Cuts to federal health care benefit programs, and additional requirements placed on Medicaid recipients, will be 鈥渙ne of the focal points鈥� as Congress attempts to cut $880 billion from the federal budget over the next 10 years, Bentz said.
After a tense exchange over the possibility of Oregonians losing health insurance nearly ended the interview, Bentz said he would be unlikely to support a budget that would reverse the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.
The three-term Republican lawmaker from Ontario was on OPB鈥檚 鈥淭hink Out Loud鈥� on Wednesday.
Beyond health care, Bentz talked about his support for the Trump administration鈥檚 cost-cutting measures and whether he believes the executive branch is ignoring Congress.
These highlights from the conversation have been edited for clarity and length. A full transcript of the interview is available .
On the Republican budget blueprint:
Dave Miller: Under the blueprint that you voted for yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has to make $880 billion of cuts over the next 10 years, and I should say that you are on that committee.
Bentz: I am, yes. It is the Energy and Commerce Committee, but it鈥檚 the subcommittee on health care that will be doing most of the analysis.
Miller: How do you propose to make those cuts?
Bentz: So the starting point is a much broader scope of activities and agencies than just health care, but health care will be one of the focal points, and the types of things we鈥檝e been looking at include the possibility of a work requirement for those who are able to work.
Currently there isn鈥檛 one. And so, the idea is if you鈥檙e able to work and for whatever reason you鈥檙e not working, that if you want to be eligible for Medicaid, you鈥檒l have to work or at least be making an effort to get a job. There鈥檒l be all the usual protections, if that鈥檚 the angle that we choose to use.
Miller: The critique I鈥檝e read is that that might add red tape but not significantly reduce the cost of the program. Have you heard otherwise?
Bentz: I have. And the indication is that there would be a substantial positive impact of a work requirement. But again, we鈥檙e looking at all of these things. This鈥檒l be one of many different things reviewed to see how to make the system still deliver the type of benefits that people need while at the same time doing it better and in a way that saves money.
On Medicaid cuts in Oregon:
Miller: Can you tell us now that you will not vote for a final bill that would lead to Oregonians being kicked off of the Oregon Health Plan?
Bentz: You might want to qualify your question and say, if Oregonians are kicked off the plan, it鈥檚 because they don鈥檛 deserve to be on it. When I say deserve, for whatever reason, they are fraudulently participating or they鈥檙e participating for reasons that have nothing to do with the original goals of the program.
Miller: That last part is an important one because those鈥�
Bentz: Dave, no Oregonian is going to object to our doing a better job in delivering Medicaid services.
Miller: Wait, wait, wait. Let me sharpen the question here because the way you phrase that, it seems like you left open the possibility that people who are now eligible for Medicaid because of the Medicaid expansion made possible under the Affordable Care Act鈥�
Bentz: Well, you鈥檙e already including in your question assumptions. Don鈥檛 do that. Don鈥檛 do that to me, David, or we鈥檒l have to discontinue our conversation.
Miller: Do you support a change to Medicaid that would essentially get rid of money for the Medicaid expansion?
Bentz: I think that鈥檚 unlikely in two respects. One, I don鈥檛 think that鈥檒l be something that we鈥檒l be doing, but I think it more unlikely that I would support it.
On the necessity of cutting federal spending:
Miller: What do you have to say directly to your constituents who right now might be worried about losing access to health care for themselves or for their children?
Bentz: Well, the first thing I would do is say to them: Who in the world is scaring them? Who in the world is taking the position that all of this is going to be reduced? Who鈥檚 doing that? It鈥檚 certainly not me. What I鈥檝e been trying to do is say, let鈥檚 look at this program because as we are currently proceeding down this path, it鈥檚 not sustainable.
We cannot continue to do all of these things when we鈥檙e spending $2 trillion a year, 30 cents of each dollar more than we鈥檝e got.
On extending the Trump tax cut:
Miller: What about the argument that given the cost issues you鈥檙e talking about, now is not a great time to extend a tax cut that would cost the federal government $4.5 trillion?
Bentz: The alternative is to let those tax cuts expire and then see the greatest tax hike in the United States' history. The challenge is how do we not allow that to happen and have the economic consequences, negative economic consequences occur?
This is an important matter. Every person listening should understand that. They will see, if they鈥檙e paying income tax, a substantial tax hike if this Trump tax cut bill passed back in 2017 is not extended. In other words, the current situation will change dramatically if those tax laws are not extended for everybody. Small business in particular.
On federal job cuts and whether the President is ignoring Congress:
Miller: I take your point that under the basics of the separation of powers, it鈥檚 the judicial branch that checks the constitutionality of things. I鈥檓 just wondering about your own take as a member of the legislative branch, what it would take for you personally to say we are being ignored? And this could be in the context of the current president or a future president who may be in a different party.
Bentz: I鈥檒l guarantee you that we are not being ignored. And the reason is the administration understands that an executive order won鈥檛 be permanent. They need law to back them up, and they are coming to us and saying, 鈥楬ey, we鈥檙e doing this with an executive order, but we know we need Congress to back us up.鈥� I鈥檓 a Republican. I support what the administration is doing. If it turns out that it is beyond the scope of that which the court thinks is appropriate, then the court will tell us and we will follow that particular direction we have to.
I support trying to get spending under control, and I鈥檓 happy to see the administration trying to do something about it. It鈥檚 really, really, really hard. And I have an outline here, what it takes to shrink the federal workforce, it is super hard. The approach they鈥檙e using may be pushing the envelope. The court will call out whether or not it鈥檚 constitutional.
