Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Medicare recently celebrated its 37th birthday. Medicine has changed a lot since 1965. Unfortunately, Medicare has not. Back then our seniors spent half their medical dollars for…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Medicare recently celebrated its 37th birthday. Medicine has changed a lot since 1965. Unfortunately, Medicare has not. Back then our seniors spent half their medical dollars for doctors, the rest for hospitals. It was pretty simple. But today, a remarkable 40 percent of seniors' costs are for prescription medicine. Through the miracle of modern science, through lifesaving drugs, technologies and new treatments, our parents and grandparents are living longer and healthier lives than any American generation. Best of all, due to new medicines, they are spending less of their golden years in hospitals and nursing homes and more of their time with their children and grandchildren.
Medicare needs to change with the times. Our seniors deserve a Medicare
that includes a modern prescription drug benefit, one that is voluntary so seniors can keep the good plans they already have, one that gives seniors the right to choose the prescription plan that is best for them, not what is best for Washington, one that is affordable so that seniors have the peace of mind from knowing Medicare will remain strong and viable for generations to come. This is important as an issue to our country and to our State.
Back home in Texas, we have more than 2 million seniors who count on Medicare. On average, they fill 18 prescriptions a year, spending about $1,200 annually. Many of our seniors face serious problems paying for these medicines. It does not seem right that our neighbors when ill are opting to leave prescriptions unfilled or cutting back on food and sometimes traveling to other countries to purchase drugs simply to protect their precious health. At this point in their lives, do our parents and grandparents not deserve better? The time for petty partisan fighting is over. It is time for Congress to act right now.
That is why I am proud to serve on one of the two committees which developed the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act that successfully passed the U.S. House of Representatives recently. The legislation brings Medicare into the 21st century. It provides catastrophic protection for seniors with very expensive medicine costs, extra help for the poor and lowers drug prices while still encouraging the medical breakthroughs that our loved ones are counting on. The plan starts with a 2-year discount drug card for the neediest seniors, reducing medicine costs by an estimated 25 percent. After that, a new Medicare part D that is for drugs will be available from several different health care plans for prescription medicine. Seniors may choose one or not. It is not mandatory. It is their choice.
Like most health care plans, there will be a small annual deductible, monthly premiums of around $35, and copayments up to a certain amount. Some seniors we know have extremely expensive medicine costs, much greater than the average person. To make sure these seniors will not face losing all that they have worked a lifetime to save, the new Medicare health plan includes catastrophic coverage that picks up most of the prescription costs over a certain amount. And for the neediest seniors, Medicare will pay for the prescription health care plan and many of the costs that go along with it. Those details are being finalized as we speak tonight.
But the House bill that we passed does more than just offer affordable prescription drug coverage. It also includes funding to make sure doctors and hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies continue to treat our Medicare seniors. In fact, the DSH hospitals, those who take care of our neediest, will receive a 20 percent increase. The allotment is increased 20 percent, a major amount, for those hospitals. There are new preventive tests added to Medicare, such as cholesterol screening and initial physicals; and there are important reforms to speed generic drugs to the market to lower drug prices.
As one would imagine, no change of this importance is without honest disagreement. Some believe this bill is too small. They have offered a proposal three times larger, which as one would guess bankrupts Medicare within a few years and mandates a Washington-style one-size- fits-all plan that does nothing to actually improve Medicare. The better way, I believe, is to guarantee our seniors have a prescription plan they can count on; one that will not threaten future medical breakthroughs; one that will not lead to rationing of health care; and one that will extend the life of Medicare, not hasten its demise. Yet others believe this benefit is too large, that Congress should focus on giving help only to the poorest. Unfortunately, we already have a program like that. It is called Medicaid. It is not the model we should have for this Nation and for our seniors.
As a fiscal conservative, I looked real hard at the cost of adding prescription medicine to Medicare, an additional 10 percent over the next 10 years. I am convinced we can spend a dime now to help seniors with their medicines, or we can pay a dollar later when they end up in the hospital, end up with a surgery they did not need to have if we would have helped them a little with the drugs beforehand.
