Murphy Blasts Republicans’ Continued Sabotage Of Health Care System, Continued Efforts To Gut The Affordable Care Act

WASHINGTON, June 26 -- Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Connecticut, issued the following news release:

Less than two weeks before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the Texas v. United States case, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, on Wednesday delivered remarks on the U.S. Senate floor to blast the Trump administration for taking the unprecedented step in supporting a lawsuit to gut the entire Affordable Care Act, and what that means for the 522,000 people in Connecticut and over 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions.

"The Trump administration has made the decision to join with 22 Republican attorneys general to argue that the entirety of the Affordable Care Act should be dismantled with nothing to replace it," said Murphy. "And so, I wanted to come down to the floor to make sure that everybody understands what the stakes are on July 9 when the Trump administration will argue in court to get rid of insurance for 20 to 30 million Americans, what the stakes are for this Senate, and in particular, Senate Republicans, refusing to stand up to the president in his perpetuation of this lawsuit. If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, there are 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions who could see insurance rates of up to 50 to 60 percent."

"To rip away Medicaid expansion, to rip out from the roots of the health care system, the exchanges and the tax credits, to get rid of all of the insurance protections, to reverse the gains we've made on lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, to do all of that with nothing to replace it is to invite misery, destitution and chaos," Murphy continued.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that over 1 million more people were uninsured in 2018 than were in 2016. Last year, Republican Attorneys General--led by Texas--sued the federal government, arguing that protections for those with pre-existing conditions in the Affordable Care Act are unconstitutional. The Trump administration took the unprecedented step to side with the partisan lawsuit, threatening health insurance coverage for over 20 million Americans. In December, Murphy blasted the ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, who threw out the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, throwing the American health care system into chaos. U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in this lawsuit in July.

The full text of Murphy's remarks is below:

"Thank you very much, Mr. President. On July 9, the Trump administration will be in court defending the Texas v. United States lawsuit. Let me rephrase that: they won't be defending the lawsuit, they will be arguing on the side of the plaintiff in that lawsuit. This is a virtually unprecedented move, administrations traditionally defend the statutes of the United States no matter what they feel about the politics of the underlying statute. But the Trump administration has made the decision to join with 22 Republican attorneys general to argue that the entirety of the Affordable Care Act should be dismantled with nothing to replace it. Those of us who believe that it would not be wise policy to kick 20 million people off of insurance, get rid of all of the insurance protections in the Affordable Care Act, with no idea as to what comes next, we have begged our Republican colleagues to join us in telling the Trump administration, demanding the Trump administration argue against the attorneys general in this case, because I've listened to my Republican friends, I've listened to the president himself over and over again say that though they don't like the Affordable Care Act, they want to replace it with something else, something that insures more people, something that continues to protect people with preexisting conditions. And so if that is your position, then it stands to reason that you would oppose a lawsuit which seeks to invalidate the entirety of the Affordable Care Act with nothing to replace it.

"But the witching hour is upon us: the oral arguments are the week after next, and this lawsuit was successful at the district court level and so there is no reason not believe that there is a substantial possibility that it could be successful at the appellate court level as well.

"And so I wanted to come down to the floor, as we head into this week where we'll be back in our districts to just make sure that everybody understands what the stakes are on July 9 when the Trump administration will argue in court to get rid of insurance for 20 to 30 million Americans, what the stakes are for this Senate, and in particular, Senate Republicans, refusing to stand up to the president in his perpetuation of this lawsuit. If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, there are 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions who could see insurance rates of up to 50 to 60 percent, others will have their insurance withdrawn when they go through open enrollment next because no insurer will cover someone with serious, very expensive, preexisting conditions.

"That was the way things worked before the Affordable Care Act was passed. Gone is Medicaid expansion, which today covers 17 million people across the country and I've been happy to see more and more states with Republican governors, or Republican state legislatures adopt the Medicaid expansions, becoming a source of bipartisan agreement that more people should have access to Medicaid. And so those 17 [million] people lose their coverage.

"12 million seniors will pay more immediately for prescription drugs because the Affordable Care Act gets rid of, over time, essentially the entirety of the Medicare part D doughnut hole. 2.3 million adult children who are on their parents' insurance, up until they become 26, would potentially lose access to that insurance, the Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to cover those kids, many insurers without that requirement would no longer cover those children. And then many of the other protections in the marketplace, like bans on lifetime caps or annual caps, can return. Insurers will once again be back in the practice of saying to a very sick childhood cancer patient, you only get X amount of insurance coverage from us, and once you go beyond that number, then it's on your dime again.

