Economic Development Revitalization Bill
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BARRASSO. I come to the floor today, as I do each week, as a doctor who practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years, as someone who has taken care of families all around the State of Wyoming, as a doctor who has great concerns about what has happened to the American health care system, and will continue to happen under the health care law that has been passed by this body and signed into law at the insistence of this President.
I come as a doctor giving a second opinion, because I have great concerns about this health care law. In talking with patients, in talking with doctors, and from my own personal knowledge, I believe this health care law is going to be bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for the payers, the taxpayers of this country who are going to be left to pay the bill.
Recently my friends on the other side of the aisle have been using what I believe to be significant scare tactics about my party and Medicare.
Medicare is the program for our senior citizens. I believe it is important that the American people receive the truth. They deserve to have the truth about the future of Medicare, not scare tactics.
The fact is, unless Congress takes action, Medicare will go broke in 13 years. Again, in 13 years, Medicare will go broke. Today, more money is going out than is coming in. A bankrupt Medicare equals no Medicare for our seniors. These are people who have paid into Medicare, but a bankrupt Medicare means no Medicare.
If Washington doesn't show leadership now--today, this year--this program will run out of money and Medicare patients will run out of care. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to ignore the ticking clock and ignore reality.
Let's take a look at some of the reality the other side is ignoring. They are ignoring the fact that the life expectancy in the United States has risen significantly since Medicare was signed into law. When Medicare became law, in 1965, the average life expectancy was about 70. So, on average, you are talking about people being on Medicare for a certain number of years. Now, with the advances of medicine, the life expectancy is almost 80--the high seventies for men, but the low eighties for women. People are living about 10 years longer now, on average, than at the time Medicare was signed into law in 1965. It is an undeniable fact.
Another fact is that there are about 10,000 new Medicare recipients adding to the rolls every day as the baby boomers turn 65. An entire generation of baby boomers is retiring. The other side seems to ignore the fact that there are far more retirees today than ever before, and they are getting more money paid out of the program than they ever put in. I have townhall meetings and I travel around my State of Wyoming. People say: I paid into Medicare. They are absolutely right. On average, a couple who is retiring this week has paid into Medicare about $110,000--that is over a lifetime of working. That is significant money they have paid in. What kinds of services will they receive over the remainder of their lifetime, adjusted for today's dollars? It is $343,000. So you are talking about $109,000 that they paid into the system, and they are taking out $343,000.
American seniors know Medicare is in trouble. They understand the math doesn't add up, that this $3 coming out for every $1 paid in cannot work forever and ever. My friends on the other side, who attack Republicans for wanting to address this problem in a responsible way, tend to want to ignore this reality.
To make matters worse, Members on the other side actually voted for a health care law that puts Medicare on an even faster track to bankruptcy. In fact, the President's health care law cuts $500 billion from Medicare--not to save or strengthen or secure Medicare for the next generation. No, they took $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare to start a whole new government program for someone else. So it was no surprise to me when I read recently that those folks who look at the numbers, who work for the government, say Medicare is going to be broke 5 years sooner than even they had anticipated. It is odd how Democrats never even mention this when they attack Republican plans to save Medicare. Well, when they run advertisements and hold press conferences focused on scare tactics, why don't they ever explain their own $500 billion cut to Medicare?
It is also odd to me that the Democrats never talk about the other very significant piece of the President's health care law that attacks our seniors on Medicare. Hidden away in the bill is the President's Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. As a doctor who practiced medicine for 25 years in Casper, WY, I can tell you what this board is. It is a rationing board--a board to ration the health care of our seniors.
Rationing, some may say, is a very strong word. But that is exactly what it is. The President's health care law puts Medicare on the road to rationing. This health care law creates an unelected, unaccountable board of Washington bureaucrats, who will decide how much Medicare pays for certain Medicare services.
Starting in 2014, after the next Presidential election, members of the board will decide how much they will reimburse hospitals and doctors for taking care of Medicare patients. Then providers all across this country will have to decide whether they can continue to care for American seniors.
Let's face it, even today doctors are running away from taking care of patients on Medicare. According to the American Medical Association, one in three primary care doctors already limits how many Medicare patients they are willing to see. According to the same survey of the American Medical Association, 60 percent of doctors say they are looking for ways to get out of Medicare completely.
Even more providers are going to stop seeing Medicare patients, and this situation will continue to get worse. If you don't believe me, ask seniors in your own community what happens when their doctor retires. Ask somebody on Medicare how easy it is for them to find a doctor to take care of them. If they happen to be with a doctor, and they turn 65, ask if they are allowed to stay with that doctor or if they move to another community to be closer to their children and grandchildren, ask them how difficult it is for those on Medicare to find a doctor. The reason is, of course, because Medicare pays a lot less than the going rate.
Yet, the Democrats' and the President's solution is to pay even a lower amount and continue to ration and ratchet down that amount, resulting significantly in additional rationing of care as our seniors find it harder and harder to find physicians and nurses to take care of them.
The other thing about this rationing board is that it gets worse when you look at the details. It will be practically impossible for this Congress--or any Congress--to overturn the rationing board's recommendations.
Again, to me it seems very odd that my friends on the other side don't talk about this rationing board when they hold their Medicare events. But as Nancy Pelosi said, first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. The American people continue to find out what is in this health care law, and they continue to oppose it. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you are so proud of the work you have done on Medicare, then you should stand and defend this rationing board. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should explain to American seniors how it will work and how it will impact their care. America deserves a thorough and honest debate about the future of Medicare, how we got to this point, and how we can, in a responsible way, strengthen and secure Medicare for those on Medicare and for the next generation.
I bring this to you today because today a new study came out in the New England Journal of Medicine. It has to do not with Medicare--a program for our seniors--but with Medicaid, a program for low-income people--specifically, in many cases, for children. The study from the New England Journal of Medicine today talks about how very difficult it is for people--specifically children--on Medicaid to even get an appointment to see a doctor.
During the health care debate over the last year, I have come to the floor continuously and talked about the fact that many physicians refuse to take patients on Medicaid, because the reimbursement from the government is lower than the cost of actually even treating the patient--considering rent, office expenses, and other costs.
This study out today in the New England Journal of Medicine talks about researchers in Chicago who called a number of doctors' offices with an identical voice, the same person calling--actually, the same office--a month apart with the same symptoms, whether it was for asthma or different conditions such as diabetes, for the child's care, and the question came: Do you have insurance or are you on Medicaid?
What they found is that for 89 percent of those with insurance, they were able to get an appointment--regular insurance. Of those saying, no, we have Medicaid--and they called hundreds and hundreds of offices and clinics--only one in three was able to get an appointment. Think about that. It is something for our seniors to think about, as well as the President's rationing board. It pays less and less for a visit to a doctor.
We have talked about the fact that Medicare rates, as a result of the $500 billion cut from Medicare, will be in many places similar to Medicaid rates. So I would assume that at some point soon seniors will have the exact same amount of trouble getting an appointment to see a physician, as the New England Journal of Medicine found today, for children on Medicaid.
With that, I say that I will continue to come to the Senate floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law, because week after week we see new information, new relevant information about how the impact of this broad, sweeping law, significant changes for the health care of all Americans--how it is, in my opinion, bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of them, and bad for taxpayers.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source