Do you continue to believe as of today they are wrong?

this proposal is about as popular as prolonged root canal work.

it's bad policy to take health coverage away from tens of millions of Americans and raise costs for virtually everybody else.

Standard and Poor's has now said that this bill would cost 580,000 jobs in 2027--580,000 jobs--so that is something we certainly want to look into.

this legislation would be devastating to the over 3 million people in Ohio served by Medicaid

I want to blow the whistle on a few key points right at the outset of today's hearing. First off, the American people do not want this bill.

We have saved $435 million in taxpayer money because people can go to the doctor instead of using the most expensive way to get health care, which is the emergency room.

Congratulations are in order, because they all think what you are talking about is a disaster.

This is the first and only hearing that will be held regarding a bill affecting more than 320 million Americans and one-sixth of our economy.

We feel very strongly on our side we ought to be working on a bipartisan basis today.

We are committed to working with our colleagues in both the Senate and the House to act in swift order...

Graham-Cassidy, however, would inevitably take us backwards and in a reckless and dangerous manner.

We do not have any objective information about what it is going to mean to people's premiums.

It rewards the States where lawmakers have sat on their hands.

The cuts to Michigan when this is fully implemented, according to Avalere, are $140 billion--$140 billion.

BIAA is strongly opposed to H.R. 1628, the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal.

This is a Republican invention. And frankly, as one Democrat, I thought it was a pretty good invention.

The real flexibility created by the bill is the option for States to do worse.

Taken together, the per-capita caps and the envisioned block grant would constitute the largest intergovernmental transfer of financial risk from the Federal Government to the States in our country's history.

the real flexibility created by this bill is the option for States to do worse.

Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe they are all wrong.

NARAL Pro-Choice America strongly opposes the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal.

It is the flexibility to do better, not to do worse.

The American people do not want this bill.

I want to forcefully request that the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal be shelved and not brought forward for debate or vote.