BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will vote against the motion to proceed. Before Senator Lieberman leaves the floor, I want to say again, of all the people I have met in the Senate, he constantly amazes me, because there is no doubt he is doing this because he believes passionately that America is at a crossroads and this is making the problem worse, not better. I am on a bill with him--there are seven Republicans and seven Democrats--that is a comprehensive solution to our health care needs. It is the Wyden-Bennett bill. It mandates coverage, but we do it through the private sector.
I want colleagues to know that Senator Lieberman has been constructive in trying to find a bipartisan compromise that will allow us to deal with health care inflation, which is a problem in the private sector. He practices what he preaches, trying to solve problems. As he explained it, the Senator from Mississippi and I were sitting here talking. There is not much of that around here in politics now, where one would come out and take on an issue that is being pushed by leaders of the Democratic Party. He is an independent Democrat, but he articulated the reason in a way most Americans really appreciate.
Doctors have a problem. In 1997, we tried to balance the budget with President Clinton, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. When we looked at how we could sustain a balanced budget, we had to go to where the growth was in the budget. The big programs were Medicaid and Medicare, the entitlements. Eventually, those two programs will cost the equivalent of the entire Federal budget today in 20 or 30 years. If we want to balance the budget, we have to slow down entitlement growth.
Medicare is one of those programs that have grown dramatically. When it first came about, it was a $4 billion safety net. They projected that Medicare would cost $37 billion in 1990. It was like $90-something billion. It is $400 billion today. Those who designed the Medicare Program as a safety net for senior citizens without health care did a good thing, but from then until now, it has become a $400 billion item that is eating up the entire budget.
In 1997, we recalculated the growth rates to be paid to doctors and hospitals. Since then, doctors and hospitals have been saying that we cut reimbursements to the point that they can't take Medicare and Medicaid patients and it is hurting their ability to stay in business. About 60 percent of their income comes from the Federal Government. I don't doubt that is true. What we did is just nickel and dime doctors and hospitals and never reform Medicare.
So Senator Lieberman is right. To help doctors and hospitals and the
country achieve a balanced budget, we will have to fundamentally reform Medicare, and the doctor fix should be part of that effort.
What we are doing here is making a promise we can't afford to pay. We are going to tell the doctors: Don't worry ever again about Medicare reimbursements being cut because for a 10-year period, we are going to hold you harmless.
That is beyond cynical. We need to look at the doctor fix in terms of comprehensive Medicare reform. It is a $245 billion item designed to get the medical community to support the leadership version of health care. It is transparent. It is wrong. It is bad politics. It is bad policy. I hope my colleagues will reject it.
The bill coming out of the Finance Committee--and I congratulate Senators who are trying to fix health care because it needs to be fixed--is about an $800 billion expenditure, a little bit more. It is revenue neutral over a 10-year period because it is going to be paid for. Four hundred billion in Medicare cuts are part of the payoff, the pay-fors.
How do we take $800 billion of expense and make it revenue neutral? We offset it. One of the offsets is a $400 billion-plus reduction in Medicare spending over a 10-year window. I argue that not only is that not going to happen because the Congress hasn't reduced Medicare spending anywhere near that, it is just politically not going to happen. Two years ago, we tried to slow down the growth of Medicare to $33.8 billion over a 4- or 5-year period and got 24 votes. If colleagues think this Congress is going to have the political will and courage to reduce Medicare by $400 billion over 10 years, show me in the past where we have had any desire to do that.
The doctors fix is the best evidence yet of what will come in the future. We are contemplating doing away with the reduction in physician payments that was part of the balanced budget agreement because our medical community has been hit hard and is complaining. Look at the $400 billion. Do we think if people are going to be on the receiving and of a $400 billion cut over a period of time, they are going to accept it happily?
Do you think they are not going to complain? What do you think we are going to do when one group of the medical community or the insurance community says, ``You are putting me out of business.''
These $400 billion cuts are never going to happen because, you see, with the doctors fix, where every year we relieve the doctors from the imposition of that agreement in 1997--and in many ways we should because the 1997 agreement was not comprehensive--but to those who believe we are going to cut $400 billion in Medicare, have the courage to tell the doctors we are going to do to them what we said we would do back in 1997. Nobody wants to do that, and I am sympathetic as to why we do not want to do that because we are asking too much of doctors and hospitals and we did not reform the system as a whole.
