Skip to main content
Category

Capitol Hill

protectourcare
In Capitol Hill, News

Here We Go Again: Mike Braun Rewriting His Own History During Senate Debate

Washington, DC – Last night, Mike Braun continued his desperate attempt to convince Hoosiers that he would defend protections for people with pre-existing during his debate against Senator Joe Donnelly, a true leader who has worked tirelessly to protect health care for all Americans. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response to Bruan’s claims, which were called out by AP factcheckers during debate:

 

“Once again, Mike Braun isn’t being honest with the people of Indiana, who want their leaders to protect health care. Braun ought to get four-pinocchios everytime he mentions keeping protections for people with pre-existing conditions since he has consistently tried to gut protections for people with conditions like cancer, diabetes or heart disease. Let’s be clear, the facts are the facts. Braun has one goal and one goal only — to end health care for all Hoosiers, no matter the cost.”

 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

 

What Braun Said:

“I would never be for any replacement of the Affordable Care Act unless it covered pre-existing conditions.” [AP, 10/9/2018]

 

What Braun Has Done:

Braun Is Campaigning On The Repeal Of The Affordable Care Act. On the subject of the ACA, his website reads, “There is no repairing this broken law; the only option is to repeal and replace every word and regulation.” [Braun For Indiana, Accessed 8/14/18]

 

  • Braun: “We Must Repeal Obamacare, Not Repair It.”  “Government is not the driver of new job creation or economic prosperity. And too often it gets in the way with onerous regulations and sky-high taxes. President Trump’s work to remove burdensome red tape and lower taxes for families and businesses are a start, but now is the time to double down on empowering the private sector and job creators. We need a tax code that is simple and fair. We must repeal Obamacare, not repair it, to rein in costs and expand healthcare options.” [Braun for Indiana, accessed 5/15/18]

 

Braun, June 2018: I Will “Fully Repeal” Obamacare. “In the Senate, I will use my business experience and work with President Trump to fully repeal Obamacare and implement free-market solutions that will provide better healthcare for Hoosiers.” [City-County Observer, 7/26/18]

 

May 2018: The Tea Party Has Endorsed Braun, In Part Because He Supports “Repealing Obamacare.” “Our supporters were proud to endorse Mike, because he is a strong supporter of the Penny Plan, term limits, repealing Obamacare.” [Tea Party, 5/9/18]

 

Mike Braun Supports The GOP Lawsuit to Eliminate Pre-existing Conditions Protections:  “Sure, Anything That’s Going To Actually Get Rid Of It, Yes.” “‘Sure, anything that’s going to actually get rid of it, yes,’ said Indiana GOP Senate nominee Mike Braun of the GOP lawsuit to gut the law in an interview in Mishawaka. ‘And then be ready to come back and talk about what you’re ready to do about pre-existing conditions and no limits on coverage. That’s where you don’t hear much conservative talk.'” [Politico, 8/17/18]

  • 2,745,700 Hoosiers Live With A Pre-Existing Condition. About one in two Hoosiers, 50 percent, lives with a pre-existing condition. [CAP, 4/5/17]

 

  • 1,382,000 Indiana Women And Girls Have A Pre-Existing Condition. Approximately 1,382,000 women and girls in Indiana live with a pre-existing condition. [CAP & National Partnership For Women and Families, June 2018]

 

  • 377,100 Indiana Children Already Have A Pre-Existing Condition. Roughly 377,000 Hoosiers below age 18 live with a pre-existing condition. [CAP, 4/5/17]

 

  • 643,800 Older Hoosiers Live With A Pre-Existing Condition. 643,800 Indiana adults between the ages of 55 and 64 live with at least one pre-existing condition, meaning attacks on these protections significantly threaten Hoosiers approaching Medicare age. [CAP, 4/5/17]

 

 

protectourcare
In Capitol Hill, News

FACT-CHECK:  Leah Vukmir Can’t Rewrite History

 

Prior to ACA Insurance Companies Routinely Denied Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions

During last night’s debate between Senator Tammy Baldwin and Leah Vukmir,, Vukmir, a long time, rabid proponent of repealing the Affordable Care Act, including its protections for people with pre-existing conditions, claimed that people with pre-existing conditions would continue to have coverage even if the Affordable Care Act were repealed. This is false.  

 

The facts:  Prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), insurance companies had the ability to deny or drop coverage based on a pre-existing condition for anyone purchasing coverage in the individual market. That included women and people with any health issue like cancer, diabetes, or asthma.

Senator Baldwin is standing up for people with pre-existing conditions. She stood up against Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act last year. She is a leader trying to stop the expansion of “short-term” plans, or junk plans that allow insurance companies to deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition and has introduced a resolution to do just that.

 

Here’s what really took place before the ACA:

 

  • Before The ACA, Insurance Companies Could Retroactively Deny Someone Coverage Once They Got SIck. This foul-play impacted Robin Beaton, whose insurance company denied her coverage for a double mastectomy because she had previously received acne treatment. “Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed surgery — immediately. Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would not be able to have her surgery. The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist for acne.

 

    • Before The ACA, 18 Percent Of Individual Market Applications Were Denied Because Of A Pre-Existing Condition.

 

  • Prior To The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Charged Women An Estimated $1 Billion More Than Men For The Same Health Care Plans.

 

Thanks To The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Can No Longer Drop Coverage Because You Get Sick. Because of the ACA, insurance companies can no longer rescind or cancel someone’s coverage arbitrarily or because they get sick.

