[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9140-H9141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           PLAN FOR MEDICARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, I met in New Jersey again with a 
number of senior citizens as part of an outreach that myself and some 
of the other Democratic Congressmen in New Jersey have been doing on a 
regular basis. This time we were in Gloucester Township in Congressman 
Andrews' district and we had about 200 or 300 senior citizens who were 
very concerned about the Republican proposals to cut Medicare by $270 
billion.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem that the seniors had is that they feel very 
strongly that they are not getting enough information about exactly 
what the Republican plan is, and the fact of the matter is, they are 
right. We are still not provided with the details about what Speaker 
Gingrich and the Republican leadership intend to do with the Medicare 
Program.
  Last Thursday, the Speaker and Senator Dole released their so-called 
plan to reform Medicare, but unfortunately, once again, the plan falls 
far short in regards to any specific details, and the plain fact is 
that the Republicans have still not offered any substantive Medicare 
plan.
  We do know certain things though. We do know that the cut, the $270 
billion, is the largest cut in the history of the Medicare Program, and 
we also know that there is no way to implement that level of cut, that 
magnitude of cuts in Medicare without at the same time charging seniors 
more for Medicare and providing them with less services.
  My friend from Texas had the sign that he was using before and I will 
hold it up again. It says, the GOP Medicare plan, pay more, get less. 
The bottom line is that no matter how we cut it, 

[[Page H9141]]
when we talk about a level of $270 billion in Medicare cuts, it is 
going to mean more out of pocket for the average American senior and it 
is going to mean less services.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that over the last few days that we are 
starting to see more and more media reports explaining that fact. Today 
in the Washington Times there is an article on the front page. It says: 
``Medicare Solution Looks Like the Problem. GOP Fears Specter of a Tax 
Increase.''
  Already, we have heard about several tax increases or proposals from 
either the Senate Republicans or the House Republicans that would 
result in more money coming out of pocket from America's seniors. We 
have heard Speaker Gingrich, who last week indicated that the part B 
premium, the premium that pays for physicians' bills, for doctors' 
bills, is likely to go up so that within the next 7 years it is doubled 
and seniors will be paying twice what they are now paying for their 
part B premiums.
  We have also heard about the means testing. That was another proposal 
that came out of the House Republican plan. So far, they are talking 
about means testing only people at higher income levels, but I would 
contend to you that once you start down that slippery slope of means 
testing and charging people with higher incomes more for their Medicare 
premiums, their part B premiums, you will see that in future years, 
Congress will move toward lowering the threshold and that more and more 
middle class seniors will end up not having any kind of subsidy or any 
significant subsidy for their Medicare part B premium.
  Mr. Speaker, it is mentioned again in today's Washington Times that 
in the Senate Republican plan, they are talking about increasing 
copayments. So now we are also hearing proposals with regard to part A 
that pays for hospital bills to increase the copayment from $100 to 
$150.
  The bottom line is no matter how you cut it, we are talking here 
about more money out of seniors' pockets, and what is it for? All to 
pay for a tax cut, most of which will go toward the wealthiest 
Americans.
  I was very pleased today to see that there was an article in the 
Washington Post by the commentator, E.J. Dionne, Jr. It says, ``Blue 
Smoke and Medicare,'' and if I could just read some relevant sections 
from it, Mr. Speaker. It says, and I quote:

       The Republicans should admit that the Medicare fight is not 
     primarily about the threatened bankruptcy of the Medicare 
     system. The Republicans did not get into these big Medicare 
     cuts because they feared for the system's solvency. If that 
     were true, they would have made a lot of noise last year when 
     Medicare's trustees issued a slightly more gloomy report on 
     its finances.

  We know that, in fact, Medicare has never really been in better 
shape, that the part A trust fund that pays for hospital bills right 
now has a 7-year life expectancy, which is significantly more than the 
2 or 3 years that was reported by the trustees of Medicare in previous 
years, and Mr. Dionne goes on to say that:

       The Republicans also have to stop denying that there is a 
     link between their tax cutting plans and the Medicare cuts. 
     It is simply true that they need huge cuts in Medicare and 
     also Medicaid to finance their budget balancing promises and 
     their tax cuts. If the Republicans really believe that these 
     tax cuts are as right and as important as they claim, they 
     ought to be shouting from the rooftops that their excellent 
     tax cuts would be impossible without Medicare and Medicaid 
     cuts. The Republicans don't want to admit this for purely 
     political reasons.

  Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue to point out on a daily basis 
how significant the level of these cuts are and what a dramatic impact 
they are going to have on America's seniors, both by increasing the 
cost to seniors and providing less quality service.

                          ____________________