[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 117 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8501-S8502]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HEALTH CARE WEEK VIII, DAY IV

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the American people are making their 
voices heard in the debate over health care. One of the things they are 
demanding is that we do something to lower costs. This is why the 
proponents of a government takeover never fail to mention lowering 
costs as one of their primary goals. Yet, more and more, Americans are 
beginning to ask themselves a very simple question: How can more 
government lead to lower costs?
  They look at Medicare, a government-run health care program that's 
nearly bankrupt, and they don't understand how an even bigger, more 
complicated government-run health plan won't end up in the same 
condition--and they certainly don't understand why the administration 
would propose cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare to 
help pay for this massive new government-run plan.
  Yet, this is precisely what some are proposing: that we use Medicare 
as a

[[Page S8502]]

piggy bank to pay a significant portion of the administration's plan 
for health care reform. Well, in my view, it's a terrible idea, and on 
the 44th anniversary of this vital program that roughly 40 million 
Americans rely on each day, I think it is important to explain why.
  Here is how one of the proposed cuts would work. Right now, if a 
senior citizen on Medicare needs surgery, his or her hospital stay will 
likely be covered by Medicare. And because health care costs go up each 
year, Medicare provides for annual increases that ensure that hospitals 
and other providers are able to keep pace with inflation.
  What the administration and some Democrats in Congress are now 
proposing is that we reduce or even eliminate this annual increase--
thus, cutting the amount of money we spend on Medicare, a drastic 
measure that could have a serious impact on our hospitals and the 
communities and patients they serve.
  It would be one thing if these cuts were being proposed as a way of 
strengthening Medicare. The simple fact is that Medicare faces 
significant challenges that must be addressed. When Medicare Part A--
the program that pays for hospital stays--was enacted, 44 years ago 
today, it was projected that in 1990 this program would spend $9.1 
billion on hospital services and related administration. As it turned 
out, spending in 1990 totaled almost $67 billion--or more than seven 
times the original prediction. These exploding costs have taken a toll 
on the program's bottom line. Today, Medicare is already spending more 
than it is taking in, and it is expected to be insolvent in just 8 
years. Unfortunately, the administration plans to use Medicare cuts in 
order to fund yet another new government program.
  America's seniors don't want politicians in Washington tampering with 
Medicare to pay for health care reform. They want us to fix it. I get 
letters almost every day from some of the nearly 700,000 Kentuckians 
who have Medicare. They are counting on it in the years ahead, and they 
are worried about its future. In my view, we have a serious obligation 
to make sure it's there for them. Unfortunately, the administration's 
proposal takes the wrong approach.
  Just yesterday, the Joint Economic Committee completed a study on the 
administration's proposed cuts to Medicare. It found that if these cuts 
were used to restore Medicare rather than to fund a government takeover 
of health care, the Medicare trust fund's 75-year unfunded liability 
would be reduced by 15 percent, or more than $2 trillion, and that it 
would delay the trust fund's bankruptcy by 2 years. In short, while any 
savings from a reformed Medicare would strengthen it for a longer 
period of time were they put back into the current program, this just 
highlights how important overall reform is to ensuring that Medicare 
continues to serve our seniors.
  This is why I have argued for weeks that any savings from Medicare 
should be put back into the program. And this is why I have also 
repeatedly urged the administration and my colleagues in the Senate to 
move forward on the bipartisan Conrad-Gregg proposal, which would 
provide a clear pathway for fixing the problems in Medicare and other 
important entitlement programs. Conrad-Gregg would force us to get debt 
and spending under control. It is the best way to reform Medicare. It 
deserves the support of every Member of Congress.
  Doctors and hospitals across the country are worried about what these 
proposed cuts in Medicare would mean for them and their patients. 
Earlier this year, the Kentucky Hospital Association warned that the 
kinds of cuts being considered in Washington would seriously impact the 
services hospitals currently provide to seniors in my State. I would 
encourage my colleagues to talk to seniors, doctors, and medical 
professionals in their own States and see what they're saying. My guess 
is that it's a lot different than what some of the lobbyists and 
interest groups here in Washington are saying.
  Some in Congress seem to be in such a rush to pass just any reform, 
rather than the right reform, that they are looking everywhere for the 
money to pay for it--even if it means sticking it to seniors with cuts 
to Medicare. If there was ever a program that needed to be put on a 
sounder financial footing it is medicare. And yet throughout the debate 
over health care, we don't seem to be focusing our attention on this 
vital issue. Instead, the same people who are unwilling to make the 
hard choices that are needed to fix Medicare now want us to trust them 
to create a new government program that will inevitably suffer from 
these same problems. It just doesn't add up, and Americans are 
beginning to realize it.
  So on this anniversary, here is my message: Using massive cuts to 
Medicare as a way to pay for more government-run health care isn't the 
kind of change Americans are looking for. Americans want savings from 
Medicare to be used to strengthen Medicare, not to create a system that 
would increase long-term health care costs, force Americans off the 
insurance they have and like, and lead to a government takeover of 
health care that has the same fiscal problems that Medicare has.
  Forty-four years ago today, President Johnson signed Medicare into 
law, saying that our Nation would never ``refuse the hand of justice to 
those who have given a lifetime of service and wisdom and labor'' to 
their Nation. Those of us in Congress have a responsibility to fulfill 
that vow. And the best way to do so is to work together on reforms that 
address the real problems in our health care system, problems like the 
ones we see with Medicare.
  I have been encouraged, as lawmakers on both sides, and even the 
President, have acknowledged that the reform proposals we have seen so 
far are not where they need to be. Strengthening Medicare to make sure 
it meets the needs of seniors today and in the years to come would be a 
very good place to start.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.

                          ____________________