REPEAL OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 163, No. 8
(House of Representatives - January 12, 2017)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Page H453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office []


  (Mr. TONKO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, this House, the people's House, 
will vote to take the first step in a blindly ideological crusade to 
break our entire healthcare system and rip health insurance away from 
more than 20 million Americans.
  Repeal would cripple our Nation's hospitals and create a $723 million 
budget shortfall in my congressional district alone, resulting in 
countless job losses across our great country. Repeal would return 
everyone to the days of big insurance companies and their denying of 
needed care due to annual and lifetime limits on coverage. Repeal would 
mean higher costs for individuals who seek routine preventative care, 
like mammograms or birth control.
  This is not what the people want. People are sick and tired of 
Republicans playing political games with their health care. The 
Affordable Care Act is not perfect. Deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, 
and prescription drug prices are still too high for many working 
families. People are frustrated when they are faced with narrow 
networks or surprise medical bills.
  Unfortunately, these are not the problems that Republicans are 
focused on fixing. In fact, the only problem Republicans seem to be 
trying to solve is that too many people have health insurance. 
Republicans want to roll back the progress that has been made and 
create a healthcare system that eliminates the guarantees of affordable 
coverage, by which families will face even higher deductibles and 
copays--a concept they euphemistically call ``skin in the game,'' and 
those with preexisting conditions, including expectant mothers, would 
again face a closed door instead of care.