[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3299-H3300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REPUBLICAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Americans are still 
paying two and three and four times more for their prescription drugs 
than consumers in any other nation in the world. Twelve million seniors 
lack any form of prescription drug coverage, and millions more have 
inadequate coverage.
  My Republican friends are poised to introduce prescription drug 
legislation that does not address either of these concerns. That is 
because the goal of their legislation is not to deliver meaningful 
prescription drug benefits to seniors or get a grip on unjustifiably 
high prices. Their goals are, one, to try to look responsive to the 
concerns of senior voters and their families, without actually 
investing enough to be responsive to their concerns; second, to do the 
bidding of the prescription drug industry, which is what my Republican 
friends always do; and, third, to privatize Medicare, the best health 
care system this country has ever seen.
  How do they win political points? By mimicking some of the features 
of a real drug benefit but investing only about one-third of the 
dollars needed to deliver real drug coverage. By starting with 80 
percent coverage, which makes their plan look generous, then increasing 
the cost-sharing, the cost that seniors actually pay, dramatically as a 
senior's prescription drug price costs rise. Under the Republican plan, 
seniors who spend more than $2,000 lose their coverage altogether, no 
more coverage for the next $2,500 in expenses. Find me a single health 
insurance plan in the private sector that increases the cost-sharing 
burden as an enrollee's costs go up.
  The Republican plan is so skeletal that seniors would still need 
supplemental prescription drug coverage if they wanted protection 
against high drug prices. The majority may dress up their plan in 
appealing rhetoric, but it is still a cheap imitation of real 
prescription drug coverage.
  The Republicans' second goal is to do the bidding, no surprise here, 
of the prescription drug industry which, of course, favors the private 
plan approach. Remember the Flo ads from a couple years back, the ones 
where Flo said she did not want the government in her medicine cabinet? 
Those ads were funded by the drug industry. They were intended to 
demonize the idea of adding a drug benefit to the existing Medicare 
program. The drug industry favors bypassing Medicare and forcing 
seniors into private prescription drug plans.
  Be prepared for the majority to claim its plan cuts drug prices by 30 
percent per prescription. The Republican plan does not cut drug prices 
by 30 percent, in spite of what they say. Their plan reduces drug 
spending, not prices, and they do that mostly by restricting seniors' 
access to higher priced necessary medicines.
  They are not doing seniors any favors with that strategy, and they 
certainly are not challenging their corporate

[[Page H3300]]

sponsors, the drug industry's ugly habit of charging American consumers 
the highest prices in the world for drugs our tax dollars, our 
research, our NIH helped produce.
  I recently received a letter from a constituent who last year took a 
bus and purchased his medicines in Canada. He said the only side effect 
from those drugs was that he saved $2,000. Same medicines, same 
quality, $2,000 less. The savings is significantly more than most 
seniors would save by signing up for the Republican prescription drug 
plan.
  The second goal of my Republican colleagues is not to rock the boat 
when it comes to drug industry pricing. Never upset the prescription 
drug company, one of their biggest contributors.
  The third goal is to privatize Medicare. The Republican prescription 
drug plan not only bypasses Medicare by promoting private prescription 
drug plans, it would phase out Medicare as an entitlement and phase in 
a privatized, defined contribution program. Medicare beneficiaries 
would receive a voucher to cover part of the cost of the private 
insurance. Wealthier citizens would supplement that voucher to get 
better coverage. Lower income seniors will just have to take what they 
get.
  If the majority want to end the Medicare entitlement and abandon the 
principles that all Medicare beneficiaries, everyone in this country 
over the age of 65, are entitled to good health care coverage, they 
should not hide behind prescription drug coverage to do that. They 
should say, yes, we want to privatize Medicare.
  I am working with other interested Members on legislation that adds a 
real prescription drug benefit to Medicare, that harnesses the 
collective purchasing power of Medicare beneficiaries to drive drug 
prices down, which is what other countries, especially Canada, do to 
get lower drug prices and that does not use prescription drug coverage 
as their method to privatize Medicare.
  We are the richest country in the world. We owe our prosperity to the 
retirees who built this country. If we can afford trillion dollar tax 
cuts, which my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), will 
talk about in a moment, if we can afford trillion dollar tax cuts that 
go overwhelmingly to the richest people in this country, we sure can 
afford a real drug benefit for our seniors.
  Let us not trivialize the concerns of Medicare beneficiaries and 
every American by sugarcoating paltry coverage plans. The American 
public hired us to address their concerns, not to co-opt them. Let us, 
for a change in this body, do our job.

                          ____________________