'This Week' Transcript: Rep. Paul Ryan and Rep. Chris Van Hollen

If you look at the Affordable Care Act, since it passed, health care costs have gone up. If you look at the CBO, the cost of this law has doubled since it passed. And so if the Supreme Court would interpret that this is constitutional, that the government can make you buy something, then there really is no limit to what the government can do in our lives, and clearly that's not what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution. So we believe we can have a better health care system without a costly government takeover.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Congressman Van Hollen, what do the Democrats do if this goes down? Do you simply take on the court as the president did in Citizens United, or do you try to come up with a new, perhaps bipartisan plan?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, first, George, obviously we hope that the court will uphold this. Look, you've got -- if they were to strike this down on constitutional grounds, I think most people understand the only approach you can take after to get everybody covered, everybody in the pool, is to go to a Medicare-for-all-type proposal. That's something Republicans have rejected. That's why they had proposed the approach that is in the Affordable Care Act. That's why Mitt Romney took that approach up in Massachusetts, because that is the one way that everybody gets into the insurance poll.

Look, I think if the court were to strike this down, we have to ask our Republican colleagues for the replace half of what had been repeal and replace, and the proposal that Paul and others have put forward, I just want to make it clear. It would say to folks who don't get health insurance, you're going to be taxed more. So, in a sense, it's saying -- it is just a different approach, with one major exception. Because they don't insure everybody getting into the pool, they would allow a lot of free riders to use the health care system. That drives up the costs to everybody else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Ryan, even the advocate for the opponent's law did seem to suggest that a broader government program might be the cleaner way to address this issue.

RYAN: No, I disagree with that. It's not Medicare for all. What this new Obamacare is, it's basically Medicaid for all, according to all the health care experts, and it's going to collapse our health care system. It's going to drive up costs and it is going to restrict choices.

Now, we believe that there are better ways to go with a patient-centered system. Many of us have offered bills to do this. Tom Coburn, Devin Nunes and Richard Burr and I, during Obamacare's deliberations, offered these ideas to the Democrats and the president. We were completely rejected because they wanted a partisan law, and that's what we got.

So we believe that we can have a system where everybody can have affordable health insurance, including people with preexisting conditions, without a costly government takeover, without all this new spending and without restricting choices and without limiting access to all the different options that people would like to have in a free-market society.

So I think there's a better way to go to address what Chris identified as legitimate problems in health care. But clearly, a government takeover is not the way to go, and we do have what we think are better ideas in addressing this legitimate problem.

Join the Discussion
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like...