On the recordSeptember 30, 2013
The gentlewoman from New York, my dear friend, makes many, many important points about not only the law that was passed but about maybe some comments about what we're doing here. I have great sympathy, respect for men and women, people, children, seniors who are born with diseases that sometimes emanate during their lives, great respect for that. And I do agree with the gentlewoman that our government, in a public-private partnership--we are working with States--should, needs to, must create a better system to take care of those who are uninsured, or maybe had been ``uninsurable.'' And this is where, for years, there had been a big debate in Washington about how to best do that. And the facts of the case are real simple: that every time we had an opportunity in the Republican Party to try to get that done, it became a point of decisionmaking by the Senate, and they blink. The House many times passed all sorts of bills that would allow people to be insured across State lines, better ways to make larger team sizes for insurance so that risk pools would have a better opportunity to be managed. But instead of us taking care of some 23 million to 30 million people who were in this circumstance, the bill aimed at 230 million people. And it put rules and regulations and restrictions on business and hiring. And it was less about coverage and more about a hammer from Washington, D.C.…
Source
govinfo.gov