  • Because Of The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Can No Longer Impose Annual And Lifetime Limits On Coverage. Before the ACA, insurance companies could restrict the amount of dollar amount of benefits someone could use per year or over a lifetime. At the time the ACA was passed, 91 million Americans had health care through their employers that imposed lifetime limits. Many such plans capped benefits at $1 million annually, functionally locking people with complex medical needs out of coverage.
protectourcare
In Capitol Hill, News

Pro-Repeal, Anti-Health Care Extremist Leah Vukmir To Debate Health Care Champion Senator Tammy Baldwin Tonight

Washington DC — Tonight in Milwaukee, Leah Vukmir, a pro-repeal Republican who supports ending protections for people with pre-existing conditions will debate Senator Tammy Baldwin. Vukmir has earned the nickname ‘Nurse Ratched’ by fellow Republicans due to her extreme positions on health care and multiple attempts to block Medicaid expansion in Wisconsin. Ahead of the debate, Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:

“After years of attempting roll back protections for millions of Wisconsinites, Leah Vukmir is touting her experience as a nurse to try to convince us that her record on health care isn’t as bad as it is. But the truth is, in addition to supporting a full repeal the ACA, Vukmir wants to dismantle Medicaid and even voted against protections for Wisconsin kids who need cochlear implants. Vukmir’s record on health care is as extreme – far too extreme for Wisconsin – as it is cruel.”

 

Vukmir Supports Repealing The ACA And Its Protections For 2.4 Million Wisconsinites with Pre-Existing Conditions

Vukmir “Supports Full Repeal Of Obamacare. Period.” “Leah understands why people are upset with Republicans who promised to repeal Obamacare and didn’t deliver. She supports full repeal of Obamacare. Period. And she won’t stop pushing for full repeal in Congress.” [LeahVukmir.com, accessed 6/12/18]

What would full repeal of the Affordable Care Act mean for Wisconsin? ?

    • Elimination of protections for 2.4 million Wisconsinites with pre-existing conditions, if they buy coverage on their own
    • Elimination of improvements to Medicare, including reduced costs for prescription drugs
    • Ending allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26
    • Elimination of ban on annual and lifetime limits
    • Elimination of ban on insurance discrimination against women
    • Elimination of a limit on out-of-pocket costs
    • Elimination of the Medicaid expansion, currently covering 15 million people
    • Elimination of rules to hold insurance companies accountable
    • Elimination of small business tax credits
    • Elimination of marketplace tax credits and coverage for up to 215,000 Wisconsinites

Vukmir Supported Scott Walker’s Plan To Convert All Health Care Programs To Block Grants: “A Successful Repeal Of Obamacare Begins With The Federal Government Handing Over The Reins To The States.” “State Sen. Leah Vukmir, R–Brookfield, Tuesday endorsed Gov. Scott Walker’s request of the White House and Congress to send states block grants, giving them full responsibility for health care programs. ‘Healthcare is very personal,’ said Vukmir, chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee. ‘That’s why those closest to our constituents, not Washington bureaucrats, should be responsible for tailoring our programs to fit Wisconsin’s needs. A successful repeal of Obamacare begins with the federal government handing over the reins to the states.’” [State Senator Leah Vukmir Press Release, 8/22/17]

  • Converting health care programs to block grants was the core of what the Graham-Cassidy repeal bill would have done. Multiple independent analyses agreed that the Graham-Cassidy repeal bill would have cut federal funding to states including a $29 billion cut over two decades to Wisconsin.

Vukmir Is Hostile Towards Medicaid

Vukmir “Would Support Efforts To Send Medicaid Dollars To States In The Form Of A Block Grant.” “Finally, Leah knows from her experience dealing with Wisconsin’s Medicaid program that states truly are laboratories of innovation, which is what our founders intended. Leah supports more flexibility for states when it comes to Medicaid spending, and would support efforts to send Medicaid dollars to states in the form of a block grant – allowing states more flexibility to design their own plans and save taxpayers billions of dollars.” [LeahVukmir.com, accessed 6/12/18]

  • The Graham-Cassidy bill would have enacted Vukmir’s plan to convert Medicaid into a block grant, meaning the 1,037,795 Wisconsinites who are enrolled on Medicaid would have their care jeopardized. Medicaid disproportionately helps children, seniors in nursing home care and people with disabilities. A study by Avalere found that a Graham-Cassidy-style plan would cut funding for people with disabilities by 15-percent and 31-percent for children by 2036.

Vukmir Opposed Medicaid Expansion In Wisconsin. “State Sen. Leah Vukmir, R–Brookfield, issued the following statement Friday after seeing recent news reports from states that accepted Medicaid expansion dollars and are now facing major problems with their budgets: ‘Recent reports from states across the U.S. are confirming our prior expectations, proving what we’ve known all along: Increased expansion is not financially feasible.” [State Senator Leah Vukmir Press Release, 4/22/16]

  • Medicaid is not only a lifeline for over one million Wisconsinites, it strengthens our communities and is supported by 74 percent of Americans. By not fully expanding Medicaid, Wisconsin has restricted its Medicaid program such that only Residents earning up to 100 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible to enroll in Medicaid. If Wisconsin expanded its program, 119,000 more adults could gain coverage through Medicaid.

Vukmir Supports Drug Testing For Medicaid Recipients.  “Gov. Scott Walker wants to make Wisconsin the first state in the country to require able-bodied, childless adults applying for Medicaid health benefits to undergo drug screening, a move that could serve as a national model.  […] Republican backer, Sen. Leah Vukmir, defended the approach, saying: ‘We know what to do. We know how to take care of our own.’” [Associated Press, 5/25/17]

  • Drug-testing Medicaid recipients hurts the people who need help the most.  People with substance abuse disorders will be reluctant to disclose that they use drugs for fear of legal or medical retribution. Making it easier, rather than harder, for those who need substance abuse treatment to access that coverage through Medicaid will help combat the opioid crisis and halt the spread of conditions like HIV and Hepatitis which are spread via intravenous drug use.  Drug tests are also a waste of state resources. One study from Florida found that of 4,086 applicants tested over four months, only 2.6 percent failed a drug test. Over four months, this testing regime cost the state $45,780.
protectourcare
In Capitol Hill, Administration, News

New Poll: Health Care Is A Top Issue For North Dakotans

New poll released ahead of Protect Our Care’s “Care Force One” Bus Tour Rolling Into Fargo and Bismarck

Six in 10 Voters Disapprove Of Cramer’s Vote to Repeal Health Care and Revive Age Tax

Sixty Percent of Voters Oppose Trump Administration’s Lawsuit To Gut Pre-existing Conditions Protections and Cramer’s Support for Health Repeal

