Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) calls this amendment the access amendment. It is also disingenuous. This amendment would reduce access to health insurance, not increase it. The gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) knows that. He knows this amendment has nothing to do with access; it has everything to do with helping a few individuals in a few businesses at the expense of the rest of us. It has everything to do with campaign contributions, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) pointed out earlier. Association health plans and MSAs make health insurance less expensive for a few healthy individuals and a few employers, while costs rise for every other individual and every other employer. Association health plans skim low-risk businesses from the rest of the insurance pool. Every other bill carries a larger burden when more risk is spread over fewer groups. Medical savings accounts, they can be a great deal when you are 100 percent healthy. When you are sick, they turn into an expensive disappointment. The Congressional Research Service estimates that commercial insurance premiums will increase 2 percent or more if association plans are permitted. Iris Lav and Emmett Keeler, two highly respected health services researchers, say that premiums for conventional insurance could more than double if MSA use becomes widespread.
Editor's note · Context
Debating the implications of an amendment related to health insurance access.
Share
More from Sherrod Brown
how do we know if this President is working for us? He is working for us if we make over $4 million and are about to pocket a new tax cut of $300,000. He is working for us if we attend Great Gatsby parties at his club or plan to sip…
the convicted felon in the White House is not an honest man, but when he rebranded the Department of Defense as the Department of War, for once, for once, he told the truth because war is what we have. War is what he wants, and war is what…
The decision was mine and Connie’s, and it was a hard decision, because I think I could do good work in either place.
The crypto lobby has deep pockets, openly threatening lawmakers they deem aren’t sufficiently pro-crypto.





