On the recordJanuary 18, 2011
When I testified against this repeal before the Rules Committee, I told a story about a family in my district. The husband lost his job and, therefore, his insurance because of a debilitating injury. This family faced a choice: They either had to dip into their savings account, their high school son's college fund, or they had to sell their house. They chose to first spend down the college account so that they could keep a roof over their head. When I told that story, one Republican on the committee basically said, Wait, I don't get it. They had money, they had a house, why should somebody else pay for their health care if they had assets? Well, that Member was right about one thing: She didn't get it. And Republicans don't get it. Because in a nation as compassionate as this, no family should be forced out on the street just because one of their family members gets sick. There is a moral imperative behind making sure that we live up to our duty to be our brother's keeper. But it's more than that. There is a fiscal imperative here. What she also didn't get was that once that family's savings is gone, once they're out on the street, we all pick up the cost. Small businesses pick up the cost. That's why small businesses are paying 18 percent more than big businesses. That's why about $1,100 of every single premium for a small business employee goes to cover the uninsured.…
Source
govinfo.gov




