Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. The first comment I have is about relying on what Wall Street analysts say today. They have about this much credibility in this country today. Look at the economic situation we find ourselves in because of what Wall Street analysts have said. That is the first point I would make.

The second point is that the majority whip yesterday said we should cut Medicare Advantage because of the 14 percent. Senator Dodd just recently went after the Patients' Choice Act because we actually make it be competitively bid without any reduction in benefits. Your bill, for every Medicare Advantage, cuts 50 percent of the benefits out. It cuts the benefits.

The difference is--and I agree with the majority whip--we do need to have the savings in Medicare Advantage, but the way you get that is through competitively bidding it while at the same time maintaining the requirements for the benefits that are offered. There is a big difference in those two. Ours ends up being pure savings to save Medicare. The savings in this bill are to create a new entitlement.

The other point I wish to make is, if you are a senior out there listening and if you are going to be subject to the new increase in Medicare tax, for the first time in history, we are going to take the Medicare tax and not use it for Medicare, we are going to use it for something else under this bill. This one-half of 1 percent is now going to be consumed in something outside of Medicare. So no longer do we have a Medicare tax for the Medicare trust fund. We have a Medicare tax that funds the Medicare trust fund plus other programs.

I say to my colleagues, I think we want a lot of the same things. How we go about it--the Senator from Montana recognized the fact that we are going to increase payments to primary care physicians. Ask yourself the question why only 1 in 50 doctors last year who graduated from medical school is going into primary care. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the government that is setting the payment rates created a maldistribution in remuneration to primary care physicians; therefore, they choose to go where they can make 200 percent more over their lifetime by spending 1 additional year in residency rather than doing primary care?

What this bill does, and what the Senator from Arizona is trying to do by sending this bill back, is to refocus it on the fact that Medicare money ought to be used for Medicare. If, in fact, we are going to slow the growth of Medicare, can we do that without cutting benefits? To slow the growth in this bill for 11 million Americans who now have Medicare Advantage will diminish their benefits. That is out of the $120 billion that is going to come.

You cannot tell a senior who is in a rural area today, who is on the economic lower rungs of the ladder, who uses Medicare Advantage to equalize their care with somebody who can afford a Medicare supplemental policy, you cannot tell them this is not going to decrease their benefits and their care, because it is. And in the bill, it actually states that it is going to decrease their benefits.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield? Very briefly, the Senator from Montana talked about the support the bill gets. AARP makes more money from Medigap plans they sell to seniors. AARP should be opposing the bill, but other groups such as 60 Plus are educating seniors.

The AMA endorsement of the bill--shocking. The bill puts the government in charge, but AMA cut a deal to get their Medicare payments addressed by increasing the deficit by $250 billion.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a minute?

Mr. McCAIN. PhRMA--my God, if there ever was an obscene alliance made that will harm seniors because it has the administration against drug reimportation from Canada and competition for treatment of Medicare patients.

So now we understand a little bit better why these special interest groups, 500-some of them, have visited the White House in recent months, according to White House logs.

Mr. COBURN. The Senator would probably be interested to know--and, I know, my colleagues on the other side--that the American Medical Association now represents less than 10 percent of the actively practicing physicians in this country. The physicians as a whole in this country are adamantly opposed to this bill. The reason they are opposed to this bill is because you are inserting the government between them and their patient. That is why they are opposed to this bill.

So you have the endorsement of the AMA which represents less than 10 percent of the practicing doctors--actively practicing doctors--in this country because not only will it increase payments, but CPT code revenue is protected. That is the revenue AMA gathers from the payment system that continues to be fostered in this bill, which is their main source of revenue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COBURN. One of the questions and one of the promises was: If you have what you have now and you like it, you can keep it. What is happening under this bill for 11 million seniors on Medicare Advantage, that is not going to happen. If they like it, they are not going to be able to keep what they have. You can't deny that. That is the truth.

Medicare Advantage needs to be reformed. There is no question about it. I agree. As the Senator alluded to, in the Patients Choice Act we actually save $160 billion in the Patients' Choice Act, but we don't diminish any of the benefits, and we do that because CMS failed to competitively bid it, because when it was written--and I understand who wrote it--when it was written we didn't make them competitively bid it. You could get the same savings, actually get more savings and not reduce benefits in any amount, if you competitively bid that product. But we have decided we are not going to do that.

The second point I make with my colleagues is the vast majority of people on Medicare Advantage are on the lower bottom economically. They can't afford an AARP supplemental bill. They can't afford to pay an extra $150 or $200 a month. So what happens most of the time with Medicare Advantage is we bring people up to what everybody else in Medicare gets because most people can afford--84 percent of the people in this country can afford to buy a Medicare supplemental policy because Medicare doesn't cover everything.

Your idea to try to save money, I agree with. But cutting the benefits I do not agree with. You are right, Senator Dodd, the basic guaranteed benefits have to be supplied to Medicare Advantage and then the things above that which you get from the supplemental policy, what you can afford to buy, is what these people get. And what you are taking away from poorest of our elderly is the ability to have the same care that people get who can afford to buy a supplemental policy. That is the difference.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. COBURN. I appreciate my chairman for his courtesy in yielding the time.


Source:
Skip to top
Back to top