 

Washington DC — Ahead of the ‘Care Force One’ bus tour stops on Tuesday, October 9, 2018 in Fargo and Bismarck, a new poll by Change Research for Protect Our Care shows sixty percent of voters strongly oppose the Trump-GOP lawsuit to eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions and fifty-two percent say health care is very important to them in the midterms. This poll shows danger ahead for Kevin Cramer, who has voted repeatedly to repeal health care for North Dakotans and served as one of the biggest cheerleaders of the Trump Administration’s lawsuit to end protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care issued the following statement upon the poll’s findings:

 

“Kevin Cramer thinks he can hide his shameful record on health care from the public, but he can’t: From his support of the Trump-GOP lawsuit that would eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions to ads that flat-out lie about his record, Cramer has done absolutely nothing to help North Dakotans have quality and affordable health care — and worse, he’s taken many steps to harm them. For years, Cramer has voted to repeal our care and give insurance companies the power to deny or drop coverage, or charge more because of a pre-existing condition or a person’s age. By putting big insurance companies ahead of working North Dakota families, Kevin Cramer has not earned a promotion to the Senate.”

 

Key Findings from the Protect Our Care-Change Research survey of North Dakota Voters:

  • Sixty percent of voters oppose the Trump Administration’s lawsuit to eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions, while only twenty-nine percent support
  • Fifty-two percent of voters say health care is very important when deciding their vote for the U.S. Senate
  • Sixty-one percent of voters have a major concern with Cramer’s vote to repeal the ACA and allow insurance companies to charge an age tax for people 50 and older.
  • Fifty-three percent of voters have a major concern with Cramer’s vote to repeal the ACA and undermine protections for people with pre-existing condition

This poll surveyed 967 registered voters online in North Dakota on October 3, 2018 using Change Research’s bias correct engine. The margin of error is +/- 3.15% and the post-stratification was done on age, gender, ethnicity, and 2016 presidential vote.

Health Care Repeal in North Dakota would mean the elimination of:

    • Protections for 316,000 North Dakotans with pre-existing conditions
    • Improvements to Medicare, including reduced costs for prescription drugs
    • Allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26
    • Ban on annual and lifetime limits
    • Ban on insurance discrimination against women
    • Medicaid expansion currently covering 21,400 North Dakotans
    • Marketplace tax credits and coverage for up to 20,000 North Dakotans.

 

Kevin Cramer Repeatedly Voted to Eliminate Repeal Health Care Protections for People Over Age 50 and People with Pre-existing Conditions

2013:  Cramer Voted For A Total Repeal Of The ACA.  Cramer voted for HR 45, an act “to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.” [HR 45, Roll Call Vote #154, 5/16/13]

2015:  Cramer Voted For A Total Repeal Of The ACA.  Cramer voted for HR 596, an act “to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.”  The bill also ordered House committees to develop a replacement that would “provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage,” but provided no specifics. [HR 596, Roll Call Vote #58, 2/3/15]

 

  • Cramer Said The Bill Would “Repeal The Affordable Care Act In Its Entirety.” “Today Congressman Kevin Cramer voted with the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.” [Cramer Website, 2/3/15]

 

2017: Cramer Voted For AHCA.  Cramer voted for passage of the American Health Care Act.  [HR 1628, Roll Call Vote #256, 5/4/17]

 

Cramer supports the Trump Administration’s lawsuit to roll back coverage for people with pre-existing conditions

Kevin Cramer vigorously supports the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back coverage for people with pre-existing conditions via a lawsuit that would eliminate the protections for pre-existing conditions that exist in the ACA.  

Cramer is now doubling down on his support for the AHCA last year, a bill which would have allowed insurance companies to go back to charging people with pre-existing conditions “prohibitively high premiums.”  

Cramer’s support for these measures puts the health of the 316,000 North Dakotans living with a pre-existing condition at risk and would take us back to the days when insurers routinely denied coverage or charged unaffordable premiums to people with pre-existing conditions, including cancer, asthma and hypertension.

 

 

protectourcare
In Capitol Hill, Administration

Warning to Trump and House Republicans: Tonight, You’re in Health Care Voter Country

Trump-GOP Likely to Stump on Lies in Minnesota Tonight at a Time when  Nearly Two-in-three Minnesota Voters Say Health Care is a Top Issue in the Election

 

Washington, DC –  As President Trump prepares to campaign for House Republicans in Rochester, MN tonight, Protect Our Care warns these pro-repeal Republicans that health care is a top issue to Minnesota voters, who disapprove of Republican attacks on pre-existing conditions and the pro-repeal record of incumbents like Jason Lewis and Erik Paulsen. Recognizing how deeply unpopular the Trump-GOP health care agenda has been, Trump and his allies have resorted to lying to the American people about their record on health care, as three separate outlets this week have determined. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response:

“At a time when Minnesotans want their elected officials to strengthen protections for people with pre-existing conditions, politicians like Erik Paulsen and Jason Lewis have instead taken up arms in Trump’s war on health care. Worse, they have claimed to support these protections after voting numerous times to eliminate them and then doing nothing to defend them in the wake of a Trump administration lawsuit to eviscerate them. Voters in Minnesota are angry about it, and every indication is that they are preparing to take this anger out at the polls.”

 

Additional Information

Erik Paulsen Voted At Least Four Times to Fully Repeal The ACA And Its Protections For 2.3 Million Minnesotans with Pre-Existing Conditions, Including Voting for AHCA

Jason Lewis Voted Twice to Repeal or Substantially Alter The ACA And Its Protections For 2.3 Million Minnesotans with Pre-Existing Conditions, Including Voting for AHCA

What would full repeal of the Affordable Care Act eliminate in Minnesota?

  • Protections for 2,331,000 Minnesotans, including 304,100 of Lewis’s constituents in MN-02 and 27,700 in Paulsen’s district MN-03 with pre-existing conditions, if they buy coverage on their own
  • Improvements to Medicare, including reduced costs for prescription drugs
  • Allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26
  • Ban on annual and lifetime limits
  • Ban on insurance discrimination against women
  • Limit on out-of-pocket costs
  • Medicaid expansion currently covering  223,000 people
  • Marketplace tax credits and coverage for up to 140,000 Minnesotans

What Did AHCA Mean for Minnesota?

