tv Washington Journal Representative Mike Doyle Discusses Health Care Reform... CSPAN May 16, 2017 7:04pm-7:32pm EDT
we are not letting our coverage go. we will cover the story this evening. against my morning on "washington journal" we will discuss the latest new york times story on mr. comey and mr. will start at 7:00 a.m. and open up our phone lines for your reaction as well. this morning's "washington journal" we took a look at the healthcare discussion going on, on capitol hill.gislatio >> congressman mike told, democrat of pennsylvania joins us now, senior democrat of the energy and commerce committee which is one of the key committees that republicans moved their healthcare legislation through. i want to talk to on thisay reporting yesterday from thed mm washington post and most major papers the president leaking confidential information. >> that is troubling if it's true and the president needs to make a full explanation to the congress and intelligence committees about what is said or not said. and whether or not their tapes t
or transcripts, whether any of that was recorded needs to be subpoenaed to see if thatif tha exists.d. i think it is important we get to the bottom of it. the leadership on both sides of the aisle, i understand have asked for next nation. i think it's warranted. >> host: are republicans moving towards a? what can you tell us about the other side making those requests. democrats can go on the floort, and said but it would bear more weight of members of thehe president some party did that as well. >> guest: i don't think it should be a partisan issue.na what about the nationalsirst. security of the country. if security was compromise we need to know about that. whether you're a democrat or republican were americans first and patriots first.to repea i like to think that both parties would be interested in getting a full explanation. >> host: in terms of things to discuss on the floor we've seen
you discuss the american healthcare acts. you're concerned with the republican legislation to repeal and replace the affordable care act. in one of your speeches you called at a survival of the fittest healthcare plan. .xplain thativ >> guest: if you look at what they have done, if you're sick or have a chronic condition, if you have a cancer, this plan is going to cause your premiums to go up. there's talk about allowing states to apply for a waiver so they would have to offer what is called the essential benefit package. also to do community rating so they could take people who have these chronic conditions are people who are very sick and a throw them into high risk pools. the history of these pools are not good. they're notoriously underfunded. when there underfunded means higher deductibles and higher premiums. when you look at the plan even with the addition of the billioh dollars that the representative put in the bill, still less than half of what would be necessary to adequately for the high risk
pool. >> host: an additional $8 billion on an estimated 23 billion in the bill with people for pre-existing conditions. if you can get that number to a certain point would you be okay with high risk pools question or are you fundamentally against high risk pools? >> i think the best way to ensure people with chronic conditions is way we did it. we basically said to the insurance industry, you can't discriminate against sick people anymore. you can count their annual benefit, you can't cap the lifetime benefit. you can't say they can't get insurance because of the pre-existing conditions. americans, that is very popular with about 80% of americans, that's the best way to cover fos everybody. >> they want to get the people out of the wider pool so don't drive up the cost of healthcare for everyone and create this death spiral in the market. >> guest: they say that's what they want to do. the reality of high risk pools is that is not what happens. they are notoriously
underfunded.r waiver it will probably be left up to the states to apply for waivers to make up the difference that the federal government doesn't put into the bill. that's not gonna happen. you are gambling with people's lives with your spouse or children who may have a cancer or chronic condition. your rolling the dice there and i think most americans do nott want to do that. >> host: you are with us for the next 25 minutes or so on the "washington journal". democrats can : and republicans, and independents can all call in. is the affordable care act working? other fixes needed to be may, what affixes would you be okay with. >> guest: we need to do a better job with some of the crusher provisions in the bill. we have to put more money into that.ha also i think one of the mistaked were made that i would like to
see corrected is it support the program is mandatory. we need to get young, healthy people into the risk pool. i think initially the fine for not buying insurance was an adequate to induce people to buy the insurance. it should have been commensurate with the brown's policy so it people are saying i can pay this line which is equivalent of what i can get an insurance policy for. they would up to get thee insurance policy and we would get more of the low risk healthy individuals into the system. secondly, we need more money in the caution provisions to deal with the deductibles. the time i have with the republican approaches they did nothing in the replacement bill to drive down to deductibles or premiums. they made the risk pool riskier when they said no one has to buy insurance. employer's don't have to offer insurance, people don't have to buy insurance in the individual market. we know what will happen.
