Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I just heard my colleague, the Senator from Ohio, say: I wish some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would understand families who don't have insurance.
I practiced medicine for 25 years, taking care of families in the State of Wyoming. During that time, I took care of all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. I will tell you, I believe, as a physician who practiced medicine for 25 years--and as someone whom the Obama administration has decided to completely ignore, as he did the other Senator of this Chamber who is a physician--that I know specifically and personally about what happens to families who lose their insurance. My colleague and I know specifically what happens to families who are on Medicaid, a health care program which my colleague who is now leaving the Chamber after asking if anyone in this body understands people without insurance but not staying to hear the discussion for the next hour--making statements and then leaving--I understand those families. I understand the families on Medicare, I understand the families on Medicaid, I understand the families without insurance, I understand the families worried about losing their insurance, I understand about the families worried about disease.
My colleague from Ohio said: Do people understand women with breast cancer? Well, my wife is a--
Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield?
Mr. BARRASSO. Regular order, Mr. President.
Mr. BROWN. I just wished to let the Member know I am still in the Senate.
Mr. BARRASSO. My wife was a breast cancer survivor, and her breast cancer was discovered in her forties by a screening mammogram. It was that screening mammogram that saved her life because the cancer had already spread. It had already spread to a lymph node. She had three operations, two bouts of full chemotherapy, radiation--35 treatments and all--all--because of the screening mammogram that saved her life. Yet because of this bill that was brought to the Senate floor--with the government knowing better than the rest of America, knowing what health care ought to be given and shouldn't be given--all of a sudden what we see is the government knows best, people don't know--her life would have been lost because she is one of those 1,900.
So I understand, having practiced medicine, having lived that life as a physician--taken care of people without health insurance and on Medicaid and Medicare and those worrying about losing their insurance when they lose their job--the implications. Yet I took care of all of them, as did all my partners. We dealt with all these people, trying to help each and every one of them, regardless of their ability to pay. It is why we need health reform in this country that actually works on availability of care, affordability of care, access to care, and quality care. This bill that I voted against last night doesn't address the needs of the country. It fails time and time again.
The President made a number of promises--a number of promises--to the people of this country. He said people would see their insurance premiums drop by $2,500. Instead, the budget officers say: Oh, no, it is going to go up $2,100 for a family. Has the President not read the bill, not read the responses that have come from the Congressional Budget Office? Does he not see the difference there of $4,600 per family?
The President said this wouldn't add a dime to the deficit. Well, it is going to add a lot of dimes to the deficit. This is going to add $1 trillion to the deficit. He said: Oh no, will not at all. Yet they didn't do the doctor fix--the Medicare doctor fix. Now the Speaker of the House says: Oh, we will handle that in January or February for $250 billion, since they are not going to pay for it here.
The President said: Taxes will not go up on anybody making under $250,000 for a family. There are a dozen taxes in the bill that will be passed on to the American people. Now any teenager who goes to a tanning salon is going to get taxed 10 percent. I don't think any of those people are making over $250,000 apiece.
The President said: People will not lose their coverage. Oh, they are going to lose their coverage. Many will lose the coverage they have, coverage they like, because they have cut 11 million people on Medicare Advantage--a program people like, a program my patients like. People whom I have taken care of like it because there is actually an advantage to the program. It is a program that deals specifically with preventive care. It is coordinated care. That is what happens with Medicare Advantage. The President doesn't like. They will lose their coverage.
Of course, the President said we wouldn't see any cuts to Medicare. Yet the bill says $500 billion of cuts to Medicare for the seniors who depend upon Medicare.
The President said we would have an open, honest debate. He said C-SPAN would be there covering the debates. Those of us with the most experience--the two physicians, with 50 years in the practice of medicine and taking care of families in this country--were completely excluded--completely excluded--even though we offered to go to the White House and read the bill with the President.
So what do we have? What is the verdict of the American people on the vote that was taken in the dark of night--at 1 a.m. in the morning--a Monday morning vote, taken at 1 a.m. so the American people, hopefully, according to the Democrats, would be asleep and not see what they were doing to the American people? The verdict is the American people are overwhelmingly opposed--opposed--to the bill the Senate last night voted 60 to 40 on cloture and decided to move ahead on.
The deals in the bill are absolutely astonishing: $100 million for a hospital in a State we still can't identify and no one is claiming, a payoff to one State, a payoff to another State, and then the cuts in Medicare for our seniors who depend on Medicare, a program that is going to go broke in the year 2017--not to save Medicare. Instead of saving Medicare, to start a whole new government program.
I see my colleague from the State of Tennessee is standing, and he has worked closely with people on Medicare in his home State. He is familiar with that and with Medicaid and he knows how difficult it is for patients to get to see a doctor. With the cuts in Medicare, it is going to make it harder for those hospitals to stay alive and open in your community, and for patients to get the kind of care they need.
So I would ask my friend from Tennessee: Are there concerns you have about the cuts to Medicare and how they are going to impact on the care of people in your home State?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, what you are hearing is what we are noticing as Republicans take a look at the bill. I saw the majority whip come onto the Senate floor a few minutes ago. Yesterday he was on the floor and said the Republicans have not offered amendments to this bill, so I brought four amendments yesterday. The chairman of the Finance Committee objected.
One had to do with letting people on Medicare keep their own doctors or choose who they want to go to see for a doctor. The purpose of this what was called ``Medicare Patient Freedom to Contract'' is it ``allows Medicare patients the right to privately contract for medical services with the physician of their choice.''
