Exactly. So will the insurance companies want to see those people? No, they won't because those people are now 65. They're at an age where they're going to have higher medical expenses. You're asking the private insurance companies to take this whole new population of older, more expensive people into their private insurance companies, into that pool, the result of which is that private insurance company's pool will become more expensive. They know those people who are now 65 in the private insurance pool are going to get ill, that they're going to be more expensive, and so their doors are going to be subtly slammed shut. As to the availability, while presumably guaranteed by law, advertising won't be there, and the insurance agents won't be there to serve that population, and there is going to be all kinds of not-so-subtle discrimination, making it not only expensive for the individual but difficult to get quality insurance. In fact, there is no guarantee about the benefits in the Republican proposal.
On the recordJune 23, 2011
Source
govinfo.govShare
More from John Garamendi
Jun 11, 2026
The administration’s reliance on the Defense Production Act (DPA)—no doubt in consultation and coordination with lawyers representing Sable—is a serious misuse of a federal law meant to be invoked for national security reasons, not to…
Jun 23, 2026
This pest and its associated disease pose a potentially catastrophic threat to these industries. If left unchecked, CDFA estimates that losses associated with PD/GWSS could eclipse $104 million annually.
Jun 25, 2026
After years of work, we are one signature away from increasing access to affordable housing for hardworking Californians.
Jun 10, 2026
You could say I'm surprised, but how can I be when the President himself says he doesn't ‘think about Americans’ financial situation’?





