CONYERS on House Passage of TrumpCare

Washington, D.C  – Congressman John Conyers, Jr., the Dean of the House of Representatives, released the following statement after Republicans passed TrumpCare on a party-line vote:

Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“I’ve served in Congress for 52 years and it’s hard for me to recall a time when we’ve voted on something so obviously and intentionally harmful to seniors and working people in this country.

This legislation strips healthcare from 24 million people. It requires seniors to pay 100% or more of their income in premiums. This legislation dramatically cuts Medicaid, directly contradicting Mr. Trump’s claim not to.

Every policy expert who has looked at the Upton amendment has said it is grossly inadequate to fund high risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions.

In Michigan, almost one million children, nearly half of all children in the state, rely on Medicaid. In my district alone, 56,000 people will lose coverage, including 16,000 children and 3,500 elderly.

If this bill becomes law, people will die. Children, seniors, and working people will suffer and many will die, all so that wealthy people can get a tax cut.

Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. That’s why I have a bill to create a single-payer, Medicare-for-All plan. Most of the Democratic party has joined me in cosponsoring that bill. Democrats will be in the majority again—given today’s vote that may happen very soon. When it does, I will do everything in my power to make sure a national, universal, government-funded system is our agenda.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & CICILLINE: The Right Approach to Promoting Competition in the Health Care Marketplace

UPDATE:  President Trump just pulled the Bill from the vote.

Dean of the U.s. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Healthy competition in the health insurance marketplace is one of the most critical elements in ensuring that Americans can access quality, affordable health care. When insurance companies are forced to compete, the American people win.

Unfortunately, too many families are still paying higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs today because of anti-competitive practices that health insurance giants are allowed to engage in under the law.

One of the reasons? It’s a law few Americans have ever heard of—the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

Under this law, insurers can engage in egregious actions like price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation with total impunity. These practices allow insurers to inflate their costs and impose burdens on middle class families all across our nation.

That’s why House Democrats have supported the full repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act since 1988, and passed legislation to end this antitrust exemption for health insurers in 2010 by a vote of 406-19.

This week, we worked with the same Republicans that opposed this measure in 2010 to pass H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, legislation that repeals the antitrust exemption that has shielded health insurers for more than 70 years.

As the Council of Economic Advisors put it last year, robust enforcement of antitrust laws is “an important way in which the government makes sure the market provides the best outcomes for society with respect to choice, innovation, and price as well as fair labor and business markets.”

But make no mistake: while promoting competition in state markets will benefit consumers, the benefits will be lost if Republicans are able to repeal the strong consumer protections that exist as part of the Affordable Care Act.

These protections, which the American people overwhelmingly support, ensure that health insurance markets operate efficiently, lift limits on lifetime coverage amounts, and protect millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions from discrimination.

Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act dramatically increased the number of health insurers operating in local marketplaces, which has helped slow the growth rate in premium costs to their lowest level in 50 years.

In order to protect the progress we have made over the last seven years, it is critical that we work to strengthen the Affordable Care Act.

Yet, since Election Day, Republicans and President Trump have been squarely focused on repealing the law in its entirety and replacing it with a proposal they claim will establish a national marketplace for health insurance.

In fact, the same architects of the Majority’s “repeal and replace” effort—including Speaker Paul Ryan, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady—voted against repealing health insurer’s antitrust immunity in 2010.

They now claim that simply allowing the sale of insurance across state lines will serve as a magical elixir that brings down health care costs for good.

There’s only one problem with this claim: it’s already permitted under ObamaCare.

Section 1333 of the Affordable Care Act already allows states to establish “health care choice compacts” to allow out-of-state health insurers to sell health insurance products in-state.

Several states have already enacted statutes to provide for healthcare choice compacts. The National Conference of State Legislature reports that five states have passed out-of-state purchasing laws since 2008.

The fact is that promoting health insurance competition across state lines, as opposed to cracking down on anti-competitive practices, does little to lower costs for consumers. In fact, despite the existing law, few health insurers choose to engage in cross-state sales because there is little economic incentive for them to do so.

President Trump’s repeal and replace proposal will not change this underlying reality.

