[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.

                          ____________________