[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10713-10714]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                MEDICARE

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about recent 
remarks made by the Director of the CMS, Mr. Tom Scully. Last month, 
speaking to an audience of health care providers in Lancaster, PA, Mr. 
Scully made the following comments on the Medicare Program.
  Mr. Scully has the agency that oversees the Medicare Program, so this 
is particularly disconcerting given the way he described the Medicare 
Program. He used the phrase ``an unbelievable disaster.'' The person 
who is the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services said: Medicare is an unbelievable disaster. We think it is a 
dumb system.
  I could not disagree more. While I disagree with his views, at least 
I admire his candor because when it comes to Medicare, a lot of people 
are pretending to strengthen it and improve it when in fact they agree 
with Mr. Scully.
  Medicare, along with Social Security, is a great American success 
story. Medicare has been in place since 1965. It is the only part of 
our health care system that is a universal system, meaning that once a 
person is age 65, they have access to health care. Regardless of who 
they are in this country or if they are disabled, they have access to 
health care. This is the only part of our system, the only group of 
people, who know that there is a guarantee of health care for them; 
that is, those who are under Medicare.
  We have almost 40 million people now under Medicare, and because of 
Social Security and Medicare, we have brought millions of seniors and 
the disabled out of poverty into a better quality of life. I call that 
a great American success story. I do not call it a ``dumb system.''
  It is important to talk about what is happening right now in the 
debate about Medicare and where we are. The day after the State of the 
Union Address this year, President Bush went to Grand Rapids, MI. We 
always welcome a President of the United States to my home State. He 
came to promote his Medicare reform plan. However, he barely mentioned 
it during his speech. When he did mention it, he indicated that only 
those who choose to go into private Medicare plans--not Medicare as we 
know it but private sector plans--would be allowed to get prescription 
drug coverage. Those who could not get into a private plan or who 
wanted to stay in traditional Medicare to see their own doctor, would 
be, unfortunately, out of luck under this plan.
  So we have a system that has been in place and has worked for seniors 
and the disabled since 1965, providing health care. Now we are hearing 
about proposals which say that if someone wants to get help for 
prescription drugs, they have to go back to the system the way it was 
before, they have to go back to private insurance plans.
  When the President said that, Republicans, Democrats, and health care 
providers roundly criticized this particular plan. Many pointed to the 
fact that private sector Medicare plans are currently not a viable 
option in most of the country. They are just not there, let alone in 
rural areas.
  In fact, the President, ironically, went to Grand Rapids, MI, to talk 
about the virtue of private Medicare plans when even in the area where 
he was, in western Michigan, there are no private sector plans. So 
everyone listening to him would not have access to help pay for their 
prescription drugs under the proposal that was made because the 
proposal that was made 
was based on something called Medicare+Choice, which has been a failure 
in Michigan as well as across the country.
  The overall experience of the private sector plan, in fact, is that 
it has not worked. I will share the numbers. Nationwide, 2.5 million 
seniors have been dropped from private sector HMOs under 
Medicare+Choice plans. In fact, I have to say my mother was one of them 
in an HMO. She was having a good experience in a Medicare HMO, and they 
dropped Medicare. Out of the blue, she had to go look for another 
insurance plan and other doctors because they pulled out.
  In Michigan, 35,000 seniors have been dropped from these private 
plans, including, as I said, my own mother. Currently, only four 
Medicare+Choice plans operate in my State. They are available to only 2 
percent of the population of my State, and they are all in the eastern 
part of the State, none in the central part of the State, in Lansing 
where I live, none in west Michigan, in Grand Rapids, none in upstate 
Michigan or the Upper Peninsula only in one geographic area.
  Given this fact and the fact that Democrats, Republicans, and many 
other people stood up and said, wait a minute, this is a plan that does 
not make any sense, after a great deal of discussion the Bush 
administration did release a new set of principles for adding 
prescription drugs to Medicare. This time, their plan allows those who 
remain in traditional Medicare to get only a minimal catastrophic 
coverage and possibly a discount card.
  We understand from analysis it would be an average of a little over 
$3 that would come off a prescription based on a discount card. 
However, if