young, healthy people will buy insurance until they're sick. a they can literally game the system. >> host: bill is in illinois, c good morning. >> caller: thank you for takingg my call. there is an op-ed in the wall street journal about a week agoo putting forth an idea of allowing people to buy into medicaid. i wondered what the congressman would think of allowing people to buy into medicaid by state sa that whatever medicaid is in each state, that is what they would be buying into. two, there be no supplement. people that could use this as ae catastrophic plan if they navigated outside of the planwh with their own funds they could do that. i wondered what the congressman's thought to be on that and if they could engendero any democratic support for such an idea.
>> guest: that's a powerful question. a lot of democrats, myself included like the idea of having a medicare for all system instead of the affordable care act. it would just cover everybody under that provision. >> host: single-payer. >> guest: yes and if that scares people but single-payer is the medicare system. socialize medicine is tricare. one of the concerns i would have is that you would have 50 different insurance programs depending, i guess some states medicaid program is more generous than others. a lot of states have expended the medicaid program and offered essential benefit package,e, others don't. so i think you would have a patchwork of plans depending on what state you lived in that i could vary. i'm sure the cost will vary
based on what the states were offering. but that is an interesting proposition for some people that have no insurance. i would still prefer to see a system where the richest country in the world is able toso guarantee every one of their citizens some basic healthcare. >> host: i understand you signet onto john's legislation on this. >> guest: john has hr 676, the idea of not reinventing the wheel but taking a program that exists that most peopl's understand and saying let's put all of the uninsured into a plan like a medicare for all plan that would offer a benefit package, it would still not preclude private insurance a companies enhancing those benefits like they do currently with medicare. you could have private insurance market so functioning but also basic set of benefits. >> host: check is a democrat
from new york. good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question regarding the republican bill that passed in the house of representatives. it will move on to the senate, how do you see his chance in the senate a passing. does it have a good chance of passing? or would just die away? >> guest: i don't think it has a good chance to pass in its current form. many senators have expressed reservations with the plan is currently written and many of them are republicans. mitch mcconnell has appointed a on t force. unfortunately all men on the task force it puzzles me that someone like susan collins who is a former insurance commissioner is in on that task force. tim scott who used to be in the insurance business isn't on the
task force. it's safe to say the senate will work on their own bill and it will vary greatly, i hope from the hospital and we will have to see what they do. >> in georgia, a republican. >> hello congressman doyle.doyl. i live in georgia.t better i've been without health insurance so what i do is i see a community clear clinic and i get better health care for them than i would of regular doctor's office. why not make a larger investment into the community health care clinics we are getting good quality care, the funding isbsbs subsidized by the government and it would incentivize doctors to lower their prices? >> thank you i'm a big supporter of community health care clinics. i think we should provide more funding for that. however community health care clinic is not going to do much
for you if you're uninsured and you have cancer.ac if you have a heart attack or some other chronic condition beyond the ability of the healthcare centers to take care of. few basic primary care type up a guy with a big fan of community health centers and i have always supported their funding. >> host: day from florida. >> caller: morning thank you for taking my call.republ i don't understand the republican argument that the states can figure out what's better for its citizens any better than the federal government can. i live here but if i want to move to another state should that have to be a consideration among of what kind of insurance they have? shouldn't we all be having equa. protection? >> caller: i agree with you. no matter what state you live
in, you should have access to quality healthcare and that the insurance companies or the program in that particular state should not discriminate against if you're sick or have a chronic condition. the reality is, if we leave these up to the state and let them play apply for their ownpaw waivers, you will have a patchwork of 50 different healthcare plans in the 50 states and some will be better than others. i guess some people may do some medical shopping especially if they have a loved one with a very serious condition and that's not being covered in the state they live in. obviously they will look for a state that will offer that nat coverage. >> and independent from virginia, go ahead. >> i've been watching this whole debate for long time. the one thing i consistently hear missing and it was addressed in a time article about how hospitals are charging
is a long article about various things but they're talking about how hospitals charge $28 for one advil pill when you go to the emergency room. why is nobody addressing the cost of healthcare? i get that were free market system but healthcare so vitalo to people there willing tong gamble away anything to get proper healthcare when there somebody really sick and their family. why is nobody addressing thehe couching cost of healthcare? if we brought down the cost of how much it costs go to a dr. we wouldn't have such expensive healthcare. >> guest: that's a very good question and something nocy shol healthcare plan or policy is going to be successful for not going down the cost curve towh pray that's always a consideration. when you look at studies that show what are the best ways to bring the cost down the best
thing we can do to reduce costs healthcare costs is in the well the sector. people living healthy lifestyles and people taking the medicines prescribed, compliance with what their doctors want them to do. often time the easiest things in terms of cost which would dramatically reduce healthcare costs are impossible to enforcea amouthy choices and healthy behaviors that would lessen the amount of diabetes and obesity in the country that leads to some of the other complications that drive up health care costs. it's important. any policy should be driven also with looking at the cost side of things and how we can reduce them. >> for concern of cost that we often hear is trying to figuretv out whether an advil cost $28.
