislature and in Washington. We're not only seeing those who advocate for less individual opportunity, but they're really advocating for less American competitiveness. Our young people from pre-school to post-grad— we're making a mistake. We will have a less competitive country in the future, so education is a big one. Last week, I participated at the climate march and I'm hearing a lot of concern about the environment. Our San Marcos River and many other natural resources here in Hays County are so important to preserve. The Trump administration seems to think that environmental law enforcement is something they don't want to have anything to do with and that our natural resources only exist to be exploited. As you will recall, the biggest march, I believe, in the history of Texas at which I spoke at the Capitol— at which we had a busload plus of folks from Hays County, I think a couple of buses, plus all of the individuals that came— was the Women's March. I've met with some of the organizers since then and we will be meeting with the organizers again. It's really all a matter of, can we channel that energy into something that's constructive?

MILLER: Which leads me to my next question. There's been a resurgence of potential Democratic candidates preparing to run in the election in 2018. Although it is early, what do you foresee for that election year?
DOGGETT: Well in tying it in leading up to that directly with what I was saying. When I visit with people it's really important that you march and that you use social media but you've got to be social. We have to reach out to people that thought voting for Trump was a shortcut to get big change in Washington and many of those people are right here in Hays County. I say that now is a particularly good time to get involved with a local group. The Women's Center is one, environmental groups concerned with our river— that was the appeal I made when I spoke at Bobcat Build, to not just have a day of service but to find a group— working with children, working with seniors, here in the county because the federal budget has been reduced. So there's that, and then there is getting involved in the political process. If you want to bring about change, you have to change what is happening in the political process and you have to hold every elected official at every level of government accountable for their conduct.