Mr. President, $245 billion added to the debt is no small thing. What I hope will happen is we can find a bipartisan pathway forward on health care reform that deals with inflation, deals with better access to preventive medicine, has some medical liability reform, is truly comprehensive, with give-and-take, and mandates coverage. I am willing to do that as a Republican. But if we go down the road our leadership has set for us here and basically tell the doctors ``Don't worry anymore, you are going to be held harmless for the next 10 years,'' then what group will follow who will want the same deal and to whom will we begin to say no? I do not know. I do not know to whom we will have the ability to say no if we do this. And if you say no to them, what the heck do you tell them--``You are not a doctor, so it does not matter what we do to your business.''
If we do this, we have lost the ability, in my view, to provide the necessary solutions to the hard problems facing the country. We will have given in to the most cynical nature of politics. We will have destroyed our ability to engage with the public at large in a credible way to fix hard problems. And when it comes time to ask people to sacrifice, they are going to look at us and say: What do you mean ``sacrifice?'' Aren't you the people who just basically wiped out what the doctors had to do because you were afraid of them?
I am not afraid of doctors. God bless them. I am glad we have them. What we have done in the name of reform has been unfair because we picked on them and not the system as a whole. So to the doctors out there, Lindsey Graham gets it, that your reimbursement rates as they exist today under Medicare make it very difficult for you to do business. But I hope you will understand that my obligation is beyond just to the doctors in South Carolina; it is to what Senator Lieberman said: the next generation as well as to the here and now.
Every politician has a problem: How do you affect the here and now, people who can vote for you, and how can you secure the future? Well, you just have to ask the people who are here and now to be willing to make some changes for the benefit of the country long term. I am confident that if we ask and we do it in a smart way, people will join with us. I want to give the doctors better reimbursement rates, and the only way we can achieve that is to reform Medicare from top to bottom and make it more efficient.
One of the things I am willing to do is ask a person like myself to pay more. As a Senator, I make about $170,000 a year. I am not saying we are worth it, but that is what we pay ourselves. I would like to think we earn our money because it is not an easy job, but there are a lot of jobs harder than being a Senator, I can assure you. But right now, the system we have to fund Medicare, the trust fund, will run out of money in about 4 years. But basically I am paying the same amount for Part B premiums that cover doctors and hospital payments out of Medicare as my aunt and uncle who worked in the textile mill and made $25,000 a year. I am willing for people like myself to have to pay more to keep Medicare solvent.
We are making some changes but not nearly enough. Mr. President, $3 out of $4 of Medicare spending comes from the General Treasury, the taxpayers. One-fourth of the money to cover Medicare expenses comes from the patient population being served. There are plenty of Americans who are paying about $100 a month once they get into retirement who can afford to pay $450 a month for the Medicare services they receive. Nobody is asking them to do it. I am willing to ask, and I am willing to do it myself. It is those types of changes that will lead this country to a brighter future and will correct the imbalance we have.
Finally, Medicare is $34 trillion underfunded. If you had $34 trillion sitting in an account today, it would earn interest over 75 years. You would need all the money--the $34 trillion plus the interest--to make the payments we have promised people in the future.
When I was born in 1955, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today there are three, and in 20 years there will be two. There will be two workers paying into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds where there used to be 16 when I was born. There are more baby boomers retiring every day than anyone ever anticipated. We are living far beyond 65.
The question for the country is, Will people in my business go to you, the public, and say change is required? We cannot run the system assuming things that do not exist. We have to come to grips with the fact that we have an aging population, we live longer, there are more retirees than ever, and there are fewer workers. Once we come to grips with that dynamic and ask those who can afford to give, to give--hold those harmless who cannot afford to give--America's best days are ahead.
If we do not reform these systems and we continue to do what is being proposed today--try to buy a constituency off: Doctors, we will fix your problem if you will support our bill; the $254 billion it will cost to get you onboard, do not worry about it.
To the doctors who may be listening, you better worry about it. You need to worry about not only the viability of your medical practice but the ability of your government to make payments it has promised to the next generation, the ability of your government to be able to continue to operate, the ability of our country to pass on to the next generation a sound and secure America.
We are about to borrow ourselves into oblivion. There is a theory out there, long held, that democracies are doomed to fail because democracies over time will lose the ability to say no to themselves; that we in the government will continue to grow the government based on the needs of the next election cycle and make promises that make sense for our political future but really over time are unsustainable. We have reached that point, and we are about to go over the edge.
The only way America can self-correct is to make sure our political leadership is rewarded when we ask for change we can believe in. This is not change we can believe in. This is the old way of doing business. This is buying off a constituency that is important for the here-and-now debate of health care and not giving a damn about the consequences to the country down the road. This is how we got in this mess.
If we pass this bill, not only have we destroyed this new hope from a new President of ``change we can believe in,'' we will have reinforced the worst instincts of politics, sold the country short, and made it impossible to say no to the next group we want to sacrifice who needs to help us solve this problem.
With that, I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT