[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H11368-H11369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNIVERSAL MEDICARE DRUG PLAN IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, despite the very best efforts of our House
Republican leadership, I rise to oppose the prescription drug bill that
will be considered before the Congress this week.
It would, in fact, represent the largest expansion of Medicare in 35
years. Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Clinton's Medicare administrator,
actually called this legislation the biggest expansion of government
health benefits since the Great Society. And so it will be.
I have consistently said that I would support the creation of a
national prescription drug benefit in Medicare only if it is fiscally
responsible and includes free market reform measures, which this
legislation fails to do on both counts.
Only by significantly reforming Medicare along the lines that
President Bush initially requested, can we act in a way that is
responsible and meet the urgent and real needs of seniors for
prescription coverage.
Of course there are seniors near the poverty level who need immediate
help with the cost of prescription drugs. Nearly 24 percent of seniors
have no access to prescription coverage, and about 5 percent have out-
of-pocket costs of more than $4,000 per year. For those seniors, our
national government should respond with a drug discount card or some
form of direct subsidy, and I have supported these efforts.
Sadly, the prescription drug plan currently being advanced in the
Congress lacks such specificity and focus and actually would create a
universal drug benefit that provides a government entitlement for every
American over the age of 65, a population of some 37 million today that
will grow to some 70 million in the year 2030.
While the need for some type of benefit is real, the need for a
universal drug benefit is not. At present, 76 percent of seniors have
prescription drug coverage, and the average senior spends less than
$999 per year in out-of-pocket expenses. And as always happens when
Congress creates a massive new bureaucracy, there will likely be
unintended consequences as well. Mr. Speaker, chief among them could be
that millions of Americans with prescription drug coverage from a
former employer could lose it. The Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that this could happen in the tens of thousands.
But the most ominous consequence of a universal drug entitlement
could be that it will usher in the beginning of socialized medicine in
America. This type of system which is built on unrealistic fiscal
projections and incorrect assumptions about human behavior would
invariably lead to escalating costs for which price controls and
outright government control would be seen as a last resort. In an
America where abortion is legal and euthanasia is increasingly
accepted, the American people would do well to ponder the implications
of government-run health care in America.
Let us reform Medicare so it will be there for the future without
placing an undue burden on our children and grandchildren. But beyond
that, let us do no harm to the greatest and most diverse health care
system in the history of the world. By agreeing to a prescription drug
benefit for all seniors, rather than just those in need, Congress
threatens our Nation's fiscal stability, the private prescription plans
of
[[Page H11369]]
millions of seniors, and the very survival of our free market health
care system.
Mr. Speaker, Despite the very best efforts of House Republican
leadership, I rise to oppose the prescription drug bill that will be
considered before Congress this week. It would in fact represent the
largest expansion of Medicare in 35 years.
As Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Clinton's Medicare administrator,
said, this would be ``the biggest expansion of government health
benefits since the Great Society.'' With an annual federal deficit of
more than $400 billion, I will support the creation of a national
prescription drug plan only if it's fiscally responsible and includes
free market Medicare reform measures.
Only by significantly reforming Medicare along the lines the
President originally intended can we afford to meet future obligations,
including a prescription drug benefit.
Of course, there are seniors near the poverty level who need
immediate help with the cost of prescription drugs. As I have witnessed
in more than 100 town hall meetings across eastern Indiana, the
necessity of some prescription assistance for seniors near the poverty
level is beyond dispute.
Statistics show that nearly 24 percent of seniors have no
prescription drug coverage and approximately 5 percent of seniors have
out-of-pocket prescription costs of more than $4,000 per year. For
these seniors, our national government should respond with a drug
discount card or some form of means-tested direct subsidy. I have and
will continue to support efforts at the national level to focus
prescription assistance on seniors struggling near the poverty level.
Sadly, the prescription drug plan currently being advanced in the
House and Senate lacks such focus and actually would create a universal
drug benefit that provides a government entitlement for every American
over the age of 65, a population of some 37 million today that will
grow to 70 million by the year 2030.
While the need for some type of benefit is real, the need for a
universal benefit is not. At present, 76 percent of seniors have some
form of prescription drug coverage, and the average senior spends less
than $999 per year in out-of-pocket expenses on medications.
Not only is the need for a universal public subsidy questionable,
adding a universal drug benefit to Medicare may have certain unintended
consequences. Namely, seniors with private coverage from a former
employer may actually lost their coverage. The Congressional Budget
Office recently estimated that thousands of seniors could lose coverage
they currently enjoy from a former employer if Congress creates this
new entitlement.
The final, and most ominous, consequence of a universal drug benefit
could be that it will usher in the beginning of socialized medicine in
America. This type of system, which is built on unrealistic fiscal
projections and incorrect assumptions about human behavior, will
invariably lead to the kinds of escalating costs for which price
controls and outright government management will be seen as the last
resort. The consequences of such a government expansion are moral as
well. In a society that sanctions the abortion of unborn human life and
is increasingly open to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, our
values and our freedoms would argue against turning the health of the
American people over to the federal government.
Compassionate conservatism is about focusing solutions at the point
of the need. Let's help our seniors near the poverty level with urgent
and sufficient prescription coverage. Let's reform Medicare so it will
be there for the future without placing an undue burden on our children
and grandchildren. And let's otherwise ``do no harm'' to the private
sector foundation of the greatest healthcare system in the history of
the world.
For all these reasons, I oppose a universal drug benefit in Medicare.
By agreeing to a prescription benefit for all seniors rather than those
in need, Congress threatens our nation's fiscal stability, the private
prescription plans millions of seniors and the survival of our free
market healthcare system.
____________________