  • In 2026, more than 254,000 Minnesotans would lose coverage under this bill, including 28,500 in Lewis’s district and 27,700 in Paulsen’s district.
  • The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the American Health Care Act would have raised premiums 20 percent in 2018.
  • AHCA imposed what the AARP calls an “age tax” on older Americans. In Minnesota, out-of-pocket costs for older people could increase by as much as $11,564  by 2026.
  • The negative economic impact of the American Health Care Act would cause 24,785 Minnesotans to lose their jobs by 2022, including 1,618  in the 2nd congressional district and 1,062 in the 3rd congressional district

What Did AHCA Mean For Pre-Existing Conditions?

  • The American Health Care Act weakens key protections of the Affordable Care Act by allowing states to let insurers charge people with pre-existing conditions more, among other provisions. The bill would also make it more likely insurers would cherrypick young and healthier people, causing costs to skyrocket for older, sicker people.
  • Politifact found that AHCA “would weaken protections” for those with pre-existing conditions and “would allow states to give insurers the power to charge people significantly more.”

 

protectourcare
In Capitol Hill, News

Hold The Phone: Rick Scott Flat-Out Lies During Senate Debate

Washington DC — At the Senate debate in Miami last night, Florida Governor Rick Scott joined his fellow Republicans and flat-out lied to voters about his record on health care. Scott’s shameful effort to re-write history continued as he explained his stance on universal health care coverage, stating that “we have to make sure that anybody can get health care insurance.” Let’s be clear, Rick Scott has no plans to protect millions of Floridians health care — his record speaks for itself.  

 

Here’s the truth:

 

Rick Scott helped design Republican repeal efforts that would have jeopardized access to care for up to 7.8 million Floridians.

  • HEADLINE:  “Florida’s Rick Scott Says He’s Helping Trump Craft Replacement Health Care Plan.” [McClatchy, 1/18/17]
  • Rick Scott Was An Advisor To The Trump Administration On Plans To Repeal The ACA.  “ Kicking off a series of meetings with incoming Trump administration officials, Gov. Rick Scott said Wednesday he hopes to help them devise a less costly alternative to Obamacare. Scott said he’s talking with Donald Trump every week or two while working closely with Rep. Tom Price, the president-elect’s choice to run the government agency that oversees Medicaid, Medicare and the landmark 2010 health-insurance law.” [McClatchy, 1/18/17]
  • Rick Scott Continued To Push For Repeal Even After It Failed In The Senate. “Gov. Rick Scott, whose political career is largely defined by opposition to the Affordable Care Act, still wants Republicans to repeal the federal health care law despite their apparent failure to do so. ‘Floridians simply cannot afford the high taxes and mandates of Obamacare. This law needs to be repealed,’ Scott spokeswoman Kerri Wyland said in an emailed statement.  […] Since November, Scott has written four op-eds stressing the urgency of repealing Obamacare. ‘There is absolutely no question that Obamacare must be repealed immediately so Americans can actually afford to purchase health insurance,’ Scott wrote.” [Orlando Sentinel, 7/18/17]

What would full repeal of the Affordable Care Act get eliminate?

    • Protections for 7,810,300 with pre-existing conditions, if they buy coverage on their own
    • Improvements to Medicare, including reduced costs for prescription drugs
    • Allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26
    • Ban on annual and lifetime limits
    • Ban on insurance discrimination against women
    • Limit on out-of-pocket costs
    • Medicaid expansion currently covering 15 million people
    • Rules to hold insurance companies accountable
    • Small business tax credits
    • Marketplace tax credits and coverage for up to 1.4 million Floridians.

For years Rick Scott and the Republican majority in the Florida legislature have refused to expand Medicaid to cover more than 700,000 Floridians.

2018: Rick Scott’s Administration Submitted A Request To Cut Amount Of Time Floridians Have To Apply For Medicaid Coverage From 90 Days To 30 Days. In April, Scott’s administration submitted a request to trim the amount of time Floridians have to sign up for Medicaid coverage from 90 days to 30 days. The state estimated this change would impact almost 39,000 Floridians, but providers warned it could exceed even more.

2015: In A Victory For Rick Scott, The Florida House Rejected Medicaid Expansion For the Third Time.  In June 2015, the Florida House rejected a plan 72-41 that would have covered as many as 650,000 residents. It was the third time that legislators had considered and spurned some version of health care expansion since passage of the Affordable Care Act. It represented a victory for Gov. Rick Scott who opposed the bill, which had already passed the state Senate on a 33-3 vote. The Florida Health Insurance Affordability Exchange would have used more than $18 billion over 10 years in federal funds to expand the pool of low-income Floridians eligible for health insurance and help them buy it from private providers.

  • 2013: Both Houses Rejected Rick Scott’s Plan To Expand Medicaid.  Governor Rick Scott’s plan to expand Medicaid coverage failed to make it out of a key state legislative committees.  The Senate Select Committee on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act voted 7-4 to reject the expansion, with all of the committee’s Republican members voting against the plan. A House legislative committee also rejected the expansion.

 

  • 2017: The State Senate Rejected Medicaid Expansion On A Voice Vote.  During Senate began debate on the budget in 2017, Senate Democratic Leader Oscar Braynon took to the floor and offered up an amendment to expand Medicaid. On a voice vote, the Senate voted to kill Braynon’s amendment.

 

Rick Scott says coverage for pre-existing conditions should be based on rewarding “people for caring for themselves”

Rick Scott On Care For People With Pre-existing Conditions:  “We’ve Got To Reward People For Caring For Themselves.”  “‘I believe that if you have a pre-existing condition, you need to still be able to get health care, so it’s very important to me,’ Scott told reporters in Tallahassee. ‘I think everybody ought to be able to get health care insurance. I do believe that you’ve got to start working to fix the law and that law caused our premiums to skyrocket. But I don’t believe in grand bargains, I believe in incrementally trying to make change. We’ve got a lot more competition … We’ve got to reward people for caring for themselves.’” [Tampa Bay Times, 6/13/18]

Rick Scott’s callous comments could leave millions of Floridians with conditions ranging from diabetes to cancer without a way to obtain affordable coverage.

7,810,300 Floridians Live With A Pre-Existing Condition.​ About one in two Floridians, 51 percent, lives with a pre-existing condition. [CAP, 4/5/17]

Before The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Maintained Lists Of So-Called Deniable Medical Conditions. If someone had one or more ‘deniable’ conditions, they were automatically denied coverage. Common ‘deniable’ conditions included:

  • Pregnancy, alcohol or drug abuse with recent treatment, dementia, arthritis, cancer, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, hemophilia, hepatitis, diabetes, paralysis, severe obesity, sleep apnea, AIDS/HIV, kidney disease, multiple sclerosis, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, pending surgery or hospitalization, and muscular dystrophy. [Kaiser Family Foundation, December 2016]

 

protectourcare
In Capitol Hill, Administration, News

House Republicans Scramble To Rewrite History On Pre-existing Conditions

Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response to Republicans desperate attempt to disown their war on health care:

“Republicans are getting clobbered because of their constant attacks on people with pre-existing conditions like cancer, heart disease and diabetes. But in order to survive the midterms, Republicans are trying to rewrite history as if their repeal and sabotage agenda never existed. These phony attempts prove that Republicans know the deficit they’ve created for themselves on health care is too steep to climb. Let’s not forget, these are the same people who tried to slash coverage for millions of Americans and gut all protections for pre-existing conditions. We all know Republicans are no defenders of health care and the American people aren’t going to let them flip the script.”

Republicans are scrambling to rewrite their history of opposing protections for pre-existing conditions now that they have been caught for their years of supporting health care repeal and sabotage. In addition to scrubbing their websites of mentions of repeal, House Republicans are trying to hide behind figleafs — a bill (H.R. 1121), a House resolution (H. Res. 1066), and another resolution (H.Res. 1089)— that they falsely claim are evidence that they are on the right side of this issue.

These pieces of legislation are nothing more than hollow promises that read well but in reality fail to protect people with pre-existing conditions from attacks by the Trump administration and their own earlier votes. Here’s what you need to know:

In reality, none of these actually protects people with pre-existing conditions. The language of Young’s resolution and of Sessions’ resolution, both intentionally vague, include no specifics on exactly which protections should be preserved. Though H.R. 1121 prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, it does nothing to prevent insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for coverage or reinstating annual and lifetime limits that insurers use to restrict the amount of coverage someone can use, and it does not preserve the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits, essentially allowing insurers to sell plans exempt from covering basic services like maternity care, hospitalization, and prescription drugs. Absent such protections, an insurance company could sell coverage to a cancer patient, but charge them more and drop their coverage once they reach their lifetime limit.

Two thirds of those who signed on to Rep. Young’s House resolution (H.Res. 1066) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act last summer. Of the 28 members of the House who have signed on to the resolution expressing support for pre-existing condition protections, 19 voted for the Republican repeal bill last summer. Last year’s repeal bill, the AHCA, would have dramatically weakened protections for 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition, allowing insurance companies to charge people more when they get sick, for instance up to $140,510 more for people battling metastatic cancer.

All but two co-sponsors of Rep. Sessions’ House resolution (H.Res. 1089) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act last summer. Of the eighteen co-sponsors of Rep. Sessions’ resolution, sixteen voted for the Republican repeal bill last summer, which would have allowed insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

All but eight co-sponsors of the House bill (H.R. 1121) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and weaken pre-existing condition protections last summer. Of the 75 cosponsors who voted on the AHCA last summer, 67 voted in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act and weakening protections for 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition. Their vote would have allowed insurance companies to charge people with pre-existing conditions more for coverage.

None of the co-sponsors of the bill or either resolution have shown they oppose the Republican lawsuit backed by the Trump Administration that would completely gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

Two thirds of those who signed on to Rep. Young’s House resolution (H.Res. 1066) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act last summer. Of the 28 members of the House who have signed on to the resolution expressing support for pre-existing condition protections, 19 voted for the Republican repeal bill last summer. Last year’s repeal bill, the AHCA, would have dramatically weakened protections for 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition, allowing insurance companies to charge people more when they get sick, for instance up to $140,510 more for people battling metastatic cancer.

All but two co-sponsors of Rep. Sessions’ House resolution (H.Res. 1089) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act last summer. Of the eighteen co-sponsors of Rep. Sessions’ resolution, sixteen voted for the Republican repeal bill last summer, which would have allowed insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

All but eight co-sponsors of the House bill (H.R. 1121) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and weaken pre-existing condition protections last summer. Of the 75 cosponsors who voted on the AHCA last summer, 67 voted in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act and weakening protections for 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition. Their vote would have allowed insurance companies to charge people with pre-existing conditions more for coverage.

None of the co-sponsors of the bill or either resolution have shown they oppose the Republican lawsuit backed by the Trump Administration that would completely gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

If House members really wanted to defend people with pre-existing conditions, here are two concrete actions they could take:

  • Support the House Democrats’ resolution that would allow the House to defend pre-existing condition protections in court. This summer, the Trump Administration refused to defend against a lawsuit brought by 20 conservative states aimed at overturning the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. In July, House Democrats introduced a resolution that would authorize the General Counsel of the House of Representatives to intervene in the lawsuit and defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Not a single Republican has offered support.
  • Join the House effort to overturn Trump administration’s junk plan rule that lets insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. This summer, the Trump Administration finalized a rule that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Experts warn that this move will only increase the cost of comprehensive care, ultimately making it even harder for people with pre-existing conditions to get the care they need. House Democrats introduced legislation that would override Trump’s rule, but not a single Republican has signed on.

