Wasn't it the Democrats who developed medicare~~Re pubs voted against~~~

Medicare

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/20/us/senate-democrats-to-introduce-plan-for-medicare-drug-benefits.html


Senate Democrats to Introduce Plan for Medicare Drug Benefits
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: Tuesday, June 20, 2000



Five Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, the panel responsible for Medicare legislation, plan to introduce a bill on Tuesday to establish prescription drug benefits for the elderly, even as senior Senate Republicans appear to be floundering in efforts to develop a proposal of their own.

The Democrats' initiative, orchestrated by Senator Bob Graham of Florida, comes just a day before the House Ways and Means Committee is to start voting on legislation to authorize outpatient drug benefits under Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly and disabled.

Senator Graham said he hoped his proposal would be ''the basis for a bipartisan compromise,'' and he added, ''The chances are at least 50-50 that something will happen on this issue this year.''

Congress has already set aside $40 billion over five years for drug benefits.

The new bill is supported by 5 of the 9 Democrats on the 20-member Finance Committee -- Mr. Graham, Max Baucus of Montana, Richard H. Bryan of Nevada, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Charles S. Robb of Virginia -- and by one Republican, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who is not on the panel.

Under the proposal, Mr. Graham said, drug insurance premiums for most Medicare beneficiaries would be $35 to $40 a month, the same as under a bill introduced last week by House Republicans. People with high incomes would pay higher premiums.

Under Mr. Graham's bill, the beneficiary would have to pay the first $250 a year in prescription drug expenses. The government would share costs beyond that amount, paying a larger proportion as drug expenses increased.

The government would pay 50 percent of drug expenses from $250 to $3,500, and the beneficiary would pay the rest. The government would pay 75 percent of costs from $3,500 to $4,000 a year, and it would pay all costs over $4,000 a year.

This is significantly different from the proposal offered by House Republicans, which has a gap in coverage: Medicare would pay half of drug costs from $250 to $2,100, but the patient would then be solely responsible for several thousand dollars of drug costs, and the insurer would not step in again until the beneficiary had incurred $6,000 of costs.

Under Mr. Graham's bill, the protection against very high drug costs, known as catastrophic coverage, would begin in 2003, along with basic drug benefits. By contrast, under President Clinton's plan, basic drug benefits would begin in 2003, with catastrophic coverage to follow three years later.

The chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator William V. Roth Jr., Republican of Delaware, began meeting with committee members last week to seek common ground, but members of both parties said the sessions had been unproductive. Mr. Roth and other Senate Republican leaders have not publicly offered any detailed proposals for Medicare drug benefits.

Under Mr. Graham's bill, the government would charge higher premiums to people with incomes of more than $75,000 a year and families with incomes exceeding $150,000 a year. The government subsidy would be gradually reduced as incomes rose. The maximum premium, 50 percent above the basic premium, would be charged to people with annual incomes exceeding $100,000 for an individual or $200,000 for a couple.
A version of this article appeared in print on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, on section A page 19 of the New York edition.

more on medicare

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=318614


September 24, 2009
Republicans' Real Record on Senior Issues

Responsible Reform for the Middle Class

Senate Republicans have started to assert that changes to Medicare in health insurance reform are damaging to seniors. Republicans don’t have a very convincing track record of supporting America’s seniors. They voted against Medicare at its inception, tried to privatize Medicare AND Social Security, and have spent the past forty years voting against seniors’ interests. As the AARP has noted, Republicans most recent lies on Medicare and Seniors that’s simply not true - health insurance reform curbs Medicare waste, fraud and abuse and refocuses Medicare on seniors’ health, not insurance companies’ wealth.

REPUBLICANS’ REAL RECORD ON SENIORS ISSUES: WRONG THEN, WRONG NOW


Republicans Opposed Medicare From the Beginning. From the beginning – and consistently since that time - Republicans have gotten it wrong on seniors. When the Medicare legislation passed in July 1965, the majority of Republicans Senators voted AGAINST Senate passage of Medicare and the final conference report. [Congressional Record, 7/9/1965; Social Security Administration, accessed 9/16/09]


1965: GOP Said Medicare Was “Brazen Socialism.” During the 1965 Medicare debate, Republican Senator Carl Curtis of Nebraska voiced the GOP opposition to the program and said of Medicare, “(I)t is not needed. It is socialism. It moves the country in a direction which is not good for anyone, whether they be young or old. It charts a course from which there will be no turning back….It is not only socialism – it is brazen socialism.” [Congressional Record, 7/8/1965]