a transparency issue. things getting any easier on the transparency side? has the affordable care act how people figure out what the cost is.lot give >> guest: you hear people say give people a voucher and let them make their own healthcare decision. t i think of the problem with a lot of this is there should be transparency, no question about it. the transparency will to hospitals and others having to explain the amount that a cost. >> are we getting there? >> we can probably do a better job on that into. but the idea that americans will make smart choices, my mother when she was alive, when she t went into the doctors office she wasn't going task what their mri cost was that week and was a hospital that had a cheaper one that week. when your dr. tells you you need a test or procedure, most people
don't have a financial conversation with him, theyne trust the doctors telling them what needs to happen for their health. the idea that people can do this the same in the insurance markets. one thing that concerned me about the exchanges is the idea that people have the ability to pick the right policy for their family. most people wanted pick the cheapest policy premium wise but that's not always the best depending on health situation of the family. insurance can be a tricky thing. i was in the business a long time before i came to congress. that's what i did before it's a congressman. it's not as easy as. >> host: was it healthcare insurance? >> guest: i was a multiline agency that sold all types ofho insurance. >> host: joe is the republican good morning. >> it's nice to talk to.
i had a single-payer $160 a month emergency room and dental, obama comes along in city can have it, you have to buy my plan might deductible is $11500 and i broke my wrist and had to pay almost $6000 out-of-pocket. i had to take a low-down sell a car. how might you get that back to where it was before this before obama decided to tell people what was best for them? i was doing fine. it wasn't through my company was that youn. >> so. >> guest: when you had a single player plan you are in the individual market about a policy from an insurance company. that would be your option back then. i mean soon that's what it was.
pre-aca there was no incentive for them to offer these packages. i don't know specifically what your particular insurance policy offered, the fact that the premium was that low probably indicates there were a lot of provisions in that policy that would not be covered if you became chronically ill or sick. i venture to say sense of his pre-aca, year annual and lifetime benefits would be capped. let me say this, if you go through life relatively healthy and have no chronic conditions and you never get a cancer and nothing bad happens to you, an accident or anything and you have a policy that doesn't cover much i could cap your benefits if something bad did happen.in you are one of the fortunate people in the country and yes,, that policy would probably suit your needs and you would be finr with it.
