On the recordJune 12, 2019
Again, it is nice to believe that, somehow, if we put this language in, we are going to save money somehow. This was the promise of the ACA: If we just insure more people, for instance, they won't use the emergency room as much. Remember that? Back in 2010, they said: Oh, we are using the emergency room a whole lot. All we have to do is pass the ACA and our emergency room usage will go down. What happened? It went up 20 percent. Healthcare spending actually went up. Now, look, having insurance is a good thing. No question about it. I am a physician. I get it. But, to say that we are going to save money by doing this--no. This is going to cost money because management has to obtain these figures. If this was going to save money, this is easy. Let's find someplace to pay for it rather than the Secretary's account if it is this great money saver. As useful as this could be, again, I would urge my colleagues: If we pass all the amendments, again, just the $22 million in cuts to management since the last vote series, we can't afford this. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.





