[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 8, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2715-S2716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Healthcare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is rare to find Washington Post, Wall 
Street Journal, and USA TODAY editors all in agreement, but they are 
all on the same page when it comes to Senator Sanders' radical scheme 
for a complete takeover of healthcare in America. All three papers say 
that the Democrats' single-payer plan--a one-size-fits-all plan for 
America--is a bad idea. Remember, it is not just Senator Sanders' plan; 
nearly every Senate Democrat who is running for President has supported 
this extreme proposal, as have 180 Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  Post, Journal, and USA TODAY editors are citing last week's report by 
the Congressional Budget Office as raising a number of alarm bells. USA 
TODAY calls it a pipe dream. The Post charges Senator Sanders with 
deeply misrepresenting how difficult it would be to adopt single-payer 
healthcare for America. They called it costly. They called it 
complicated and expensive. The CBO projects in its report on a single-
payer plan that government spending on healthcare would increase 
substantially. They go on to say that to cover the massive cost of 
government-run care--the Journal says that income taxes of American 
families would have to at least double.
  Added to the expense is the shock of banning virtually all private 
insurance in this country. There are 180 million working Americans who 
receive their health insurance through work. Outlawing private health 
plans would cause a serious disruption, forcing 180 million Americans--
working families--from their employer-sponsored health insurance 
coverage.
  The Washington Post notes that these employer-provided plans cover 
most Americans under the age of 65. The Journal says that any savings 
would have to come from where the money is, which is cutting payments 
to doctors and restricting care--restricting care. That restricts 
treatment as well as new technologies. Lower reimbursement rates could 
drive many doctors from practice and shutter many small hospitals in my 
rural communities and in your rural State, Mr. President. We are 
talking about problems in our rural communities all across America. The 
result would be longer wait times and lower quality of care.
  To quote the Post, ``No matter what Senator Sanders says, there is no 
Medicare for all without tradeoffs.'' Mark my words--Medicare for all 
would soon become Medicare for none. Democrats' one-size-fits-all 
healthcare plan--a one-size-fits-all healthcare plan would mean that 
you would pay more to wait longer for worse care. You would pay more to 
wait longer for worse care. That is what one-size-fits-all healthcare 
looks like for Americans, for people all across the country.
  This single-payer plan means major tax hikes to cover massive costs. 
It means much longer lines for lower quality care. It means the 
elimination of private health insurance for Americans. It also means 
the end of the Medicare Program that seniors rely upon and so many 
depend on, on a daily basis. That is where I want to focus some of my 
remarks today--our seniors' healthcare needs and why it is so important 
to protect their Medicare benefits that they have paid into over their 
entire working lives.
  For seniors today, there are 60 million of them who rely on the 
Medicare Program. Medicare is nothing less than a medical lifeline. 
Yet, if the Democrats impose socialized medicine on the entire country, 
seniors will quickly find Medicare replaced by a massive, new, 
government-run, one-size-fits-all program--a system that lowers the 
quality of care for them and makes it harder to get the care they need.
  These older Americans worked hard their entire lives, put in the 
effort, and each month or each week had money deducted from their 
paychecks that went into paying for Medicare. They have paid into this 
Medicare system for decades. The average for a couple in America--they 
have paid in about $160,000 in terms of withdrawals from their 
paychecks over the course of their working lives. They deserve nothing 
less than what they paid for, that they paid into.
  For more than 50 years, Medicare has helped countless seniors live 
healthier, more productive lives. Does Medicare face challenges? 
Absolutely. There is no question about that. But ending Medicare as we 
know it would not solve our healthcare problems; it would simply make 
them much worse--certainly for the 60 million Americans currently on 
Medicare.
  I have seen Medicare's value as a doctor. While practicing medicine 
in Wyoming for decades, I saw firsthand how effective Medicare is in 
helping patients receive the care they need.
  Now, as a Senator, I talk with seniors back home in Wyoming all of 
the time and listen to their healthcare concerns. The week before last, 
I was at two different health fairs in Wyoming, where people can go for 
low-cost blood screenings and learn more about diabetes, stroke, heart 
disease, and proper diet. I visited with people in Rawlins, WY, and 
Mountain View, WY. Hundreds of people came out. There were 1,500 people 
at the Rawlins health fair.
  People in Wyoming actually know me as a doctor first and as a Senator 
second, and above all, they count on me to protect their Medicare. That 
is my concern with this one-size-fits-all approach the Democrats have 
been proposing. People in Wyoming want to make sure that I keep 
Medicare strong, keep fighting for them, because the current system 
allows them to get to the doctor they need.
  In Wyoming, where people live far away and the hospitals are few and 
far between, we know that with a program like this--and certainly from 
the CBO report last week--small hospitals will very likely close.
  Almost 90 percent of Medicare patients say that they like the program 
and that it works well for them. There is nearly 90 percent approval. 
Members of the Senate would be astonished and happy with those sorts of 
approval numbers for themselves. It is a program that is working for 
them, and now what is being proposed by the Democrats is going to 
absolutely have devastating effects on Medicare and our patients on 
Medicare.