 

 

protectourcare
In Capitol Hill, Administration

Blackburn Can’t Hide From Her Shameful Record On Health Care

“Make no mistake, Blackburn’s idea of healthcare means Americans get ZERO while Big Pharma takes all,” said Brad Woodhouse, chair of Protect Our Care

Tonight in Johnson City, Tennessee, President Trump will stump for Marsha Blackburn in her run for Senate. Blackburn has come under fire for her repeal-and-sabotage health care record, as well as the moves she has made to weaken the DEA’s opioid enforcement at a time when deaths due to the opioid epidemic in Tennessee were twice the national average. Said Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, in response to Blackburn’s Senate run:

“Blackburn’s heartless record of ripping health care away from people while doing favors for big drug companies disqualifies her from a promotion to the U.S. Senate. With Blackburn in the Senate, there’d be no more protections for people with pre-existing conditions and insurance companies could once again charge Americans over 50 more for their coverage. Make no mistake, Blackburn’s idea of health care would mean Americans get zero while Big Pharma takes all, at a time when their profits are higher than ever.”

 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

Although Marsha Blackburn Has Claimed To Support Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions, the Truth Is:

BLACKBURN VOTED TO REPEAL PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND MORE

2011:  Blackburn Voted To Repeal And Defund The ACA.  Blackburn voted for the fiscal 2012 budget that would have repealed and defunded the Affordable Care Act. [HCR 34, Roll Call Vote #277, 4/15/11]

2013:  Blackburn Voted For A Total Repeal Of The ACA.  Blackburn voted for HR 45, an act “to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.” [HR 45, Roll Call Vote #154, 5/16/13]

2015:  Blackburn  Voted For A Total Repeal Of The ACA.  Blackburn voted for HR 596, an act “to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.”  The bill also ordered House committees to develop a replacement that would “provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage,” but provided no specifics. [HR 596, Roll Call Vote #58, 2/3/15]

 

What would full repeal of the Affordable Care Act Eliminate in Tennessee?

  • Protections for 2.7 million Tennesseans  if they buy coverage on their own
  • Improvements to Medicare, including reduced costs for prescription drugs
  • Allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26
  • Ban on annual and lifetime limits
  • Ban on insurance discrimination against women
  • Limit on out-of-pocket costs
  • Medicaid expansion currently covering 15 million people
  • Rules to hold insurance companies accountable
  • Small business tax credits
  • Marketplace tax credits and coverage for up to 200,000 Tennesseans

 

BLACKBURN VOTED TO STRIP COVERAGE FROM TENNESSEANS AND GUT COVERAGE FOR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

2017: Blackburn Voted For AHCA. Blackburn voted for passage of the American Health Care Act.  [HR 1628, Roll Call Vote #256, 5/4/17]

What Did AHCA Mean for Tennessee?

  • In 2026, more than 630,000 Tennesseans would lose coverage under this bill.
  • The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the American Health Care Act would have raised premiums 20 percent in 2018.
  • AHCA imposed what the AARP calls an “age tax” on older Americans. In Tennessee, out-of-pocket costs for older people could increase by as much as $12,325  by 2026.
  • The negative economic impact of the American Health Care Act would cause 32,241 Tennesseans to lose their jobs by 2022.

What Did AHCA Mean For Pre-Existing Conditions?

  • The American Health Care Act weakens key protections of the Affordable Care Act by allowing states to let insurers charge people with pre-existing conditions more, among other provisions. The bill would also make it more likely insurers would cherrypick young and healthier people, causing costs to skyrocket for older, sicker people.
  • The American Health Care Act allowed states to eliminate community rating, meaning insurers would be able to charge people with pre-existing conditions more. This surcharge could be in the tens of thousands of dollars and even six figures: up to $4,270 for asthma, $17,060 for pregnancy, $26,180 for rheumatoid arthritis and $140,510 for metastatic cancer.
  • Politifact found that AHCA “would weaken protections” for those with pre-existing conditions and “would allow states to give insurers the power to charge people significantly more.”

2018: Blackburn Said She Remains Committed To Repealing The Affordable Care Act.  “Last year, the Senate failed its promise to the American people when it refused to repeal the law, but Marsha remains committed to returning health care to a patient-centered system where families and doctors can make their decisions.” [Marsha for Senate, accessed 9/28/18]

 

protectourcare
In Capitol Hill

If Republicans Are Serious About Addressing the Opioid Crisis, Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Medicaid is Key

Washington, DC – Today, the House voted on a package of legislation to address the opioid crisis, while at the same time Republicans at all levels have doubled down on their attacks on people with pre-existing conditions, including opioid use disorder, in the courts, through legislation and through regulations that promote junk plans and restrict Medicaid. In response, Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:

“It’s past time that Republicans do the things that would truly support the families suffering from this crisis: end its assault on Medicaid, upon which four in 10 Americans with opioid use disorder relies, and back down from its constant attacks on people people with pre-existing conditions.”

 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: How Republican Health Care Sabotage Is Exacerbating The Opioid Crisis

 

BY THE NUMBERS

 

  • More than half of people with an opioid use disorder earn incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty line.

 

 

 

  • In 2014, Medicaid paid for 25 percent of all addiction treatment nationwide.

 

 

 

  • It is estimated that Medicaid expansion covers four in 10 people with an opioid use disorder.

 

 

 

  • The opioid epidemic is now the most deadly drug overdose crisis in U.S. history. In 2016, roughly 64,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, meaning that more American lives were lost due to drug overdoses in 2016 than were lost in combat during the entirety of the Vietnam War. Two-thirds of 2016 drug overdoses involved opioids.

 

 

  • Medicaid expansion has reduced unmet need for substance use treatment by more than 18 percent. Recent research finds that Medicaid expanding reduced the unmet need for substance use treatment by 18.3 percent.

 

HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP & CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS ARE WORKING TO DISMANTLE MEDICAID

  • President Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have repeatedly tried to slash Medicaid funding, including by imposing per-capita caps. Last year, the House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which included a per-capita limit on federal Medicaid spending and would have resulted in huge cuts to Medicaid across states. After failing to pass the AHCA in the Senate, Republicans have relentlessly continued their attacks on Medicaid. In December, the Trump Administration went so far as to propose a budget that called for  $1.4 trillion in cuts to Medicaid.

 

  • The Trump Administration is now encouraging new hurdles for Medicaid enrollees in order to keep their coverage. Experts warn that work requirements are fundamentally bureaucratic hurdles designed to restrict access to health care rather than increase employment. Previous examples show that requiring enrollees verify their employment or work-related activities reduces enrollment among those still eligible for Medicaid.

 

  • President Trump and Congressional Republicans are targeting Medicaid to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy. Last December, President Trump signed a $1.5 trillion tax bill that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. How do Republicans plan on paying for it? Speaker Ryan’s answer is clear: “Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt.” Republicans’ approach is simple: cut programs like Medicaid that support working families.

 

  • Restricting access to Medicaid threatens lives and impedes states’ ability to respond to the opioid epidemic. Four in ten Americans with an opioid use disorder relies on Medicaid for access to treatment, and in cases of overdose, for life-saving overdose reversal medication. By cutting funding to Medicaid and restricting the eligibility of those who can enroll, the Trump Administration is people’s lives at risk and is depriving states of funding and resources they depend on to fight the opioid epidemic.

BY HELPING PEOPLE ACCESS TREATMENT AND OVERDOSE-REVERSAL MEDICATION, MEDICAID SAVES LIVES

In 2014, Medicaid Paid For 25 Percent Of Spending For Addiction Treatment. “A 2014 study by Truven Health Analytics researchers found that Medicaid paid for about 25 percent — $7.9 billion of $31.3 billion — of projected public and private spending for addiction treatment in 2014. That made it the second-biggest payer of addiction treatment after all local and state government programs.” [Vox, 2/13/18]

By Expanding Access To Naloxone, Medicaid Has Saved Lives. “We estimate that in Massachusetts 868 opioid-related deaths were averted in 2016 (13 per 100,000 population). By contrast in Tennessee, which did not expand its Medicaid program, only 11 opioid-related deaths were averted in 2016 (0.17 per 100,000 population). Both states have been hit particularly hard by the opioid epidemic: Opioid-related deaths in 2015 were 20.9 and 21.5 per 100,000 in Massachusetts and Tennessee, respectively.” [Commonwealth Fund, 7/5/17]

        [Commonwealth Fund, 7/5/17]

MEDICAID EXPANSION HAS INCREASED ACCESS TO TREATMENT

Medicaid Helps Make Buprenorphine And Naloxone, Drugs Used To Treat Opioid Use Disorder, Affordable. “These data are consistent with other evidence that Medicaid expansion is improving access to care for people with opioid use and other substance use disorders. Medicaid makes medications like buprenorphine and naloxone, which are prescribed to combat opioid use disorders, affordable for beneficiaries.“ [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/28/18]

Medicaid Expansion Has Improved Access To Substance Treatment Services. “Evidence also suggests that Medicaid expansion improved access to substance use treatment services more broadly. After expanding Medicaid, Kentucky experienced a 700 percent increase in Medicaid beneficiaries using substance use treatment services.  Use of treatment services rose nationally as well; one study found that expanding Medicaid reduced the unmet need for substance use treatment by 18.3 percent.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/28/18]

In Ohio, Medicaid Has Helped Those With Substance Use Disorders Access Mental Health Services. “An Ohio study found that 59 percent of people with opioid-use disorders who had gained Medicaid coverage under expansion reported improved access to mental health care. Nationwide, the share of people forgoing mental health care due to cost fell by about one-third as the ACA, including Medicaid expansion, took effect.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/28/18]

MEDICAID GIVES STATES MORE RESOURCES TO ADDRESS THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC

Medicaid Is A Sustainable Source Of Funding Compared To Short-Term Grants. “Now that more people with SUDs are eligible for Medicaid, states can significantly improve treatment for people with SUDs by improving Medicaid-covered services. Medicaid can be a sustainable funding source for providers, as opposed to capped, short-term grant funding.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/28/18]

There Is No Substitute For Comprehensive Health Care In Fighting The Opioid Epidemic. In response to the opioid epidemic, Republicans proposed creating a $45 billion fund. However, as the Center for American Progress analyzes, “The Senate opioid fund is no substitute for comprehensive health coverage.” Why? Because “Even if the entirety of the fund were available to cover low-income individuals being treated for OUD, $45 billion would provide only half of the $91 billion that would be available under the ACA for health coverage alone.” [Center for American Progress, 6/20/17]

Thanks To Medicaid Expansion, The Uninsured Rate For Opioid-Related Hospitalizations Dropped In Expansion States. “In Medicaid expansion states, the uninsured rate for opioid-related hospitalizations plummeted by 79 percent, from 13.4 percent in 2013 (the year before expansion implementation) to 2.9 percent in 2015.  The decline in non-expansion states was a much more modest 5 percent, from 17.3 percent in 2013 to 16.4 percent in 2015.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/28/18]

 

[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/28/18]

 

PUBLIC HEALTH, LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERTS AGREE: MEDICAID IS KEY TOOL IN OPIOID FIGHT

A Panel Of Public Health Officials, Policy Experts, And Law Enforcement Officials Found Medicaid Among Most Important Programs In Combating Opioid Epidemic. Investing in Medicaid was the third most cited response when a panel of thirty experts were asked where they would put money to combat the opioid epidemic. [New York Times, 2/14/18]

Jay Unick, University Professor: Medicaid Expansion Is Most Important Intervention To Improve Opioid Epidemic. Medicaid expansion would be “the most important intervention for improving outcomes related to the opiate epidemic…all the other interventions discussed here only work if individuals have access to quality health care.” [New York Times, 2/14/18]

160 National, State, and Local Organizations Warn That Trump’s Medicaid Sabotage Will Hurt Those With Substance Use Disorders in Letter to Secretary Azar: “CMS’s Medicaid work requirements policy is directly at odds with bipartisan efforts to curb the opioid crisis…and will have a significant and disproportionately harmful effect on individuals with chronic health conditions, especially those struggling with substance use disorders (SUDs) and mental health disorders.”  [Letter, 2/15/18]

