Reed: Facts & Legal Precedent Should Protect Health Law
Senator cites decades of conservative support for individual mandate
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the individual mandate, a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty to cover the societal costs of uncompensated care. U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) joined Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Charles Schumer (D-NY) to discuss the day’s proceedings, as well as the conservative origin of the law’s provision.
Reed, who helped author and pass the Affordable Care Act, urged the Supreme Court to uphold legal precedence and the constitutionality of the health reform law. He noted that when Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act in 1986 it created a mandate requiring hospitals to treat anyone who walks in with an “emergency” condition regardless of their ability to pay. As more individuals forgo health insurance altogether and avail themselves of emergency room care, American taxpayers are paying more for the health care services others receive. The essential question before the Supreme Court today is: should taxpayers continue to pay for the health care services others receive at no cost? In 2008 alone, the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured was over $56 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Moreover, the average family pays more than $1,000 in higher insurance premiums to cover these costs.
Although the full extent of the Affordable Care Act does not take effect until 2014, Reed noted the law is already working for Rhode Islanders, including:
• 374,000 Rhode Islanders who no longer have arbitrary lifetime limits on their health insurance coverage;
• 273,000 Rhode Islanders who are guaranteed that 80 percent of their premium dollars will be spent on medical care and not on administrative costs or profit (if their health insurance plan spends less than that, they will receive a rebate for the difference);
• 223,000 Rhode Island seniors, adults, and children who are able to receive free preventive care and screenings;
• 21,000 Rhode Island seniors who have saved a total of $12.5 million on prescription drugs; and
• 7,500 Rhode Islanders under the age of 26 who are now covered through their parents’ health insurance plans.
Reed also warned that if the Supreme Court ignores the principle of stare decisis (that is, respecting legal precedents) and upends the law it would force millions of Americans to lose their health coverage, make prescription drug coverage more expensive for seniors, and enable the insurance industry to once again deny coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions.
Reed stated:
“Well, everyone uses health care. The question is whether everyone will be required to pay their fair share for health care in a way that benefits everyone and that is at the heart of this case before the United States Supreme Court.
“We already have a mandate in this country and the mandate says that if you are sick you will be treated - usually in an emergency room - but that mandate exists. The question is, again, who will pay for that care, which is provided for by public policy and the laws of the United States?
“And, as my colleague Senator Schumer pointed out, this idea originated with Republicans who are today trying vociferously to deny its legitimacy.
“In 1989, the Heritage Foundation suggested every household should be mandated to have health care insurance.
“In 1993, my former colleague John Chafee, who I see as someone who not only understood the health care system, but also respected the Constitution and in fact defended it as a Marine in Guadalcanal - his bill included an individual mandate and it was sponsored by many, including Senator Robert Dole.
“That same year, former Speaker Newt Gingrich went on Meet the Press and he said he was for the federal government requiring individuals to buy health care. I guess times have changed. This is basically the same model that is the Affordable Care Act.
“And, as again, my colleagues have pointed out, Governor Romney of Massachusetts deserves credit for passing the bill, but also indicated that in his view, he, and I think he spoke at that point on behalf of Republicans: “don’t think the free market ever envisioned an idea that people would be able to do something and make other people pay for it.” And, that’s the present American health care system.
“This is a national commodity. Seventeen percent of our economy is devoted to health care costs. So the idea that this is not interstate commerce, the idea that this is an option that we are compelling people to participate in, I do not think stands the test of common sense and common reason.
“So, today, I hope the court listens well. And I hope that Senator Harkin is right that based upon the arguments they will uphold this Affordable Care Act so that we can get on providing better, more efficient care for all our citizens, and also doing it in a way that won’t bankrupt our government.”