[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 99 (Monday, July 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7426-S7427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

   EXPLANATION OF SELECTED VOTES ON SPENDING PORTION OF THE BALANCED 
                           BUDGET ACT OF 1997

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, recently, the Senate considered 
historic changes to preserve Medicare for future generations. I think 
it is important to outline my views in detail on a few of the key votes 
cast regarding these issues.
  I believe, as legislators, a chief concern must be protecting 
Medicare solvency for the long term. The Medicare Program is in a 
crisis situation. As reported in the most recent Medicare trustees 
report, the hospital insurance trust fund will be bankrupt by the year 
2001. Hence, immediate action must be taken to save this vital program.
  The change contained in the bill would bring Medicare's eligibility 
age in line with the Social Security's eligibility age and would do it 
over a long period of time. Importantly, the increased eligibility age 
does not begin to phase in until 2003 and then increases slowly over 24 
years. In essence, this position will not be fully in place for 30 
years. This means that the full 2-year increase would only apply to 
individuals currently 36 years old and younger.
  This was, for me, a close question. However, as noted, this provision 
will not begin to be phased in for 6 years. For that reason--to launch 
a process that can lead to a positive, permanent solution--I voted in 
support, but with significant hesitations. If, in the next several 
years, my concerns can be alleviated, I will continue to support the 
proposal. If not, I will withdraw my support well in advance of 2003. 
Especially relevant will be the findings of the Medicare Reform 
Commission, created by this legislation, on how best to maintain the 
long-term solvency of this program. Specifically, will the Commission 
support an increase in the Medicare eligibility age? If the report 
rejects this idea I would withdraw my support. In addition, well before 
any change in age, we need to fully address how the health care needs 
of low-income seniors between the ages of 65 to 67, will be met once 
this provision is implemented. Failure to do so would also be grounds 
for rejecting the proposal. And finally, we must develop ways by which 
middle-income seniors will be able to purchase and maintain their 
insurance under such a provision. This may be through medical savings 
accounts or other means, but we must ensure that viable alternatives 
are available to all seniors. If, in the next 2 to 3 years, these 
concerns are not addressed, or the Medicare Commission disagrees with 
our actions, I will withdraw my support for increasing the eligibility 
age.
  Another long-term reform proposal debated concerns the bill's plan to 
means test Medicare part B premiums. Currently, seniors pay 25 percent 
of their part B premium while the Federal Government pays 75 percent of 
their premium. The bill would require seniors with incomes starting at 
$50,000--for a single senior--to pay a larger percent of this premium, 
with seniors making $100,000 a year required to pay the entire portion 
of their premium--up to $2,160 a year. Senator Kennedy offered an 
amendment to strike the means testing of premiums that was included in 
the Medicare bill. I supported the effort to strike this provision.
  Unlike the eligibility age issue, the means testing proposal would 
have immediate effect. I was concerned that before such a fundamental 
change took place, the issue should be reviewed and the consequences 
closely examined. We have not had hearings on this issue and I believe 
that hearings and closer review are necessary before a change of this 
magnitude is made to the Medicare Program. Further, I do not believe

[[Page S7427]]

we should consider a proposal such as means testing until we have other 
viable alternatives in place such as medical savings accounts, to give 
middle-income seniors a way to better afford their Medicare and health 
services. In my judgment, to immediately implement the proposal in the 
bill would unfairly pull the rug out from under middle-income seniors 
without adequate notice or the provision of a legitimate option. This 
isn't fair.
  To me, a $50,000 income isn't wealthy. Moreover, many seniors who 
would have their premiums dramatically increased have carefully 
prepared and planned their retirements. Their incomes may already be 
committed to maintaining the mortgage and upkeep of a home, support of 
relatives, or saving for special nursing home care and so on. To change 
the rules this substantially and in the middle of the game, with no 
time for adjustment is wrong.

                          ____________________