[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27771-27772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Republican leader just came to the 
floor, as he has with regularity, to speak to the issue of health care 
reform. We are all addressing it because it is a major issue we are 
facing in this Congress, a major opportunity for this country to deal 
with a health care system that needs to be fixed. There are parts of it 
that are very strong but parts of it that need to be fixed.
  The cost of health care today in America is going up so fast that it 
is outstripping the ability of individuals and businesses to buy health 
insurance coverage. We have seen the cost of premiums go up three times 
faster than wages. The story is obvious. For most workers across 
America, the choice each year is take-home pay or increased costs for 
health insurance, and they understand it is unsustainable.
  Just 10 years ago, the cost of a health insurance plan for a family 
of four was $6,000. This year, it is $12,000, on average. Ten years 
from now, it will be $24,000. To think that 10 years from now people 
will have to work to earn $2,000 a month just to pay for the health 
care for a small family tells you we have to make a change.
  The Senator from Kentucky on the Republican side came to the floor to 
criticize not the Senate bill but the House bill. I would say to the 
Senator from Kentucky, in all fairness, let's address the Senate bill 
which will be reported this week. It has literally been reviewed by the 
Congressional Budget Office for the last 3 or 4 weeks, and it will come 
out this week and be posted on the Internet for everyone to read in its 
entirety. At that point, I think the criticisms leveled by the Senator 
from Kentucky will be put in context. Let's look at the Senate bill.
  I would also like to stand here and wave before you a copy of the 
Republican bill on health care reform, but it does not exist. There is 
no Republican alternative to health care reform. They are satisfied 
with the current system. They want to keep the status quo. Like the 
health insurance companies, they are happy with what exists. But most 
Americans, and certainly those I represent in Illinois, know better. 
They know we are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to health 
care if we have to rely on health insurance companies for permission 
for coverage because they are going to say no. Repeatedly, they say no. 
They deny you coverage when you need it the most, because of a 
preexisting condition. They deny you coverage because they say it costs 
too much. They deny you coverage because they don't want to cover a 
certain drug and they want to challenge you to fight them and appeal 
that decision. They deny coverage when you decide to change a job or 
lose a job. They deny coverage when a child reaches the age of 23 and 
is so-called emancipated and on his own. That is the existing system 
which the Republicans are supporting. They can support it if they wish, 
but most Americans do not. Most Americans want to see real health care 
reform.
  Let's spend a moment speaking about Medicare, which the Senator from 
Kentucky addressed. Our goal is not only to preserve Medicare. As a 
political party, it was Democrats who created Medicare. It was 
Republicans who called it socialized medicine and opposed it. Over the 
years, they have tried to trim back on Medicare benefits, to reduce 
coverage and turn Medicare over to private insurers. That effort was 
called Medicare Advantage. When private health insurance companies came 
before Congress and said: We can do a better job than the government, 
we can offer Medicare coverage at a lower cost and do it more 
efficiently because we are the private sector, Republicans accepted 
that premise and tried to take away Medicare coverage from the 
government and offer it to private health insurance companies.
  What happened? Some private health insurance companies did do it at a 
lower cost but not all of them. In fact, when it was all said and done, 
Medicare Advantage, this so-called private rescue of the Medicare 
Program, ended up costing 14 percent more than the Medicare Program 
itself. In other words, the Medicare Program was subsidizing private 
health insurance companies that couldn't keep their promise to deliver 
Medicare at a lower cost.
  The Senator from Kentucky comes to the Chamber to defend those 
private health insurance companies, defend the subsidy they receive at 
the expense of Medicare. That is unacceptable and indefensible. 
Medicare offers the basic plan most Americans trust when they reach the 
age of 65. We are going to find a way to make sure we put Medicare on 
sound footing. The future of Medicare is in doubt if we don't deal with 
the underlying problems in our health care system today.
  The Senator from Kentucky and his Republican side have no 
alternative. They are not offering health care reform or change. They 
are standing with the health insurance companies, defending Medicare 
Advantage, which enjoys this healthy subsidy from the Federal 
Government, and, frankly, not supporting our efforts to bring real 
reform to health insurance.
  I can tell my colleagues the Medicare provisions in the House bill 
referred to by the Senator from Kentucky were supported by AARP. They 
have been supported by other organizations: The Leadership Council of 
Aging Organizations, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security 
and Medicare. How does the Senator from Kentucky explain that; that 
they would endorse this approach to Medicare while he says it would 
destroy Medicare. Frankly, he happens to be mistaken. What we are doing 
is putting Medicare on a sound financial footing, reducing the increase 
in cost in medical procedures so Medicare isn't stripped of the basic 
funds it has.
  In fact, when it is all said and done, we find that the House bill, 
the bill the Senator from Kentucky references, extends the life of the 
Medicare trust fund by an additional 5 years. How does the Senator from 
Kentucky explain that? If this is destroying Medicare, how does this 
health care reform extend its life?
  Under the bill, overall national spending on health care would 
increase by only .8 percent over the next 10 years, compared to current 
law, even though 34 million Americans would be gaining coverage. Under 
the bill, out-of-pocket spending on health care would decline by more 
than $200 billion over what it would have been by the year 2019.
  When it comes to Medicare Advantage, the Senator from Kentucky says 
it offers more benefits for seniors. I am

[[Page 27772]]

not opposed to offering more benefits for seniors, but I wish to make 
sure each and every senior under Medicare has a basic Medicare package 
they can count on and afford and that Medicare is put on a permanent, 
sound financial footing. Unfortunately, on the Republican side, they 
have offered no alternative.

                          ____________________