Medicare Premium Fairness Act

Floor Speech

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, I want to congratulate Congresswoman Titus for her leadership on this issue. She is an extraordinary Member of this House, very able, and, as Congresswoman BERKLEY, her colleague from Nevada just indicated, this will be directed at helping a lot of seniors.

I rise in opposition to this suspension bill.

I have, for a number of years, spoken about how difficult it will be for us to get a handle on entitlements. If we don't get a handle on entitlements, my friends, we will be spending nothing more in another 50 years than money on entitlements and payment on the national debt, and our children will not be happy. They will not congratulate us.

Now, there is no speaker who will speak today who will not speak on behalf of those seniors who, as my colleague SHELLEY BERKLEY just referenced, rely on Social Security to support themselves. We anticipated that concern when we adopted the legislation relating to this subject. And as a result of anticipating that, we said if there is not a cost-of-living increase, we will exempt approximately three-quarters, actually 73 percent, of seniors from any premium increase.

Why? Because we rightfully concluded, as many speakers on this floor have observed, that those seniors would be put under stress because of no cost-of-living increase but having an increase in their premium.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know how many of you go to sleep at night worried about whether Ross Perot can pay his premium, but this will freeze Ross Perot's basic premium from going up. This will affect every premium payer, including those who make individually $85,000 or more, and, as a couple, $170,000 or more.

Now, the problem with doing that is not that we don't have some empathy for those folks--by the way, every one of us who votes on that bill falls in that category. Now, we may not be 65 or above, as I am, but we are in that category.

Now, the issue is, at a time of stress, of fiscal challenge, do we say to Ross Perot, we feel your pain and so we are going to exempt you from an increase? Hear me, we have exempted all of those $85,000 and below under present law.

My friends, I think that as well meaning as this legislation is, it is not about poor seniors. It's not about those who are less well off who are having greater stress, because they are taken care of.

There are four categories of people who aren't taken care of under present law.

First of all, there are some 2.1 million who are the $85,000 and above crowd.

There are a lesser number, 1.3 million, who are Medicare newly eligible folks, and they have never paid a premium, so their premium won't go up; their premium will be what it is.

There are 7.3 million who are dual-eligibles, and the dual-eligibles, of course, will not pay anything more because that will be the responsibility of the States. Is this an additional burden on the States? It is. We will either borrow the money or the States will pay it. Our children will pay off our debt. But our law anticipated that if this was the case, that for the 7.3 million dual-eligibles, the States would pick up the difference. People say, well, what if the States don't pick up the difference? The States have an option. I understand that. We don't control that. We could change the law and say they don't have an option, but we haven't done that.

Then there are some 850,000 who did not participate in Social Security.

There are the four categories.

Because they didn't participate in Social Security, they are not covered here and they get a State pension. Now, I tried to get the average of the State pension or the board of education pension or whatever, and I don't have that. I haven't been able to get that information. This bill was considered by the committee yesterday, reported out today.

Do I stand here happy that some seniors around the country are going to say STENY HOYER was against them? I am not happy about that.

But I have felt it my responsibility to come to this floor, as someone who speaks about entitlement reform, as someone who believes we have got to exercise fiscal discipline, as someone who believes we ought to take care of the less well-off in our country, which are taken care of by the present law, 73 percent, under $85,000. We take care of that. That's an individual; $170,000 for a couple.

At some point in time, my friends, we have to buck up our courage and our judgment and say, if we take care of everybody, we won't be able to take care of those who need us most. That's my concern. If we take care of everybody, irrespective of their ability to pay for themselves, the Ross Perots of America, frankly, the Steny Hoyers of America, then we will not be able to take care of those most in need in America.

Source