Rep. Doggett Speaks in Favor of a Motion to Replace Cuts to Medicaid and CHIP by Closing Tax Loopholes
Rep. Doggett's full remarks as delivered follow below:
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
This effort, like so many other aspects on this reconciliation matter, is really just designed to place the burden on our most vulnerable neighbors for the effort to try to get our budget in better order. In giving the states much broader discretion, the only way we will save money is if that discretion is exercised in order to deny more health care to more people.
While the Affordable Care Act extended insurance coverage to over 30 million of the uninsured, the only way that goal can be fully fulfilled is for Medicaid to be accessible to those who need it the most. Denying coverage to those in Medicaid, or setting up various phony restrictions such as frequent renewal of coverage in hopes that some poor people will be unable to access coverage, just means that fewer children will get vaccinations, fewer pregnant women will get the prenatal care that they need, fewer seniors will be able to access quality nursing home care or other types of long term care. And it means, as several of my colleagues have noted, that we’ll find 400,000 people losing their coverage.
Like the Republican plan to eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, it doesn’t really save our society money in the long run. These newly uninsured individuals will still need health care—and many of them will receive the most expensive form of it by filling our emergency rooms.
Just like the Chairman’s plan to block grant Medicaid, this proposal is done under the guise of giving the states more authority over Medicaid programs. We’ve had some experience with this in Texas. In Texas, in 2010, Governor Perry was given almost $850 million extra dollars for Medicaid. I’ve yet to find one child or one senior who got improved health care services as a result of that near billion dollars of federal expenditures. In fact, Texas, within a few days of receiving this $850 billion, even though it was near the bottom of the states in reimbursements to physicians, took the near billion dollars from the federal government and proceeded to cut those payments further, using the money to plug unrelated budget holes.
I have no confidence that the changes being made here today will result in anything other than substantial reductions in the quality of care and in the number of people who can access care in my home state. No one can doubt that we need to address our rising deficit. This motion ensures that when considering ways to solve our debt, that we ask not just Ms. Lopez, who is a senior trying to access long-term health care, but Mr. Exxon to contribute a little in this effort to find a fair and responsible budget. The Republican way—just taking from the pockets of the elderly and cutting health services for children without closing a single tax loophole— is just the opposite of fair, responsible, and reasonable. I support this motion and hope that it can be adopted to add a tad of equity in what is a very inequitable reconciliation measure.