[[Page 10714]]

the senior citizen wanted real prescription drug help, really wanted to 
be able to pick between food and their medicine, they would have to, 
again, abandon traditional Medicare and possibly give up seeing their 
own doctor in order to go into a private plan.
  In all sincerity, I believe this drive to privatize Medicare is 
simply wrong. Since its inception in 1965, the Medicare system has 
worked well for seniors. In fact, back then 29 percent of the seniors 
of our country lived in poverty and now it is 11 percent. I call that a 
success, although we still need to be worried about the 11 percent.
  I agree that Medicare should be updated. I agree it should be 
modernized to cover prescription drugs and also focus more on 
prevention. We heard Secretary Thompson who came before the Budget 
Committee to talk about prevention. I agree with him. We need to change 
the system to be more focused on prevention. We need to update Medicare 
to cover prescription drugs. But seniors should not be forced into 
private sector HMOs or other plans to obtain this kind of coverage.
  Mr. Scully was honest about his beliefs. He spoke his mind. He 
expressed the belief of many that Medicare is dumb and is a disaster. 
These quotes are similar to those that were spoken by then-House 
Speaker Newt Gingrich when he said he wanted to let Medicare wither on 
the vine. These comments have been made before. It is very clear to me 
that Mr. Scully, Mr. Gingrich, and many others want to replace Medicare 
with a private sector system. I urge my colleagues to stand up against 
this assault.
  I am particularly concerned about what is happening and how it 
relates to the tax plans that are in front of us, and what is happening 
now in the economy. As a member of the Budget Committee, when many of 
us bring up concerns about falling further into deficit through the tax 
plans that were passed last year giving tax cuts to the elite, another 
round that is being proposed this year, and we see that we have 450 
economists across the country, including 10 Nobel laureates who say 
this will not create jobs, it will just add to weakening in the economy 
and, in fact, be devastating because of the red ink it will create--
when we see that, when we ask, how can you possibly support this when 
the first big round of baby boomers are coming very soon, in the next 6 
to 8 years, how do we do both?
  How in the world can we afford to place ourselves in such jeopardy, 
trillions of dollars in debt, the result of a policy that says tax cuts 
should be given to the elite, while building up national debt. How can 
we afford that?
  I am told by colleagues, you assume Medicare and Social Security will 
be there as you know it now. I do assume Medicare and Social Security 
will be there as we know it now. When I look at the numbers, I am 
deeply concerned. The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities released a 
report recently that basically said if we just took the tax cuts for 
the elite passed in 2001 and made those permanent and carried that out, 
it would cost about $10 trillion--if we carried that out the way we 
usually estimate Social Security and Medicare; over 75 years, $10 
trillion in costs for that tax policy.
  What is the combined Medicare and Social Security deficit projected 
during the same time? The $10 trillion that we are putting into place 
if that passes in the House and the Senate and is signed by the 
President. We will voluntarily be setting ourselves on a course to $10 
trillion in debt right when we know Medicare and Social Security will 
need $10 trillion.
  If you add to that the current debates about adding to that with the 
new policies that have been proposed, we end up between $12 trillion 
and $14 trillion in costs exactly at the same time we have a need for 
$10 trillion in Medicare and Social Security.
  This is a conscious choice. For those who vote for the plan proposed 
by the President, you are putting in place great jeopardy to Social 
Security and Medicare. It is a conscious choice. I have to assume it 
comes based on what Mr. Skully was talking about, that people believe 
Medicare is a dumb system, an unbelievable disaster.
  Medicare and Social Security are great American success stories. We 
need a short-term plan for jobs, opportunity, and prosperity, and that 
is what we are proposing. That really creates jobs. We can give tax 
cuts responsibly for taxpayers and small businesses and help States 
without jeopardizing Medicare and Social Security.
  I am deeply concerned about this and urge colleagues to take another 
look at what is proposed in the Senate and work together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

                          ____________________