I am also proud to support one of the best improvements in the basic Medicare program, the one we are talking about tonight. In 2010, seniors will have a choice of their basic Medicare plans, much like the choice Members of Congress and other Federal workers have that are included in the Federal employee health care plan. Groups like the Heritage Foundation say these reforms found only in the House plan go a long way toward fundamental change in Medicare. My question is, If these health care plans are good enough for Congress, why can our seniors not have access to them? Why can they not have the type of choices we have for our families at taxpayer expense? Why can we not have plans like the Federal employee plan that not only works better, provides better coverage but does not increase so much in cost over the years?
Recently a study was done that compared Medicare for the last 20 years against the Federal employee health care plan, the one the Members of Congress have. What the plan showed was that Medicare without prescription drugs rose faster in cost and price than the Federal plan with prescription drugs did. In other words, less care in Medicare, higher growing costs. More competition, better health care and the costs were lower over the years. Why can seniors not have the same choice of good health care plans for Medicare and the cost where we know with the baby boomers coming into Medicare in the future, we will want those reasonable increases so that we can make Medicare last forever? That is the issue tonight that we are debating. Why can seniors not have the same type of health care that Members of Congress have? Why can they not have good choices? Why can we not have one that will actually make Medicare last longer and not hasten its bankruptcy? We need these types of reforms when we add Medicare prescription drugs.
As I watch our conferees, led by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) of the Committee on Ways and Means and the other conferees, I know that many Members of Congress, including myself, believe that added reforms to make Medicare better and last longer is the only responsible way to add a prescription drug benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The fact of the matter is that the best way that we can provide Medicare for our seniors is to give them a tested improvement that we ourselves are the beneficiaries of as Members of Congress. Some would like to just add Medicare prescription drugs onto the current Medicare system and if it goes bankrupt, it goes bankrupt. If the boomers use all the money, they use all the money. No big deal. Just let that happen. That is what this motion does.
What we are trying to do is take the responsible approach. What we are trying to do is to offer to Medicare seniors not only a way to help them with their prescription drugs but a way to make Medicare better for them and a way to make it last longer. Yes, seniors in Medicare today, they will tell you there are serious problems with Medicare. Fewer and fewer doctors are willing to see our seniors. There are complaints about service. This bill is increasing reimbursements to hospitals and health care providers, to these same hospitals that my friend from Texas talked about. But we are also adding something more important, a Medicare system you can count on for future years.
The way we do that is not, as my friend from Abilene, Texas, just said, sort of what has come to appear to be a tried-and-true tested way to scare our seniors by using the word ``privatize,'' by saying we are ending Medicare as we know it. The fact of the matter is we are creating Medicare the way Members of Congress know it. Where we have a choice of plans that have worked for years and years and years for us, that have worked very well for us, and the question still comes down to if we add a prescription drug plan, should we not make Medicare last longer and improve it? And why cannot seniors have the same type of choice of health care plans that Members of Congress have? I mean have they not earned it at this point in life? And we know from recent studies that this is a proven way to provide health care in a way that helps provide Medicare for years and years and years to come.
The sections that are being proposed to be struck today save costs for Medicare, make it more financially sound, and we have a prescription drug plan that they desperately need. We are putting Medicare on a sound financial basis that will last longer and be better. It allows taxpayers to share in the savings and, as beneficiaries, make the best choice for them, not what Washington wants. And it parallels the competition that we have in the plans that Members of Congress use. It creates a level playing field between traditional fee-for-service which our seniors can continue to choose, and many will, and private plans that offer more choices and lower costs over time. We are seeking these types of improvements because we know it is the only responsible way to help our seniors afford medicine costs and create a Medicare system they can count on for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think it is important to know that what we are talking about tonight is not about Iraq. It is not about congressional pay raises. It is about our seniors getting drug help for medicines that they desperately need and to make sure that we change and improve Medicare in a way that it lasts, in a way that they can count on for years and years to come.
It is true that an amendment was offered, and I always get a kick out of Washington. We think it is so important to score points against each other with amendments and clever motions on the floor. Our seniors, frankly, do not care about that. They need some help in buying medicines, and they need a Medicare system that will last long that they can count on. The fact of the matter is the amendment simply added costs to Medicare, did not add any of the improvements that would make it last longer. So bankrupting Medicare sooner is not something I would brag about, but in Washington people think that is clever.
Also, in Washington a big intent is SOS, scare our seniors, talk about how Medicare can never be made better, that there are no improvements, there are no other options to look at. But the fact of the matter is my colleagues on the other side continue to claim traditional Medicare is more efficient than the private plans that we as Members of Congress have. If that is the case, they have nothing to fear from the reforms and improvements in the Medicare bill.
If Medicare truly is more efficient than private plans, then the beneficiaries, our seniors, in competitive areas who remain in traditional fee-for-service will see their premiums go down; so they will benefit from this competition. We want to provide incentives for seniors to choose the best plan, the most efficient form of care, and if traditional Medicare is that, then they will be given incentives to remain in traditional Medicare through premium decreases. In other words, seniors will see their Medicare premiums go down, not up, and that will be a pleasant change for seniors. But if private plans like the ones Congress have can deliver Medicare service more efficiently, then we want seniors to have incentives to join those plans. We want them to have the choice to pick the plan that is best for them, not a one-size-fits-all from Washington.
These improvements are necessary to bring Medicare costs under control so it lasts longer, so it is something our seniors can count on. We are not scaring seniors. We are offering them the choices they deserve at this time in their life.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here we go again, trying to scare our seniors, privatizing, ending Medicare as we know it, all the phrases the pollsters have used and tested to make sure that we get a partisan message out rather than a drug plan for our seniors.
The truth of the matter is if we were to adopt this proposal tonight, Medicare would go bankrupt sooner. We would be adding the prescription drug plan that we seriously need, but we would not make any changes making Medicare better and last longer so that the next generation would have a Medicare system they can count on. The fact of the matter is we are not trying to end Medicare as we know it. We are trying to create it as Congress knows it, as Members of Congress have in the
health plans and choices we have today. The fact of the matter is that there is no effect on Medicare entitlement by the House plan. Seniors will have entitlement to defined benefits just the way they do today. They will have access to traditional fee-for-service Medicare all throughout the country. What they will have when we defeat this proposal, as we will later, is something they do not have today, which is a choice of Medicare plans, health care plans that are more to what they need, not what Washington needs, one that suits a changing senior population. Seniors, as my colleagues know, some of them are in very good health. Some of the seniors in my district have episodes in one- time, two-time types of illnesses. They have to treat other illnesses as they get older and move into more chronic care areas where it is a continual fight for a healthy life.
Having the types of choices the Members of Congress have, the types of health care plans we think are good enough for our families, but apparently some do not think are good enough for our seniors to have, those types of choices, I think our seniors deserve that.
More importantly, without these changes, without these improvements to make Medicare last longer and make it a better plan for seniors, we are simply bankrupting it sooner. We are abdicating our responsibilities as Members of Congress. We are not doing the right thing for seniors.
My thought is if someone promises you something that seems too good to be true, it usually is. Being responsible and adding a prescription plan that is affordable for future generations and improving Medicare in a way that keeps the costs down for future taxpayers, that is the responsible way of helping our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
In the same setting, CBO estimates the premiums for fee-for-service Medicare may go down by $10 a month, or, at most, increase by $3 a month. It is much less variation than the CMS study that is cited here tonight.
The fact of the matter is that without some reforms to make Medicare better and last longer, premiums for taxpayers will go up and the whole system is going, frankly, to go bankrupt sooner.
I think one thing we share as Democrats and Republicans is wanting to try to find some way where we can make Medicare better and last longer. I do think that, despite our philosophical differences, we have some common ground in that area.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let us clear up the facts again so we do not continue to scare our seniors for political purposes. The fact of the matter is that the Medicare entitlement has not changed. Medicare seniors will be able to choose the same fee-for-service they have for years. They will be able to choose it all throughout the country. The proposal we are talking about tonight actually saves money and lengthens the solid stability of Medicare.
The fact of the matter is when you hear Members talk about ``we do not want to privatize Medicare,'' what they are saying is we do not want to provide the same choices the Members of Congress have. When they talk about giving money to the big, bad HMOs, they do not say, just like we do in the plans of Members of Congress.
The fact of the matter is that in this proposal the reforms we are offering, the choices, are that we are giving seniors an opportunity to choose the plan that is best for them, plans like we have for our families here in Congress, but apparently we do not want to offer for our seniors.
What we do know from history is two things: One is that low-income seniors, when they have a choice between just Medicare and other plans, they choose the other plans, because they get better value for their money, better health care, and we can make Medicare last longer.
The other point is the recent study that showed when you compare 20 years of Medicare costs against the 20 years of Congress' health care plans and that of our Federal employees, the Medicare plan provided less health care at a higher increase in costs than the private plans that Members of Congress rely upon that we are going to start offering, where possible, for seniors, where we have got more health care and the costs did not increase as much.
If we want to be responsible about adding senior prescription costs for our seniors, we also have to be responsible about giving them the reforms to make Medicare better and make it last longer, because if we accept proposals like this, frankly, we are going to hasten the bankruptcy of Medicare, not extend it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here is a lesson on how to scare seniors in three easy steps:
Tell them you are going to privatize Medicare. Do not tell them we are going to offer the same choices that Members of Congress have.
Tell them we are going to provide vouchers for Medicare. Do not tell them we are going to offer them the same types of choices that Congress has.
Tell them we are going to end Medicare as you know it, but do not tell them we are trying to offer Medicare the way Members of Congress have health care.
What they will not tell you, because it will actually reassure our seniors, is that the bill that we passed in this House, the bill that we are discussing tonight, says it clearly: There will be no change in Medicare's defined benefit package. Let me say that again: No change in Medicare's defined benefit package.
We are not ending Medicare as people know it; we are offering more choices and better Medicare. ``Nothing in this part shall be construed as changing the entitlement to defined benefits under Parts A and B of the Social Security Act.''
The fact of the matter is, I think my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said it best when he said we are not prepared to offer seniors what we have. Well, Members on this side of the aisle, we are. We know that the health care choices we have as Federal workers and Members of Congress should be the choices our seniors have, and that is what this debate is about tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I will be brief in closing.
The fact of the matter is that the section I read, this law, this very thick law deals with existing Medicare today, where we offer reassurance to seniors that there will be no change in those defined benefits. But the rest of that very thick bill talks about two things. The way that we can help seniors finally pay for the prescription costs that are so valuable to them, but so expensive, and, in a way that we are talking about tonight, we can offer seniors new choices in health care plans while we are making Medicare last longer and perform better.
This is the issue we have before us tonight: whether we are willing to just simply add prescription drugs to Medicare, a load that will be too large when our baby boomers, our next generation come to rely upon Medicare; or do we add prescription drug coverage in a way that we also improve Medicare, where we make it last longer, where we make it a better system for our seniors, one that the next generation can count on; where we give the reforms and offer the choices that Members of Congress and our Federal workers have; where it is not Washington one- size-fits-all plans; where we do not dictate to people and mandate to people; where we do not ration the health care; where we do not tell them what is best for them; and where the bureaucracy does not get in- between the doctor and the patient.
Mr. Speaker, our seniors want help with prescription coverage, but they also want a Medicare system they can count on for years and years and years to come. These reforms, these improvements will lengthen Medicare, make it a better health care system, offer new choices for seniors who want them, and offer the types of choices the Members of Congress have. That is the debate tonight.
It all comes down to this: why is the health care system we have good enough for us in Congress, but not good enough for our seniors back home? My answer is that it is. They ought to have those same types of choices. They have earned it. They deserve it. And we are going to have a system that is not only better, but will last a long, long time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.