[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H10289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             A DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF REPUBLICAN MEDICARE PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, they are back in the back room again. The 
last time the Republicans went in the back room, the AMA got a fat 
check and the seniors got left out in the cold.
  I do not know how the previous speaker could define what was in the 
bill because it is my understanding that at this point there is no 
bill, that the Republican leadership is somewhere in this institution 
huddled away in a back room of the Committee on Rules trying to write a 
new bill to buy enough votes to get it on the floor and pass it 
tomorrow.
  What are they trying to achieve? Well, if you think that the 
Republicans, who have opposed Medicare from its inception, have been 
opposed to it at every step of the process, are really trying to save 
it, then you can agree that they are trying to save it. But if you 
listen to the majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Armey], you will find out what they really want to do. He says if 
he had his way, he would not have to be part of Medicare. If you are 
not part of Medicare, it means seniors get to go out and choose their 
own program.
  My father is 84 years old. Last year he had a heart attack and a 
stroke and a hernia operation and we are going to give him a check not 
enough to buy any private health care plan after he has paid for 
decades into the program, and wish him good luck to buy a plan in the 
private sector. People in their mid 40's and 50's cannot buy health 
care on their own. The chances of senior citizens having that freedom 
means that they will not be covered by health care. Mr. Dole, the 
majority leader, voted against health care when it came before him when 
he was in Congress the first time.
  If this was an honest debate, most of the people on the other side of 
the aisle would say they do not believe government ought to be 
guaranteeing health care to anybody and not even seniors, and they 
would be for ending the program. But rather than that, they want to 
bankrupt and destroy the program through subversion.
  Let us ask the fundamental question. They keep quoting that the 
trustees said there was a problem. Indeed, the trustees did say there 
was a problem, and if they would bother to listen to those trustees for 
the other half of the sentence, the trustees will tell you that it is 
an $89 billion problem. How do you get from $89 billion to $270 billion 
in cuts? It is because you want a $245 billion tax cut.

  Let us take a look at how you manage a society, how you manage a 
business, how would you take care of your family? Because we remember 
the contract that was signed on the back side of the Capitol. The 
contract was they were going to protect family. We now know what family 
it is. It is the GOPAC contributor's family. If you make $350,000, the 
Republican budget says that you need a $20,000 tax cut. If you live on 
Social Security, they say you need to spend another $1,000 and get less 
coverage in your Medicare.
  Is that what government is supposed to be all about? Are we supposed 
to come here and make it more difficult for the people who fought World 
War II, who saved democracy for this country and the world, and as they 
come to the point where they need health care coverage, which we 
guaranteed them, that you are going to pull the rug out from under 
them?
  Oh, yes, you are going to give them choices. You can have a medical 
savings account. I know a lot of seniors that can save up $26,000 to 
$30,000 for a 1- or 2-day visit to the hospital. If you are in the 
$350,000 category, yes, you can have a medical savings account. If you 
are living on Social Security and even a small pension, that savings 
account does not do anything for you. This is about taking from the 
needy to pay for the greedy. The honest debate here is where should 
this society go? This society needs to go by providing for senior 
citizens.
  The debate here is very simple. Is this society going to take care of 
the needs of the greedy, those who can afford to contribute to GOPAC, 
those who make $350,000 a year? Are we going to go back in the back 
rooms as the Republicans are back there tonight trying to buy a few 
more votes?
  Last time it was the AMA at the cost of the seniors. My doctors do 
not want that deal. My hospitals do not want a deal that will leave 
seniors further out in the cold. They want to have a health care system 
that protects seniors and working men and women in this country.

                          ____________________