I ask my friend from Tennessee, who has just spoken about Medicare, wouldn't he think that patients who have been promised that they can keep the health care they want should be able, or at least this Senate ought to be able to debate an amendment about allowing Medicare patients the right to privately contract for medical services with the physician of their choice? Wouldn't that seem fair?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Wyoming. I think it is important for the American people to know, the 400-page amendment that was added to the underlying bill over the weekend is being presented to us in way that will not allow the bill to be amended. So something that affects one-sixth of the economy, which we have had a day and a half to read, which is part of an overall bill that will raise taxes, cut Medicare, and send big bills to States could be improved with amendments but cannot be amended under the current procedure.
Mr. BARRASSO. Another amendment--I see my colleague from South Dakota is here--is an amendment I offered on the floor of the Senate yesterday to protect individuals from skyrocketing insurance premiums. You may recall the President of the United States said premiums--families in Wyoming and other States, families across the country--health insurance premiums would go down $2,500 per family. Yet what I read and studied, and as I look at this, it says to me it looks like premiums will go up instead of going down. Instead of going down $2,500, they will go up $2,100. I think for 90 percent of the families in this country, their insurance premiums will either stay the same or go up more because the bill is passed than if we did nothing.
I ask my friend from South Dakota--I know he has been bringing forth information; I know he put a chart together on it--would there not be some value in allowing the Senate to discuss an amendment because this amendment basically said let the State insurance commissioners--because every State has an insurance commissioner--let the State insurance commissioner take a look at what happens to insurance premiums in their State. If the insurance commissioner finds that the premiums have gone up faster than the Consumer Price Index, then in that State where those premiums have gone up faster than the Consumer Price Index, all of these laws and regulations and rules would no longer apply. The mandates, the rating rules, the benefit mandate, all of those included in the Reid bill would not apply.
Wouldn't that make sense, I ask my colleague from South Dakota? What is the Senator's understanding of this and should not we be allowed to at least discuss and debate that as a Senate when we have been promised as citizens of this country that premiums would go down?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BARRASSO. I try to stay in close touch with the people of Wyoming. I go home every weekend. We have not been able to do that the last couple of weekends so I have had telephone townhall meetings. I know the Senator from Tennessee has done the same. There is a way people can push a button to indicate whether they are in favor or against. Ninety-three percent of the people of Wyoming are opposed to the bill the Democrats are trying to jam through in the middle of the night. I know the Senator from Tennessee has recently had telephone townhall meetings with his constituents because he was not able to be home personally with them. Maybe the Senator wants to share with us some of the experiences he has had and some of the messages he has heard from the fine folks of Tennessee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BARRASSO. Our friends at the University of Minnesota said that if people were allowed to shop across State lines, shop around for insurance that is better for them and their family and their personal situation, we would have 12 million more Americans insured today than we have now, without a single page of legislation. That is all we need to do: allow people to shop across State lines. But when we talk about and look at this bill, which has mandates, there is going to be a mandate for people to buy insurance.
One of the amendments I tried to offer yesterday that I thought made a lot of sense for young people was that for individuals under the age of 30 or for those making less than $30,000 a year, they would be exempted from the mandate, the individual mandate that they have to buy insurance.
I was involved in a discussion on a college campus in a debate on this topic, and in talking to the students, they were astonished to learn--because they were not focused on this; they were focused on their studies and working--they were astonished that they are all going to have to buy, as a matter of law, if this passes, health insurance immediately, and if they do not, they are going to have to start paying a tax or a fine, depending on how you describe it.
So in my amendment, I said, for those up to the age of 30 and making under $30,000 a year, let's exempt them from the mandate. That amendment was rejected.
Then I said, well, if they are going to do this and force these people to buy insurance, and if they do not buy insurance, they have to pay these excessive fines or taxes--or however you want to define it--I said, how about that the penalties these people would have to pay, if they choose not to buy insurance--because it is going to be a lot cheaper to not buy insurance and to just pay the tax--what if that money could go into a personal account so that person can then use the money to then buy insurance? So it would be kind of like a savings account, so the money would be there for them to buy insurance. So individual mandate penalties would accrue not to the government but in a personal account, so they could purchase health insurance within a 3-year period. The money would accumulate. That amendment was rejected as well.
So we have lots of ideas, good ideas, to help people with affordable care, available care, and yet one after another they have been rejected in a step-by-step process to try to find ways to solve the health care crisis we know faces the country. All 100 Members of the Senate know we need to find ways to make health care more affordable and to work on high-quality care.
It has been fascinating to see the dean of the Johns Hopkins Medical Center and the dean of Harvard and those who have looked at this bill closely say that the people who are supporting this are living in collective denial, that this bill is doomed to fail, that it will raise the cost of care, not lower the cost of care, and will do nothing to improve quality.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BARRASSO. When you take a look at what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has done, which is the group that oversees Medicare, they have said that 10 years from now, if this goes through, you are still going to have 24 million uninsured, you are going to have 18 million more on Medicaid, the program the Senator from Tennessee appropriately referred to as having a bus ticket for a bus that is not going to come, because that is what has happened. Half the doctors in the country do not take care of patients on Medicaid because the reimbursement is so low that they cannot afford to continue to care for those people. Five million people will lose the insurance they get through work, and health care costs will go up. The cost curve will go up instead of going down. But the whole purpose of this was to help drive the cost down.
Then, additionally, they said that 20 percent of providers--20 percent of the providers--of health care in this country--and that includes physicians, nurse practitioners, medical clinics, hospitals--20 percent of the providers in this country, under this plan, 10 years from now, will be unprofitable, unable to keep their doors open.
So we have heard about sweetheart deals. We have heard about taxes going up. We have heard about Medicare cuts. And what we have seen is one promise after another made by the President that has been unfulfilled and actually reversed by the bill we see ahead of us.
So I ask my friend from Tennessee, wouldn't he agree that in the next 2 days, the best thing for the country would be to have this bill not pass the Senate and instead go back in a step-by-step way and regain the trust of the American people?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I certainly do agree with that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source