problem is, that's not how it works for everybody. if you happen to not be a lucky person and all of a sudden you develop a cancer or heart conditions or some other chronic disease and you come up against the annual caps on happens is a lot of americans lost their homes. they had insurance but their benefits guy caps. then they cut in pay for them anymore. that's what was happening to americans in the country. one of the reasons why we do the aca we made sure insurance companies couldn't do that anymore. >> host: right myra is waiting in new york. >> caller: good morning. i was just made aware, they said that before 1973, read several - places that it was illegal for healthcare to be it had to be
nonprofit and then in 1973 richard nixon, and i guess congress because the president couldn't do it by himself changt that. is that true? and did that conclude hospitals and did that include health insurance? >> i do not know the answer to that question specifically whether that is true or not, i can tell you when you hear the word nonprofit there's nonprofits and then there's nonprofits. in my city in pittsburgh then biggest health care system infi the city is a nonprofit of the biggest insurer are nonprofits. having said that, they make a tremendous amount of prophet in their systems. i don' the fact that they are nonprofit i don't believe means their cost are lower. as to whether before 73 you
cannot be a for-profit hospital or insurance can become i'm notl sure if that is true or not. >> were going to florida. >> caller: congressman, got i got to talk to this morning. been where in the insurance business. the four i went on medicare ibe worked 40 years for company, the last two years i worked i had to receive several toe which is a blood thinner. when you're working your insurances consider commercial. i is paying $45 a month for my medicine when i was working. i retired this january, now my 45-dollar medicine cost me 437 because i no longer had commercial insurance. i never hear politicians talk about the difference between medicare and commercial insurance. being that you sold it, i like
to hear why there's a difference because there's close to 80 million people in social security. could you explain to us the difference between commercial and medicare? part >> i'm glad you brought up the cost of drugs on medicare, i was in congress when medicare part n vote was taken. many of us in congress wanted ts be able to use the bargaining power of the medicare program because we have so many subscribers to negotiate. much like we do in virginia for veterans. unfortunately, the republican majority at the time decided they did not want to do the and how that vote open.be i believe four or five hours before they pulled the last couple people down the aisle to pass medicare party without requiring us to negotiate for lower prices. in the commercial markets that's what insurance companies do.
big insurance companies go to farming and say we have x amount of customers. if you want access to our customers this is what will pay for the drug. the result is lower cost for the customers. in the federal government and medicare program the republican majority in the house of representatives did not want to do that.f they decided instead of negotiating with pharma they would pass the program without that, as a result medicare part d customers are paying higher prices than veterans have access to healthcare, or to some peopla with plans whose companies have negotiated better rates with thr company. >> john, republican, go ahead. >> good money. which is it congressman? you don't like the medicare, you ought medicare but you don't like how the drug plan work, luckily we have republicans out
there who had a medicare drug plan is available for people, it's not perfect but they put it in. my purpose for calling is this, you mentioned that you want medicare for all. don't you realize that half the people in the country have, 25% of people in the country have medicare.in that reimburses at 25%. half of the people in the country have not medicare health care coverage that reverses at 70%. if you have medicare for all which is already on the bankruptcy sigh, if you medicare for you'd realize the doctors and providers and hospitals wiln not be able to survive under medicare for all 33 the colors reimbursement claim is not trueu that private insurance reimburses at three times higher rate than medicare. that's not true.they most private insurers that base their reimbursements off what medicare pays.
so that's actually not correct. we always your claim that doctors won't take patients are medicare patients, take medicaid patients as they don't get paid high enough. the data does not support that. i think every american deserves a basic level of healthcare. one of the easiest ways to do that without reinventing the wheel is to look at a medicare for all type system that would provide the basic level of benefit to go to the private market for enhancements much like seniors can do at this, time. >> good morning. i have an idea out of a situation, if you have a mortgage on the -- but you pay your mortgage on the fourth year. on that fourth year, what you paid into your first mortgage payment goes to the federal reserve to hold in place your
other half goes to social security, the third mortgagee goes to an inspector for new jobs in the fourth goes to time make sense if goes to property management. if you don't have health insurance you can use the seminary mortgage payments and for purchasing health insurance. that will be based on it after four years, when you think of that idea? >> host: congressman doyle. >> guest: well. if you talk about home mortgage payments and my understanding that is owning your home you have your principal which is the cost of your home, the interest, your pain the bank and in escrow account that pays your taxes and your insurance out of. how that leaves any extra moneyb for healthcare would be an interesting proposition. i'm not quite sure how that would work. >> host: the congressman, we appreciate your time on
"washington journal". >> the new york times reporting today what donald trump told fbi director james comey about the michael flynn investigation, this according to a memo by mr. comey quote, i hope you can see her way clear to letting things go. he's a good guy. i hope you can let this go. that according to a memo written by james comey written about today in the new york times where you can read more. we hear from capitol hill the outgoing chair of the house's oversight committee say gop oversight is going to get the comey memo if it exists. i need to see it sooner rather than later. we will continue to follow the story tonight. in the meantime will hear about the relationship between lawgtrn enforcement and communities of i color.