[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16045-16046]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 A REPUBLICAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM BUILT ON FALSE HOPES AND VAGUE 
                                PROMISES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, not long ago this House debated a 
prescription drug coverage bill, not a Medicare prescription drug 
coverage proposal but a bill endorsed by the Republican majority that 
features private stand-alone prescription drug coverage for seniors. It 
was the only bill we were permitted to consider.
  I joined many other Members of this House when I questioned the logic 
of this proposal, the feasibility of this proposal, the arrogant anti-
Medicare message of this proposal.
  Our concerns are not theoretical. It turns out that Nevada has 
adopted a prescription drug program almost identical to the Republican 
plan. It is not working. It is not working for the same reason the 
Republican plan will not work, because insurers refuse to participate. 
They say the risks and the costs of providing individual insurance 
policies for prescription drugs are simply too high. We do not actually 
have

[[Page 16046]]

to implement the national proposal to see whether insurers will 
participate. They have already said they will not.
  This House raised the hopes of millions of seniors by passing 
prescription drug legislation, legislation that was forced upon this 
body by a majority unwilling to consider any other plan, any other 
bill, any other approach. Republican leadership forced this House to 
take seriously a proposal built on false hopes and vague promises.
  The majority in this House saw a political opportunity and seized it. 
They decided it was time to associate themselves with the prescription 
drug issue. After all, Medicare beneficiaries and their families are a 
huge voting block, and the majority is up for grabs.
  To my Republican colleagues, more power to them. If the media plays 
their bill right, maybe they will hold onto a few more seats, except 
for one thing. This is not a token issue. When Members play the 
prescription drug issue like a game, they are playing with the lives of 
real people. They are playing with the quality of those lives and the 
length of those lives.
  To the 84-year-old woman eating 1 meal a day so she can afford the 
arthritis medication that permits her to walk, this is not a game. To 
the 67-year-old man who cannot afford to fill a blood pressure 
prescription that could keep him alive, this is not a game. To the 
adult sons and daughters wondering whether they are going to be able to 
find money for their parents' prescriptions, this is not a game.
  Last week was the 35th anniversary of the Medicare program. The 
American public has financed that program and benefited from that 
program for 35 years. Various private insurance companies have come and 
gone. Private health plans have evolved from true insurance programs, 
where everyone paid the same rate and everyone was eligible for 
coverage, to selective organizations favoring the healthiest enrollees.
  Medicare does not play favorites. It provides reliable coverage to 
all seniors. The original Medicare program is available to everyone. It 
never skips town. It never ratchets down benefits. It does not charge 
different premiums to different people based on different 
circumstances. It enables seniors to see the provider of their choice. 
No wonder it is the most popular political program, public program, in 
the Nation's history.
  But to keep up with modern health care, the Medicare benefits package 
needs to be modified to include prescription drugs. Updating the 
Medicare benefits package, that is what the debate some weeks ago 
should have been about. It was an insult to the public, that instead we 
debated a bill that makes no sense unless the goal is not to provide a 
prescription drug benefit plan, but rather, to set the stage for a 
massive overhaul of Medicare; unless the goal is to promote 
privatization of Medicare. After all, if we privatize one benefit, like 
prescription drugs, we might as well privatize them all.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to change course. 
I urge them to shift their support towards legislation that updates 
Medicaid and Medicare instead of spurning it. If we work together on a 
proposal like that, we can do the right thing for the American people. 
But if my Republican colleagues continually insist on going down this 
dead end street, they should not be surprised if come November it is 
the American voter who says, game over.

                          ____________________