  We need to do more to lower the cost of care for all Americans, but 
we need to protect Medicare. To put all of these new people on a 
Medicare Program is going to make it that much harder for our seniors 
who are currently on Medicare.
  Medicare partners with private health insurers to provide seniors 
with better, more affordable care. It is a program called Medicare 
Advantage. There are 22 million American seniors who are on this 
Medicare Advantage Program. Nobody forces them to sign up; they choose 
it simply because, as the name implies, there are advantages to 
participating in Medicare Advantage in terms of preventive care and in 
terms of coordinating care. Our seniors look at these plans and say: 
You know, that is right for me. It provides value for my money. I enjoy 
what I get.
  So it is no surprise that since 2010--things came along, and 
ObamaCare was passed--the number of seniors in Medicare Advantage has 
more than doubled, because it is a good program for them. Nevertheless, 
all 22 million people currently on Medicare Advantage would lose 
Medicare Advantage if the Democrats' one-size-fits-all approach to 
healthcare--which 180 Members of the House have cosponsored and which 
the Senate Democrat candidates for President are cosponsoring--were to 
pass. But that is what the Democrats are proposing--taking Medicare 
Advantage away from 22 million Americans.
  In January, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators in sending a 
letter to

[[Page S2716]]

the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services urging support for 
Medicare Advantage. Ironically, 6 of the 22 Democrats who signed this 
letter have now flip-flopped back to this far-extreme-left proposal to 
outlaw private health insurance in America. That is what they are 
running for President on and promoting today.
  Medicare works with private insurers to make seniors' prescription 
drugs more affordable as well. This program is called Medicare Part D. 
More than 43 million seniors participate in Part D plans. Again, it is 
voluntary. How do we know it must be a good program? Because that many 
people see value in the program, and they have signed up for it. Can we 
improve the prescription drug program? Absolutely. We are working right 
now to lower prescription drug costs. We have already eliminated the 
gag order, where pharmacists couldn't talk to patients. We have done 
the right thing there.
  So why are the far-left Democrats attempting to destroy private 
health plans? I mean, it is astonishing. Why do they want to end 
Medicare as we know it? Why do they want to turn Medicare for our 
seniors into Medicare for None?
  Well, while ``free healthcare'' may make for a catchy campaign 
slogan, it is unfair to deceive the American people, especially our 
seniors. To quote the editor of the Wall Street Journal, ``Voters 
should know Sanders is promising miracles when what he'll deliver is 
poorer care for everyone.''
  So here we have it. The Congressional Budget Office came out with its 
study about what the impacts will be. The Washington Post, the Wall 
Street Journal, USA TODAY--all of them say this is not right for 
America.
  Let's be clear. All Americans will pay a high price for Democrats' 
one-size-fits-all, government-run healthcare scheme, and I actually 
think seniors may suffer the most. It is clear to me that with a one-
size-fits-all healthcare plan, people will pay more to wait longer for 
worse care.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  (The remarks of Ms. Smith pertaining to the introduction of S. 1359 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The Senator from Texas.