[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7793-7794]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MEDICARE REFORM

  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the proposed 
Medicare reform. I have found the debate to be fascinating because it 
is proceeding as if there had been no changes to Medicare recently. 
Anyone telling you that there have been no changes is not being 
straightforward. Sweeping changes to our Medicare system were debated 
and they were passed in the most partisan way possible--only Democrats 
voted for them--and they were signed into law by President Obama. The 
President's new law already puts this fundamental health care program 
in significant jeopardy.
  Some may come down to the floor, some may rise and say: Mike, you are 
all wrong about this. They will want you to believe that the $\1/2\ 
trillion in cuts to Medicare in the new health care law will actually 
extend the Medicare program. But in reality the health care law is not 
giving new life to this program at all. The Congressional Budget Office 
reports that Medicare will be insolvent in 2020, 9 years from now. Yes, 
that is right, complete insolvency in 9 years. That is the current plan 
voted on and signed into law by the President.
  That analysis does not even account for the $\1/2\ trillion cuts in 
Medicare to fund the health care law.
  Don't believe me? We have consulted the experts. The experts say the 
health care law counts, or attempts to count, the same dollar twice. 
The Medicare Actuary says these cuts ``cannot be simultaneously used to 
finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions under 
the health care law) and to extend the trust fund.''
  This can only mean either the new health care law does not have 
enough funding, to the tune of $\1/2\ trillion or, in the alternative, 
Medicare is in more serious jeopardy than even the trustees' report 
points out, in jeopardy of becoming insolvent much sooner than the 
experts predict.
  So I stand here today and I tell you if you are 56 years old or 
younger and you are thinking about the day when you apply for your 
Medicare benefits, the experts say--sorry, you are out of luck. Under 
the current law of the land, that is the case. Again I point out that 
the President's health care reform was passed on the most partisan of 
votes--it did not get a single Republican vote--and every Medicare 
beneficiary will be impacted by the cuts to this program.
  If you are out there saying: Mike, I want to protect the poor, all I 
can tell you is the President's plan does not do that. If you are 
saying: But, Mike, I want to protect the middle class, all I can tell 
you is that the President's plan does not do that.
  What do we get out of that? According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, complete insolvency in 9 years. You see, the President's reform 
is founded upon the unrealistic assumption that doctors will continue 
providing the same services to patients with a 30-percent cut in a 
Medicare Program that is not covering their costs today. I just had 
doctors in my office saying: Mike, we cannot continue to provide 
Medicare services if that cut occurs. Yet that is the current law of 
the land.
  By comparison, one of the plans we may vote on this week protects 
Medicare beneficiaries over 55 by saying: Look, we are going to hold 
you harmless. Your benefits will not be changed at all. The plan says 
let's fix this physician payment formula so they do not have the 30-
percent cut so access for Medicare patients can continue. The plan says 
let's protect those who are especially deserving of our support, those 
who are below 150 percent of the poverty level and truly cannot afford 
the health care they need.
  You are probably saying: Mike, what plan is that? The plan I am 
talking about is Paul Ryan's plan. You tell me which sounds more severe 
in its approach, a plan that puts government bureaucrats in charge of 
controlling health care costs, robs Medicare of any potential savings 
to start a new entitlement, and in 9 years brings bankruptcy to 
Medicare, or a plan that empowers patients to choose their own unique 
plan, ensures Medicare savings are reinvested into the Medicare 
Program, and preserves Medicare by bringing costs back to sustainable 
levels, which is the Ryan plan?
  I want to be clear that there are some things about this plan I would

[[Page 7794]]

love to debate and change. For example, perhaps we could devise an 
incremental transition within the Medicare proposal. Maybe we need to 
evaluate if the medical savings accounts for those most in need should 
be indexed to something better than the general inflation rate. Maybe 
those below a severe poverty line should be exempted entirely. Perhaps 
some of the tax reform, including elimination of certain tax 
deductions, needs to be revisited.
  We will have the opportunity to debate and make improvements, but 
only if we vote to proceed to the bill. But you know what, arms are 
going to be broken all over the place here this week to make sure that 
does not happen, because this is not a serious attempt to try to fix 
the problem. This is all about messaging for campaigns and political 
consequences. The reality is no plan is going to get enough votes. I 
will stand here and I will observe those arms getting broken. We will 
need orthopedic surgeons on the Senate floor to fix them.
  Sadly, passage was never the intention here. These plans were 
scheduled for votes purely for the sake of messaging an important 
program that provides health care for seniors that by the Congressional 
Budget Office's definition will be insolvent in 9 short years. These 
votes are not designed to fix this problem. These votes, I guarantee, 
are all about political fodder for next year's election season.
  I believe this is not what we were elected to do on the Senate floor. 
These antics are what rightfully embolden those who say Congress is 
incapable of solving these very hard problems. As the Senator from 
South Dakota indicated, today we mark 756 days since the Senate passed 
a budget. As a former Governor I cannot imagine going to the people of 
the great State of Nebraska and saying: You know, I have been thinking 
about it, we will not be doing a budget this year. I would be looking 
for a new State to live in.
  Well, 756 days, and this week we are not even making a serious 
attempt to deal with it. With a deficit exceeding $14 trillion, our 
Nation needs something greater than political symbolic votes which we 
all know will fail. Maybe, just maybe, we can muster the courage to 
take seriously our responsibility to seniors and to all Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to my 
colleagues as in morning business for 30 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________