Signatories include: ADAP Advocacy Association (aaa+); Addiction Policy Forum, Advocacy Center of Louisiana; AIDS United, Alameda County Community Food Bank; American Association on Health and Disability; American Association of People with Disabilities; American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD); American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation of State; County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; American Group Psychotherapy Association; American Psychological Association; American Society of Addiction Medicine; Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare; Bailey House, Inc.; Board for Certification of Nutrition Specialists; Brooklyn Defender Services; CADA of Northwest Louisiana; California Consortium of Addiction Programs & Professionals; California Hepatitis Alliance; Caring Across Generations; Caring Ambassadors Program; CASES; Center for Civil Justice; Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO); Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center for Medicare Advocacy; Center for Public Representation; Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy; CHOW Project; Coalition of Medication Assisted Treatment Providers and Advocates; Colorado Center on Law and Policy; Community Access National Network (CANN); Community Catalyst; Community Health Councils; Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; Community Oriented Correctional Health Services; Community Service Society; Connecticut Legal Services; Consumer Health First; C.O.R.E. Medical Clinic, Inc.; Council on Social Work Education; CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants); DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Desert AIDS Project; Disability Rights Arkansas; Disability Rights Wisconsin; Drug Policy Alliance; EAC Network (Empower Assist Care); EverThrive Illinois; Facing Addiction with NCADD; Faces & Voices of Recovery; FedCURE; First Focus; Florida Health Justice Project, Inc.; Food & Friends; The Fortune Society; Forward Justice; Friends of Recovery – New York; Futures Without Violence; God’s Love We Deliver; Greater Hartford Legal Aid; Greenburger Center for Social and Criminal Justice; Harm Reduction Coalition; Health Law Advocates; Hep Free Hawaii; Hepatitis C Support Project/HCV Advocate; Heartland Alliance; HIV Medicine Association; Horizon Health Services; Hunger Free America; ICCA; Illinois Association of Behavioral Health; The Joy Bus; JustLeadershipUSA; Katal Center for Health, Equity, and Justice; The Kennedy Forum; Kentucky Equal Justice Center ; Kitchen Angels ; Justice in Aging ; Justice Consultants, LLC; Lakeshore Foundation; Law Foundation of Silicon Valley; Legal Action Center; The Legal Aid Society; Legal Council for Health Justice; Life Foundation; Live4Lali; Liver Health Connection; Maine Equal Justice Partners; MANNA (Metropolitan Area Neighborhood Nutrition Alliance); Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; McShin Foundation; Mental Health America; Mental Health Association in New York State, Inc. (MHANYS); Michigan Poverty Law Program; Minnesota Recovery Connection; Mississippi Center for Justice; NAACP; The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health; National Alliance on Mental Illness; NAMI-NYS; National Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors; National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers; National Association of County Behavioral Health & Developmental Disability Directors; National Association for Rural Mental Health; National Association of Social Workers; National Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Phoenix; National Council for Behavioral Health; National Council of Churches; National Disability Rights Network; National Employment Law Project; National Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health; National Health Care for the Homeless Council; National Health Law Program; National HIRE Network; National Juvenile Justice Network; National LGBTQ Task Force; National Low Income Housing Coalition; National Organization for Women; The National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable; NC Justice Center; New Haven Legal Assistance Association; New York Association of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse; New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services; New York Lawyers for the Public Interest; New York State Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare; Open Hands Legal Services; Osborne Association; Outreach Development Corp.; The Partnership for Drug Free Kids; PICO National Network; The Poverello Center, Inc.; Project Inform; Public Justice Center; Root & Rebound; Ryan White Medical Providers Coalition; Safer Foundation; Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; School Social Work Association of America; Sea Island Action Network, South Carolina; The Sentencing Project; Shatterproof; Society of General Internal Medicine; Southern Center for Human Rights; Southern Poverty Law Center; Students for Sensible Drug Policy; TASC of the Capital District, Inc.; Tennessee Justice Center; Three Square Food Bank; Transitions Clinic Network; Treatment Action Group; Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC) – Illinois; Treatment Communities of America; Virginia Poverty Law Center; Western Center on Law & Poverty

protectourcare
In Capitol Hill, News

House Republicans Pass More Tax Cuts for the Rich

“What this bill really means is more Republican health care cuts for the rest of us, and the American people are sick of it,” says Brad Woodhouse

Washington, DC – Today House Republicans passed a second set of tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest Americans and big corporations at the expense of working families. Their tax cuts have led to trillion dollar deficits, which Republicans are now using as an excuse to go after Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response:

“What this bill really means is more Republican health care cuts for the rest of us, and the American people are sick of it. Since Paul Ryan and his allies have repeatedly made it plain that they will pay for these tax breaks for the wealthy by making deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, today’s vote calcifies the damage Republicans are doing to America’s working families and seniors all so they can give handouts to wealthiest. Thankfully, Americans see right through this Republican tax scam and are ready to give it a giant thumbs down at the polls in November.”

 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

President Trump and Congressional Republicans are targeting Medicaid and Medicare to pay for their tax cuts to the wealthy. Earlier this month, Larry Kudlow, Director of the National Economic Council, confirmed that they still have their sights set on Americans’ care. Asked when programs like Social Security and Medicare will be looked at for reforms, Kudlow replied, “Everyone will look at that — probably next year.” And last December, when President Trump signed the first round of $1.5 trillion tax bill that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, Speaker Paul Ryan made it clear they would cut programs like Medicaid that support working families. “Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt.” Since that time:

Following Massive GOP Tax Cuts, Administration Predicts Medicare Trust Fund Will Be Depleted In 8 Years. “The financial outlook for Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund deteriorated in the last year, and Social Security still faces serious long-term financial problems, the Trump administration said on Tuesday. The projections are the first from the administration since President Trump signed a $1.5 trillion tax cut into law in December. They show no sign that a burst of economic growth will significantly improve the finances of the government’s largest entitlement programs. The Medicare trust fund will be depleted in 2026, the administration said. By contrast, the government said last year that the trust fund would be exhausted in 2029.” [New York Times, 6/5/18]

Close Menu