John Larson

Hailing from the great State of Connecticut, we are so proud of the advances of the Affordable Care Act.

I think you love this job and you like being the person who is administering this experiment in greater health coverage.

Millions of people are benefiting from what happened.

More and more people are getting insurance through the private sector.

The increase in costs, that rate is going down.

Millions of people have insurance who never had it before.

What is busted is not ACA, but your attacks on it, endless attacks, never coming up with a single comprehensive alternative in all these years.

I think the President has articulated the country's position extraordinary well.

It is clear that the United States has got to be a player on this stage.

The other concern that I am beginning to hear from my constituents is that the penalties are about to ramp up.

Yes, they have signed up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. They have signed up at the level that the subsidy is given to them.

Let us all remember that the individual mandate was a bipartisan idea.

Mandating that everyone must be covered is counter to a free lunch.

We have to end the day of the freeloader, because healthcare costs affect the economy.

The reality is that this Act is working. It is not perfect, as Mr. McDermott said.

I am very disappointed to learn, Mr. Brady, that the Senate, in considering SGR, will vote on an amendment repealing the individual mandate--the only nongermane amendment.

Over the past 5 years, the law has been an indisputable success.

Now, while my Republican colleagues have focused on destroying healthcare reform, we have focused on trying to make it work.

Not one has led to a meaningful proposal that would ensure greater health security for the American people.

What this hearing is about is scoring political points at the expense of the Affordable Care Act.

If this were an honest discussion, my Republican colleagues would tell you how the individual mandate has balanced risk pools and reduced adverse selection in the health insurance market.

By charging the National Academy with recommendations, we take the politics out of it, and focus more directly on the science.

On February 26, 2015--I was not present for rollcall vote 91. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: ``nay.''

I do not think that when we make a contribution to Social Security we are dividing in our minds, or any American is, the difference between old age and disability and survivors.

I believe that there is unanimity that some reallocation will be necessary as we have done 11 times in the past, or six to be more precise from Congress; 11 total times in the past, and that is what must be done here, and it is a question…