On the recordMay 16, 2019
It is hard to sell a lemon, no matter how much you give in advertising. That is kind of the basis of our opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chair, as you heard me say in the last debate, in my congressional district, people didn't want to be forced to buy something that was too high, that was unaffordable, that the deductibles were too high, and that we in Washington mandated that they have to buy. Now we see a period where, in essence, people have a few more choices because of the waiver system, the 1332s. We see people flocking away from ObamaCare plans to 1332 waivers within the States, which we think is a good deal. Part of the debate on this is: Let's pump more money in and maybe these people will stay in these failed ObamaCare plans. We reject that. We reject it based upon what we have done with Medicare Advantage and Medicare part D. The executive branch has said: Let's spend the same amount of money that we do for Medicare part D and Medicare Advantage, which have much higher enrollment than the ObamaCare exchanges. {time} 1515 So we think that is appropriate. We do think that, with $100 million or more to try to get people to buy a product and you see enrollment go down, that is not a good use of money. Mr. Chair, with that, we would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).…