"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act was passed there were a million and a half families every single year in this country who declared bankruptcy. Today there are half as many families that declare bankruptcy in this country. And it's [no] coincidence that studies told us that of those 1.5 million half of them were declaring bankruptcy because of medical costs. When you don't go bankrupt any longer because of medical costs, because you have access to affordable insurance and your insurance company can't kick you off because you get sick, you don't face that kind of destitution like families faced before.

"And so I think it does make sense to, you know just run through the lineup of who has weighed in in favor of this court case to invalidate the entirety of the Affordable Care Act and knock 20 to 30 million people off of insurance to jack up rates for millions more, and who has weighed in against it. Well, the president wants this lawsuit to succeed, attorneys general want this lawsuit to succeed and by the silence of my Republican colleagues, you would infer that many Republicans may want this lawsuit to succeed.

"But here is who hates this lawsuit. I'm not going to run through the whole list here, but this is essentially anybody who knows anything about health care. This is essentially every organization that represents people who have serious diseases, every association that represents doctors, every association that represents hospitals. And you don't really find all of those groups aligned on much at all. Because when you're moving around pieces in the health care system often you will do something that benefits patients that insurers won't like, or you'll benefit something that hospitals, that single-practice offices won't like. This is pretty much everybody who says if you kick 20 million people off insurance, like that, and you have no plan to replace it, that's a humanitarian catastrophe.

"Here is what the AARP says in their filing opposing this lawsuit: 'If this court finds the ACA is invalid, millions of older adults will lose the health care coverage and consumer protections that they have relied on for years and it will also throw the Medicare and Medicaid programs into fiscal and administrative chaos which would disrupt the nation's health care system and economy. It will plunge the more than 100 million people with preexisting conditions into the abyss of uncertainty over whether they can obtain coverage.' That's the AARP.

"Here's the American Medical Association says: 'The decision below, if affirmed, would have devastating effects on the quality, cost, and availability of such care.' Families U.S.A. says, 'Among those whose coverage rates increased due to Medicaid expansion, our young adults, people with H.I.V., veterans, rural residents, racial and ethnic minorities, many of our most vulnerable citizens who are covered by Medicaid, and eliminating the expansion would leave them without health care.'

"I mention the insurance companies are against this lawsuit. They say this: 'Invalidation of the ACA, irrespective of the continued operation of the so-called individual mandate, would wreak havoc on the health care system.' And, finally, Americans with Disabilities, they say the result is a cruel irony. 'The population that needs health care the most, has the hardest time obtaining it. For the last nine years the ACA has helped change that. Stripping away its protections now will reverse the positive gains that people with disabilities have realized and will return this community to the same grim reality as before the ACA, if not place people with disabilities in even worse position.'

"And so let's not forget where we were before the Affordable Care Act was passed. I'm not saying that it's perfect, I'm not saying that we shouldn't work together to try to improve it. We just finished a debate in the health committee in which we passed a whole bunch of reforms to our health care system that Republicans and Democrats agree on. But the American Cancer Society in their filing reminds the court that a 2009 Harvard Medical study-- Harvard Medical School study found that approximately 45,000 deaths annually could be attributed to the lack of health insurance. The Heart Association says this: 'Even during a heart attack, uninsured patients were more likely to delay seeking medical care because of the financial limitations.'

"And I could go on and on reading from these filings or reading from the testimony that all of these groups have submitted. Again that's not to say that these groups don't want changes in our health care system. Nobody on this list, as far as I know, is arguing for the status quo, just as no one in this body is arguing for the status quo. But to rip away Medicaid expansion, to rip out from the roots of the health care system the exchanges and the tax credits to get rid of all of the insurance protections, to reverse the gains we've made on lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, to do all of that with nothing to replace it is to invite misery, destitution and chaos.

"And let's just be honest. We're not ready to ride to the rescue. I offered an amendment in the HELP committee today, just asking for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide us with a report about what the landscape would look like in the health care system if Texas V. United States was successful. I didn't get a single Republican vote for that. All I was asking was that we just get a report on how bad it's going to be so that we can do a little bit of advanced planning, and not a single Republican was willing to vote for that in committee today.

