Paul Gosar

That kind of passing the buck, in addition to what you will hear today about the adverse effects to people seeking care, has to be changed.

Again, unintended consequences of government intervention.

This is a double whammy.

We did not sign up for an affordable care that simply said the insurance rate will be about the same and you will get less coverage, and you will have more out-of-pocket expenses.

I hope that you will take the opportunity and come to a town hall someday, or come out to coffee with your congressman, and bring your notebook and your ideas.

It looks to me like it is really dangerous for us to suggest that a government that cannot build a website is all of a sudden now capable of handling the entire complexity of the healthcare system.

Just as free enterprise is sometimes criticized, Mr. Chairman, as being the unequal distribution of wealth, socialism has always been the equal distribution of poverty.

I wish that Obama could put him in K-Mart, let him see what real life is like.

The bulk or 80 percent of our seniors are dual-eligibles, both Medicare and Medicaid dependent.

So the big thing we want to know is, you have to pay for these premiums.

What we have seen in government's rollout here, whether it be Social Security, whether it be Medicare, whether it be Medicaid, it is a one-size-fits-all, and that has been our problem.

I agree with you, Representative Gosar. It should have been renamed the Unaffordable Health Care Act.

I have worked along with six of my house Republican healthcare colleagues for a replacement plan called the American Healthcare Reform Act.

We are all committed to repealing this onerous law and replacing it with policies that increase access to care while decreasing premiums.

It is not a Republican, it is not a Democratic issue; it is an American issue, putting it out there and having a transparent discussion.

What I see at this panel is the people that bring the building blocks of what you can envision as success, and we haven't got it.

It is ingenuity that sets us free, and that is why I came back to McCarron-Ferguson.

I don't think anybody will disagree that what we have as status quo would work.

I will be very clear that my preference oftentimes for markets is not simply an issue of efficiency.

I think that we need to remember that even when the Government is well intentioned, a lot of the ways that it intervenes actually goes even against the goal that they have set of themselves.

Government came in and said these are the services we are going to give you, regardless of what you want, we are going to do this accordingly, and it was a failure.

The Indian Health Service has not done that.

I think if you are on government assistance, we should be all on the WIC program.

We want to do is have prevention.

They are diseases of affluence.