[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.