[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 106 (Tuesday, July 30, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7514-S7515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                MEDICARE

  Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, today is a very important day because it 
is the 37th anniversary of the passing of the Medicare legislation 
providing universal coverage of health care for all seniors. Everybody 
got it. No matter what your income was, there was no gap. Those with 
low income got Medicare, hospital, and doctor coverage. If you were of 
moderate income, you got it. If you were upper income, you got it. It 
was a concept 37 years ago that Medicare should be a universal health 
care plan for all seniors.
  Today, we are at some point going to be debating a fundamental change 
in Medicare by saying that only a portion of seniors are going to get 
real prescription drug coverage--not all seniors, but we are going to 
means test it. According to the piece of paper provided by the 
supporters of that approach, individuals below 200 percent of poverty--
which is $13,300 for an individual--are going to have a Cadillac-type 
of coverage plan. But if you make $13,301, tough luck. You are going to 
have to pay 95 percent of your drug coverage if you are not below 200 
percent of poverty until you reach a figure of about $3,300 worth of 
out-of-pocket drug expenses, and then the Government will make up 90 
percent.
  It is really interesting to see whom are we talking about covering. 
It is also important to think about whom we are not covering under this 
scaled-down version.
  The average number of people in the United States below 200 percent 
of poverty is 30 percent. That means 70 percent of the American elderly 
would not qualify by being under 200 percent of poverty. These are 
working people who have paid taxes when they were working, who are 
retired, and now, because they don't qualify as being 200 percent under 
poverty, all of a sudden we are going to leave them out of a Medicare 
Program that was supposed to provide universal health coverage for all 
Americans. This is a fundamental break with what Medicare was all 
about, which was a universal plan for all seniors, not just for seniors 
making under 200 percent of poverty.

  Seventy percent of America's elderly would not qualify for the 200 
percent poverty standard. That is not what we signed into law 37 years 
ago and celebrate today, the advent of a Medicare Program that was 
universal coverage for all citizens.
  I understand why we are attempting to do that. That is because we are 
trying to spend less money. The tripartisan plan said we could spend 
$370 billion and reform Medicare by giving seniors new options and also 
provide a universal prescription drug plan that covered all seniors, 
not just those under 200 percent of poverty.
  If I were a senior who had an income of $13,301, according to their 
chart, I would be very unhappy with what the Senate is considering now. 
Seventy percent of America's seniors would not qualify under 200 
percent of poverty. We can do better than that. We can do far better 
than that. We can do more for less, if we do it correctly and we do it 
in the proper fashion.
  We had a plan under the tripartisan plan that was a comprehensive 
plan. It was a $24-a-month premium for seniors who have to meet a $250 
deductible, and

[[Page S7515]]

then, after that, it was universal coverage for all seniors. They paid 
50 percent coinsurance, but everybody participated. Every senior was 
treated equally, not just spending a substantial amount of money for a 
selective number of people.
  Medicare is not an antipoverty program; Medicaid is. Medicare is 
universal coverage. It is not just saying to 70 percent of our seniors, 
you are not going to get any real help. Some will say we are helping 
those over 200 percent of poverty. You are not helping them very much 
when you tell them they have to pay 95 percent of the cost of their 
prescription drugs. Ninety-five percent, what kind of coverage is that? 
We are going to say: We will help you with 5 percent, but 95 percent is 
going to have to come out of their pocket after 200 percent of poverty. 
That doesn't seem to be a very good deal to me.
  Then you say: When you get $3,300 worth of out-of-pocket drug costs, 
the Government will help you again. It is not really the best we can 
do. We can do far better than that. I think we ought to.
  I don't know why we are actually voting. No. 1, everybody should 
realize the bill did not come out of the Finance Committee, where all 
of this type of work should have been done, where all the compromises 
should have been accomplished, instead of trying to go to the floor and 
having one bill one day without 60 votes, another bill without 60 
votes, and yet today another bill that does not have 60 votes.
  We are putting people on the spot unnecessarily. I suggest we put 
this off and begin the real work that is possible and get something 
that works.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add 3 
additional minutes to my 12.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. I would be glad to yield further to my colleague from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. No, thank you.

                          ____________________