"And so we are deliberately boxing our eyes and ears about what could be the effect on our constituents if this lawsuit is successful. We are not in a position to ride to the rescue. There is no chance that this Congress is going to pass a new health care reform proposal that will restore health care to everybody that lost it. Not happening. And I know that's not a surprise to anyone here. You also shouldn't delude yourself into thinking that this lawsuit won't be successful. There are lots of very smart legal scholars who suggest that this argument that the plaintiffs are making, that the Trump administration has endorsed, is nonsense. I tend to agree with them. The argument is that because you got rid of one section of the Affordable Care Act, then the court needs to invalidate the rest. Well, Congress made its intent pretty clear. Republicans decided to get rid of the individual mandate, or the penalty that's assessed if you don't have insurance, and deliberately did not choose to get rid of the rest of it. I think that's not a smart decision, but the intent of Congress is pretty clear.

"That's my belief that this argument doesn't hold water. That's the belief of many smart legal scholars. But the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. So you already have a federal judge who has invalidated the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. Since then the Trump administration has upped the ante. The district court finding in favor of the plaintiffs, which invalidates the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, that didn't convince the president to say, oh hey, let's pull back the reins a little bit here, you know let's maybe we change our position, this feels a little bit too real, let's see if we can hedge our bets. No, after the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the administration changed their position to go all-in on the plaintiffs' side, their initial finding only backed up some of the plaintiffs' claims.

"So the district court ruled that the Affordable Care Act had to disappear overnight. The Trump administration has changed their position to weigh in as to support the entirety of the lawsuit. And we're not having a serious conversation about what happens if the fate that all of these groups are deeply fearful of comes to pass.

"And finally, this is not about numbers. This isn't about statistics. This is about real people. Michael from New Fairfield, Connecticut, says to me: 'This is personal to me. The ACA literally saved my life in 2016. I have a preexisting recurrent skull base disease. Had it for most of my adult life. I underwent an 11-hour skull base neurosurgery to remove a benign tumor that involved my brain arteries, nasal passages, jaw, and a total reconstruction of my middle and outer ear canals. My surgeon said I was a month away from a much more debilitating surgical outcome. As it is, my recovery and rehabilitation period has been two years. My spouse and I both run our own business and the ACA is still our family's only health care option. Without the operations and the ACA coverage, the disease would have continued to progress. I would have eventually died and my family would have had to sell the house and/or go bankrupt to manage the medical expenses.'

"David from Southport says: 'In July 2011, I was diagnosed with colon cancer. At the time I was covered under an individual policy with Blue Cross Blue Shield. It was a very comprehensive policy and after my deductible was satisfied, it covered all my doctors' visits, my hospital expenses. However, after a couple of years I was advised that due to my preexisting condition, I would not be able to renew my policy. At the time I enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, Access Health Connecticut, and without this policy through Access Health Connecticut, I would not be able to be insured and would face prohibitive costs for even basic care.'

"David's story can be told thousands of times over. Diagnosis, followed by denial of coverage from an insurance company because of a preexisting condition. There is no free market response when it comes to very sick people who want insurance. Because the free market tells the insurance company: do not insure somebody who is going to cost you a lot of money. The free market would tell the insurance company to keep that person on the outside of insurance and so there has to be a public sector response. We provided that response with the Affordable Care Act and now in a matter of weeks or months it could all be gone.

"So I come down to the floor this afternoon to once again engage my colleagues in asking them to work together. Let's try to find a common ground here, at least behind the premise that you shouldn't rip out the foundation of the modern health care system without a plan for what goes next. I assume we will continue to offer unanimous consent requests to try to withhold funding for the Trump administration's perpetuation of this lawsuit. And I would hope that we can get Republican support for that motion. Not because Republicans support the Affordable Care Act. I get it. I'm not going to get Republicans to support the Affordable Care Act. But because I think my Republican friends need to make good on what they have said for years, that they want the Affordable Care Act to go but they really want something else to replace it that will insure the same number of people, protect folks who are sick. That can't happen if this lawsuit succeeds and as we head back to our districts for this recess period I wanted to make sure everybody knew how many groups that know something or anything about health care are standing against Texas v. The United States. I yield the floor."