The president would be wise to withdraw his proposal and instead focus on joining our bipartisan effort to work across the aisle to improve and strengthen the Affordable Care Act.

Today, thanks to ObamaCare, the uninsured rate is at an all-time low, seniors are paying less for their prescription drugs, millions have received coverage under Medicaid expansion, and the number of competitors in local markets is growing.

The Affordable Care Act is improving Americans’ health care coverage and choice. President Trump owes it to the American people to build on this success rather than tear it down.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, SLAUGHTER, CROWLEY, NADLER & JEFFRIES: GOP Bill To Single Out New Yorkers Represents Worst of Washington

Members Release Legal Analysis Pointing to Provision’s Unconstitutionality

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Rules Committee Ranking Member Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-NY), and House Judiciary Committee Members Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) released a legal analysis, below, prepared by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff demonstrating the unconstitutionality of the ongoing Republican plans to single out New York State for sharing Medicaid costs with its counties. The Members  released the following joint statement:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“House Republicans’ Trumpcare bill is nothing more than a tax cut for the wealthy masquerading as a 'healthcare bill.' If this bill were to become law, 24 million Americans would lose their insurance coverage, and seniors would face skyrocketing premiums. Even worse, to appease the extreme conservatives of the House Republican Freedom Caucus, the newly adopted manager’s amendment includes provisions eliminating Essential Health Benefits requirements such as maternity care, prescription drug and emergency coverage – essentially erasing protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions.

“In a desperate attempt to pass this unconscionable bill, Speaker Ryan and the House Republican leadership have offered to include the Faso-Collins amendment in order to gain the support of vulnerable New York Republican members. This blatant vote buying represents the worst side of Washington politics. In fact, many Republican Attorneys General called a similar provision in 2009 ‘constitutionally flawed’ and ‘violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just.’  

“By singling out New York State – even though 15 other states have similar systems for sharing Medicaid costs -- and forcing New York to give up its core sovereign power to decide how it will raise funds for its own share of Medicaid, this measure is unconstitutional. This is why we believe New York State would be well within its rights to challenge the provision in court, as Governor Cuomo has suggested.

“The irony of this buyout is that the payment supposedly being delivered in exchange for votes is the legislative equivalent of a check on a closed bank account. It will never deliver the promised benefit. 

“Finally, it is also important to note that House Republican Leadership’s reckless attempt to cram Trumpcare through Congress is that according to the most recent CBO report, the Faso-Collins amendment has no or only incidental impact on the federal budget.  It should therefore be struck under reconciliation rules if this bill even reaches the Senate.” 

Background

For the last 51 years, New York State has chosen to fund a portion of its share of the Medicaid Program by using funds from county property taxes.  Fifteen other states structure Medicaid funding through a similar legally authorized system.

The Faso-Collins amendment, being incorporated into the Manager’s amendment to H.R. 1628, the “American Healthcare Act of 2017,”  specifies that any State that had an allotment of Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) funds that was more than 6 times the national average, and that requires subdivisions with populations of less than 5,000,000 to contribute toward Medicaid costs, shall have its reimbursement reduced by the amount of contributions by such subdivisions. This effectively limits the application to New York State, and carves out New York City. Under the amendment, New York State is at risk of losing $2.3 billion of its $32 billion in Federal Medicaid funds.

The amendment would implicate Constitutional limits on the Federal Spending Power, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the Tenth Amendment (reserving all undelegated powers to the States) because it is not related to a legitimate Federal interest; no rational Federal purpose has been proffered for the provision which singles out New York for discrimination; and it severely intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, such as structuring taxing and spending authorities.  Under a series of Supreme Court cases these provisions would exceed Congress’s spending authority, violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and violate Tenth Amendment principles. 

House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff Legal Analysis of Republican Plans To Target New York State Medi... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS At Capitol In Opposition To "Wealth Care" Bill

Yesterday, I joined my colleagues and former VP Joe Biden in front of the Capitol in opposition to the Republican healthcare bill that I like to call "Wealth Care".

Despite all the wrong that this bill does and opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, Trump and Ryan are continuing to try to bully Republicans into passing this bill. We can't afford to have millions of Americans lose their health insurance.


                  #WealthCare

   

#protectOurCare #medicareforall

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©