* GOP Insisted Medicare Would Not Rely on Doctors to “Make the Program Work.” Senator Curtis also warned that Medicare would result in the program “not relying on the advice of the medical association or doctors collectively to make the program work,” insisting that “the insurance industry has a remarkable record” and that Medicare “is not public welfare. It is not charity. It is not kindness. It is socialism. Socialism is not the answer to anything.” [Congressional Record, 7/8/1965]
* GOP Predicted Patients Will Suffer Under Medicare. On the House floor, Representative Hall (R-MO) said, “...we cannot stand idly by now, as the Nation is urged to embark on an ill-conceived adventure in government medicine, the end of which no one can see, and from which the patient is certain to be the ultimate sufferer.” [Congressional Record, 4/8/1965]



Future GOP Presidential Candidate Dole Was Proud of His Vote Against Medicare. In 1995, after Medicare had successfully lifted millions of seniors out of poverty and assured them access to affordable health care, then-Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole continued his party’s opposition to Medicare. In a 1995 speech to the American Conservative Union while campaigning for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, Dole boasted, “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.” [Washington Post, 10/26/1995]


* GOP Wanted Medicare to “Whither on the Vine.” Then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, in remarks to a Blue Cross/Blue Shield conference on October 24, 1995, said of Medicare, “Now, we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that that's politically smart, and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it -- voluntarily.” [New York Times, 7/20/96]
* GOP Wanted to “Wean” Seniors From Medicare. In a 1995 meeting with reporters, then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey said, “We need to wean our old people away from Medicare.” [Newsday, 12/09/06]


REPUBLICANS’ HAVE CONTINUED TO TRY TO PUT THEIR BAD IDEAS INTO ACTION


Republicans Have Tried to Undermine Medicare Since 1965. The Wall Street Journal reported on Republicans long and rocky relationship with Medicare, noting Ronald Reagan’s attempts to cut Medicare early in his presidency and in “the mid-1990s, congressional Republicans proposed deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts.’” [Wall Street Journal, 8/25/09]


Republicans Have Voted Against Protecting, Strengthening Medicare Nearly 60 Times in the Past Ten Years. In the past decade, Congress has taken serious steps to improve and strengthen Medicare for America’s seniors and Senate Republicans have stood in the way. In the past decade alone, Senate Republicans refused to support protecting, strengthening and enhancing Medicare for America’s seniors, voting against measures that achieved those goals at least fifty-nine times. [Senate Roll Call Votes, Congressional Record, 2008: S.V. 169, S.V. 160, S.V. 149; 2007: S.V. 132; 2006: S.V. 71, S.V. 50, S.V. 49, S.V. 5; 2005: S.V. 342, S.V. 302, S.V. 297, S.V. 294, S.V. 287, S.V. 60; 2003: S.V. 259, S.V. 258, S.V. 257, S.V. 254, S.V. 253, S.V. 251, S.V. 250, S.V. 249, S.V. 246, S.V. 245, S.V. 244, S.V. 242, S.V. 241, S.V. 240, S.V. 239, S.V. 236, S.V. 234, S.V. 233, S.V. 232, S.V. 230, S.V. 229, S.V. 227, S.V. 173, S.V. 82, S.V. 63, S.V. 21; 2002: S.V. 199, S.V. 186; 2001: S.V. 137, S.V. 122, S.V. 117, S.V. 66; 2000: S.V. 206, S.V. 195, S.V. 186, S.V. 162, S.V. 144, S.V. 65, S.V. 53; 1999: S.V. 229, S.V. 79, S.V. 76, S.V. 66, S.V. 59]


* All Senators Voting Against Overriding Bush’s Veto of the Medicare Improvement Act Were Republicans. Just last year, the Senate passed an override of former President Bush’s veto of the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. All the senators voting to support Bush and his veto of the bill were Republican. [S.V. 177, 7/15/08]
* Republican Senators Didn’t Even Want to Move to the Bill. All senators voting against cloture on the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 were Republicans. They voted against cloture three times. All senators voting against cloture on the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 were Republicans, with the exception of the Leader for procedural reasons. [S.V. 169, 7/9/08]; S.V. 160, 6/26/08 and S.V. 149, 6/12/08 – Leader voted against cloture as required by the Senate rules]
* Only Republican Senators Voted Against Covering Medicare Beneficiaries’ Outpatient Prescription Drugs. [S.V. 186, 7/23/02]
* Only Republican Senators Voted Against Strengthening Social Security and Medicare. [S.V. 162, 6/29/00]
* Only Republicans Believed That Tax Cuts Were More Important Than Seniors. [S.V. 66, 3/25/99]



Republicans Wanted to Privatize Medicare AND Social Security. Republicans have consistently wanted to move seniors into the private markets. Just this spring, House Republicans offered a budget that “would eventually end the Medicare programs as it is presently known.” If we had listened to Republicans, American seniors would have seen their lifetime savings nearly disappear. As the Wall Street Journal notes:“The wealth of American families plunged nearly 18% in 2008, erasing years of sharp gains on housing and stocks and marking the biggest loss since the Federal Reserve began keeping track after World War II. The Fed said Thursday that U.S. households' net worth tumbled by $11 trillion – a decline in a single year that equals the combined annual output of Germany, Japan and the U.K. The data signal the end of an epoch defined by first and second homes, rising retirement funds and ever-fatter portfolios.” [AP, 4/1/2009; Wall Street Journal, 3/13/09]

SENIORS RECOGNIZE MEDICARE IMPROVES THEIR HEALTH AND WELLBEING, KNOW REPUBLICANS DON’T ACT IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS


Medicare Has Improved Seniors’ Health, Helped Seniors Get the Health Care They Need. In 1965, only about one half of the nation’s seniors had health insurance, and most coverage was only for inpatient hospital costs. Today, virtually all seniors have health insurance through Medicare which covers far more than just hospital costs. [Congressional Research Services, 3/10/09; Kaiser Family Foundation, 1/09]


* In 1960, life expectancy for American 65-year-olds was 14.3 years; in 1998, life expectancy at age 65 had rise to 17.8 years. [Health Affairs, 3/01]
* In 1966, 28.5 percent of Americans aged 65 and older lived in poverty; last year, 9.7 percent of elderly Americans lived in poverty. [U.S. Census Bureau, Table 3, 9/10/09]



Seniors Like Their Medicare Coverage. Medicare beneficiaries are highly satisfied with the health coverage. In a recent survey, 91 percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries rated their health insurance as “excellent,” “very good,” or “good,” compared with just 58 percent of those who purchase health insurance in the individual market. Just 8 percent of Medicare beneficiaries rated their insurance as “fair” or “poor,” compared with 35 percent of those who purchased insurance in the individual market, and 18 percent of those with employer-sponsored insurance. [Health Affairs, 2009]


Despite Medicare’s Success, Republicans Still Don’t Think Seniors Should Have Medicare Coverage. In July, Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) said in a radio interview, “You could certainly argue that government should have never gotten into the health care business.” The following month, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said, “The reality of it is that, you know, this single payer program known as Medicare is a very good example of what we should not have happen with all of our health care.” [The Eagle 93.9, accessed 9/20/2009; Newsweek, 8/25/2009]


Alliance of Retired Americans Lifetime Scores on Supporting Seniors Issues – Republicans Far Below Democrats. The Alliance of Retired Americans gives Republican senators abysmal lifetime scores on their support of issues that seniors care about. The lowest score a Republican received was 1 percent. The highest lifetime score a Republican senator received was 53 percent - that’s a shameful 20 percent BELOW the lowest Democratic senator score of 73 percent. Twelve members of the Democratic caucus received a lifetime score of 100 percent. [Alliance of Retired Americans, Congressional Voting Record, 5/4/09]


AARP Finds Republican Statements About Medicare Misleading. In response to recent mischaracterizations of the affect of health reform on Medicare by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Executive Vice President John Rother issued a statement saying, “Nothing in the bills that have been proposed would bring about the scenarios the RNC is concerned about.” Mr. Rother went out to say, “As we have analyzed the various bills, the proposed Medicare savings do not limit benefits, they do not impose rationing and they do not put the government between patients and their doctors.” [AARP, 8/24/2009; Wall Street Journal, 8/25/2009]





« Back to Press Releases

Latest News
Reid Spokesman: Familiar Republican Tactics Won't Undermine Reform
Reid: Senate Health Reform Debate Should Be About Facts, Not Fear
Shaheen and Bennet Join Economists To Discuss How The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act Lowers Costs
Reid: Mammograms Save Lives and Health Reform Makes Them More Accessible
Reid: Supporters Of Reform Can See The Finish Line But Much Work Lies Ahead

More News...

Responsible Reform for the Middle Class

Recovery Works!

Rural Outreach

YouTube Official Channel
Today in the Senate
December 1, 2009:

The Senate will convene at 10:00 a.m. and resume consideration of H.R. 3590, the Health Care Reform legislation, for debate only until 11:30 a.m. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the Majority will control the next 30 minutes, and any remaining time will be equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees.

At 11:30 a.m., the Senate will consider the nomination of Jacqueline Nguyen, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California. At 12:00 noon, the Senate will vote on confirmation of the nomination. This will be the first vote of the day.

My words medicare works, so now as the Democrats debate the worth of health reform for Forty million+ I say Dems are on top of the game~~as they were back in 1965/an earlier

gypsy wrote:My words medicare works

I'm not entirely sure if my understanding of the Medicare system is correct, but why isn't just everyone (100% of the population) covered by it? As I understand, everyone does have to pay for it, even though they are not covered by it. That seems unfair. If you are paying for Medicare, you should also have coverage (not only the elderly, disabled, etc).

