Recognition of the Minority Leader

Floor Speech

RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER -- (Senate - December 05, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, this is a great discussion. I have to say the fundamental point in this discussion should not be lost on anybody in this Chamber or on the American people; that is, whatever was said during the course of the campaign last year was said in the context of protecting and preserving and prolonging the lifespan of Medicare.

Senator McCain is very accurate in the way he describes his position. But the American people need to understand what the other side is proposing: a $2.5 trillion expansion of the Federal Government, financed with $ 1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts in the first 10 years and, as the Senator from New Hampshire said, $3 trillion in the first two decades of this program--which does nothing to extend the lifespan of Medicare by 1 day, nothing. What it does is it creates an entirely new entitlement program that is going to be paid for by future generations of Americans.

So Medicare, which is destined to be bankrupt by 2017--is sitting out there floundering with this huge unfunded liability. It is going bankrupt. What we are talking about doing is piling a $2.5 trillion new entitlement program on top of that. That is what this debate is about.

They can say these Medicare cuts are not real. But we have 11 million people in this country who get Medicare Advantage benefits, and if there is going to be $118 billion cut, somebody is going to feel some pain. Surely, you jest when you say these cuts are not going to hurt anybody. Hospitals, home health agencies--$15 billion out of nursing homes.

In the State of South Dakota, home health care agencies, like they do in Montana, provide services to people in rural areas. Some home care specialists have to travel 50 or 60 miles to serve a patient in their home. What we are talking about doing is cutting, in my State, $35 million out of home health care. These cuts are $ 1/2 trillion. Of course, somebody gets hurt by that.

But what is probably most troubling of all, I guess, about the whole proposal the other side has made is, after all that--cutting Medicare, raising taxes--at the end of the day 90 percent of the people in this country either have their health insurance premiums stay the same or go up--over 6 percent if you are in the small-employer market, 5 percent if you are in the large-Ðemployer market--double the rate of inflation. That does not change anything.

If you are a family today, and you are paying $13,000 for health care insurance--this is according to the Congressional Budget Office--in 2016 you will be paying over $20,000 a year for health insurance. That is a $7,000 increase. Now, tell me how that reforms or helps anybody in this country?

I want to show you how far we have come because the President said, in 2007, when he was campaigning: When I become President, we will have a health care reform bill that reduces premiums for people in this country by $2,500 per family and covers everybody. We all know this bill leaves 24 million people uncovered, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It raises premiums by 10 to 13 percent for everybody who buys in the individual marketplace. It keeps them the same--and when I say ``the same,'' there will be yearly increases of 5 to 6 percent year over year for this foreseeable future--for everybody else.

The best you can hope for, America--90 percent of America--is the status quo. That is the best you can hope for under this bill. How does that change the status quo? How is that reform? You can call this an overhaul. You can call this a takeover. You can call it lots of things. But it is not reform because when the American people think about reform, they are thinking about something that drives their health care costs down not up.

The Congressional Budget Office has said that under this bill, health care costs in this country will go up by $160 billion over the first 10 years, not down. If you are 90 percent of Americans, you stay the same or your premiums--at worst--go up by 10 to 13 percent. That is according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So I want to point out how far this debate has evolved from what the goals were in the first place. I have some comments some of my colleagues have made. Senator Stabenow said:

High health care costs are causing cuts in benefits and increases in premiums, adding to the ranks of the uninsured at alarming rates. But the impact of this problem goes beyond individual families. Skyrocketing health care costs make our businesses less competitive in the global marketplace and cost us good-paying jobs.

This is about jobs, and this proposal does nothing to help small businesses create jobs. It kills jobs. That is why the National Federation of Independent Business, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Wholesalers and Distributors--all the major business organizations--are opposed to this legislation. They know the impact it will have on jobs.

I want to read one final quote. This does not come from a business organization. This comes from the dean of the Harvard Medical School. This was in an op-ed just recently in the Wall Street Journal:

Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. ..... So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it.

That is from the dean of the Harvard Medical School. He goes on to say:

This will make an eventual solution even more difficult.

So these Medicare cuts are real. They are $ 1/2 trillion in the first 10 years. As the Senator from New Hampshire has said, $3 trillion over the first two decades. It cuts Medicare Advantage. There are 11 million seniors in this country who get Medicare Advantage. So do not say they are not going to get hurt. Their benefits are going to go down. Of course they are going to get hurt.

Home health agencies, nursing homes, hospices--as I said, in my State of South Dakota, home health care delivery will feel an impact of $35 million in an area of the country where we have vast distances in geography and where we already have home health agencies closing up shop because the reimbursements do not keep up with the costs, particularly when you have to travel the distances we have to in our States. If you have to put them in the hospital, the costs go up by multiples. It is so much more efficient to have somebody served in a home health setting rather than have them stay overnight in a hospital or staying successive nights in a hospital.

So this is not reform. This actually keeps costs the same or drives them up for 90 percent of Americans. It does nothing to preserve the lifespan----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority's time has expired.

Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source