Hi Sandy,my understanding is we do pay for it to have for old age/retirement at 65

the health reform now in debate is a form of medicare.

the party opposing it(Republicans ) mostly an some halfway dems/repubs also opposing ,they can't decide which party they want to represent.,whine that we don't need government run insurance which we already have ((Medicare)) an it has worked(since 1965) when first implemented> to present 2009..
yes we all pay into medicare, but don't get it until we turn 65,an old age insurance,one still has to have a Supplemental insurance, but when we turn that magic age (65) Medicare becomes our primary an the insurance we have had all along becomes our secondary ..

Sandy P. Raakma wrote:

gypsy wrote:My words medicare works

I'm not entirely sure if my understanding of the Medicare system is correct, but why isn't just everyone (100% of the population) covered by it? As I understand, everyone does have to pay for it, even though they are not covered by it. That seems unfair. If you are paying for Medicare, you should also have coverage (not only the elderly, disabled, etc).

Sandy the best way to understand our system is to research non-biased sites, no political site will give accurate information.

also Sandy, I guess to learn about different areas of this subject, is read,read read,~ many interesting writings an studies on our laws .I think it is admirable that people from other countries learn about these. We Americans need to study more on other types of laws/cultures,I find it very interesting to do so..

SSC wrote:Sandy the best way to understand our system is to research non-biased sites, no political site will give accurate information.

My remark was more aimed at improving the current system, by working with what is already there. I noticed that every single taxpayer is paying for Medicare, but that only certain groups actually are covered by it. My suggestion would be to simply extend coverage to all people who are also actually paying for it.

gypsy wrote:I find it very interesting to do so..

Yes, me too.

Actually, many countries are trying to improve their health care system. All countries have to cope with aging populations. The US is a special case, because it is the only industrialised nation without a universal health care system.

Another interesting thing about health care, is that many people don't realise that the 'market' works in opposite direction to what is desired. If you look at a bakery, the 'market' will see to it that there is as much supply of bread for a price that determined by competition. With health care you want to have the lowest price of course, but - unlike with bread - you also want consumption to be as low as possible. This is opposite to what a supplyer of health care (services) want. They want you to consume as much health care as possible. Unfortunately, this will also increase your health care premiums. As a result the health insurers will either increase premiums or cut coverage, which you also don't want to see happen.

It's a tricky thing to solve for Obama. Let's see what happens this time around.

im lucky i have health care at work , but always mindful im one lay off from nothing except temporary cobra, which i have been on and u pay the whole bill plus 2 percent, but why im posting is i probably have not realized a raise in pay in many years, since i do get a raise, but then healthcare premiums i pay at work goes up and eats it all up, and some years then some.. or they lower coverage, which is what happened last year, take care,,

rosco 357 wrote:im lucky i have health care at work , but always mindful im one lay off from nothing except temporary cobra

OMG, I feel so sad to hear that. That is something that would make me go absolutely crazy. Everyone can temporarily loose their job. And once COBRA runs out, you're one heart attack away from virtual (or actual!) bankrupty. :(

I do feel that the current debate about health care reform is a bit too much about "more government" versus "less government". I think the government should only act as a referee, not a player in the game! I could see a system with exclusively private insurers, who have to offer at least a package at the "Medicare" level. That would create a level playing field for all insurers, and a way for the government to get out of the healthcare business entirely.

The system would work if there are requirements for both the insured and the insurance companies. Insurers would have to set 1 price for the basic package (regardless of age, risk, gender, preconsisting conditions, etc), and on the other side every citizen has to take out the minimum package.

this is memory , which mine sucks, but i think 14,000 ppl a day loose there healthcare coverage, what we have now cannot continue, im not sure what is the best answer, but pretty soon the ppl that go to the emergency room and the hospital has to treat them and the hospital does it for free in most all cases, , and the hospital passes the cost on to the ppl that have insurance, this policy will have a breaking point. it only a matter of time, thats why even the conservatives are behind some kind of reform the only argument is the type of reform not reform itself,

rosco 357 wrote:this is memory , which mine sucks, but i think 14,000 ppl a day loose there healthcare coverage, what we have now cannot continue, im not sure what is the best answer, but pretty soon the ppl that go to the emergency room and the hospital has to treat them and the hospital does it for free in most all cases, , and the hospital passes the cost on to the ppl that have insurance, this policy will have a breaking point. it only a matter of time, thats why even the conservatives are behind some kind of reform the only argument is the type of reform not reform itself,

Very true Rosco
I completely agree. something has to be done.