HEALTH
Medicaid
What
do you think should be done to ensure the sustainability of the Medicaid
program and improve it? Prior to full meaningful reform, would you support
the continuation of a temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage (FMAP)?
[ Bush ]
Response Pending
[ Braun ]
The United States is at once home to the most advanced medical research
and treatment facilities and an estimated 46 million people without
health insurance. This dichotomy makes itself known at every level of
health care, from community health centers to genetic research conducted
at the National Institutes of Health for the prevention of disease.
Underlying the disparities in the healthcare system is its funding.
Our system of health care is a crazy patchwork of employer sponsored
insurance, government funded Medicaid for the poor and government funded
Medicare for the elderly, and emergency rooms and community health clinics
for the uninsured.
Our system of providing for health care insurance through employer
based plans is inherently unfair- most obviously, but not exclusively,
to uninsured Americans. It is also unfair to American manufacturers
and importers who must factor in the cost of providing health care,
while their competitors overseas rely on their government to pick up
the tab. It is unfair to hospitals and doctors, whose professional judgment
is constantly subject to review by the clerical personnel of large health
insurance conglomerates. It is unfair to middle-income taxpayers, who
are asked to fund about 60% of the costs of health in this country through
mostly regressive taxes.
Ultimately, it is not health care that needs to be reformed; we have
the best health care in the world. We know as a nation how to provide
for health care. What we don't have is a rational system for paying
for it.
The single-payer National Health Insurance program I propose addresses
the problems in the health care industry by simplifying the multiple
layers of public and private health insurers into one system. A National
Health Insurance system provides universal coverage to all citizens,
and covers all necessary and reasonable medical costs during a person's
lifetime.
The National Health Insurance program more rationally and equitably
distributes costs for health care. By breaking the link between employment
and health insurance coverage, my plan lifts from low- and middle-income
Americans the disproportionate burden they carry for paying for health
care, relative to their income. Companies including health insurance
as a portion of compensation will be required to offer the value of
the benefit in the form of additional compensation in order to offset
the tax surcharge. This will help companies become more competitive
internationally, while providing to Americans that which should be a
basic human service: health care.
A National Health Insurance policy will help to reorient health care
spending in the United States. Currently, the estimated 46 million Americans
without health care coverage seek medical care only when it is direly
necessary, in emergency rooms, where care is the most expensive to provide.
Providing health coverage to every American will allow them to see primary
care physicians earlier in the slope of illness when treatment and care
is less draconian and less expensive. This can mark a shift away from
emergency and interventionist health care to a more wellness-centered,
preventive medicine approach. From both a fiscal and public health standpoint,
a National Health Insurance program simply makes sense.
[ Clark ]
To make health care work, we must protect and expand Medicaid and SCHIP.
My Job Creation Plan provides fiscal relief for States to ensure that
they are not forced to cut Medicaid in an attempt to balance their budgets.
In addition, I have proposed a plan for universal and more affordable
health insurance. My plan would make health insurance mandatory for
all children through age 22 and provide tax credits to help families
pay the cost. My plan also includes $282 billion to pay the cost of
states that expand Medicaid and S-CHIP to all families up to 150 of
poverty and on a sliding scale up to 200 percent of poverty.
[ Dean ]
I am opposed to the President’s proposal to block grant Medicaid
which will only exacerbate the challenges in meeting the social service
needs of low-income seniors. The aged, blind and disabled account for
approximately 30 percent of the Medicaid population, but they represent
approximately 70 percent of the program’s cost. As the baby boom
generation ages, we will continue to see significant growth in these
categories of the Medicaid program. There must be a positive and constructive
partnership between the federal government and the states in meeting
the challenges posed by Medicaid. As president, I will work closely
with our nation’s governors and the Congress to develop proposals
which strengthen Medicaid over the long-term and do not unfairly burden
the states. I supported the temporary increase in the federal Medicaid
match rate, which this administration opposed, to allow states to weather
the storm caused by the weak economy. I will continue to support policies
which assist states in meeting the challenges of providing health care
coverage to low-income individuals during these difficult economic times.
[ Edwards ]
Faced with record deficits, states and counties are cutting budgets
for public hospitals, health centers, CHIP, and Medicaid. Yet, these
programs are the core of America's health care safety net -with Medicaid
at the center. The Medicaid entitlement must be protected.
In the last year, I have proposed numerous measures to strengthen Medicaid
and our public health system, including increases in FMAP, doubling
support for health clinics, and protecting public hospitals against
scheduled cuts in DSH payments. As President, I will offer funds (as
grants or increased FMAP) to states that agree to undertake key reforms.
Due to the state fiscal crisis, funds will cover 100% of project administration
and caseload costs to:
- Promote Administrative and Enrollment Simplification:
o Low-cost, Internet-based Medicaid applications;
o Consolidated applications for multiple public programs, such as
on California's "Express Lane" for Medicaid and school lunch;
o More outreach workers to help applicant;
o Shorter, simpler, and improved Medicaid and SCHIP application forms
and elimination of unnecessary enrollment requirements.
o Elimination the 5-year ban on immigrant enrollment.
- Implement Disease Management Strategies which will increase quality
and lower costs for chronic patients.
- Control Drug Costs by offering grants to implement rebate programs
to lower drug costs like that blocked by President Bush in Maine.
- Build Bridges Between Medicaid, CHIP, and the Private Sector by
developing systems that leverage limited health dollars and maximize
health coverage.
[ Gephardt ]
Medicaid has been a lifeline for low-income Americans and should be
preserved as one of our most important entitlements. I absolutely oppose
any attempts to turn Medicaid into a block grant program and turn all
control over the states. Federal participation and accountability is
vital to the continued success and sustained quality of this program.
My plan for universal health care will get everyone covered with quality
health care. Since four out of five uninsured Americans work, or have
a parent or spouse that works, my plan covers these people through their
employer. This is the best way to strengthen the system and get everyone
covered - without burdening the Medicaid system further. We can improve
Medicaid instead of asking the program to do more, with less funds,
as we have for so long.
In addition, under my health care plan, we will reimburse state and
local governments for 60% of the cost of health care for their employees.
This will provide new aid - more than $53 billion in state and local
aid in my first year as president, and a total of $172 billion provided
over three years. State and local governments can use the additional
dollars to fund priorities like Medicaid. In the meantime, I do support
the temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage
for the Medicaid program while states remain in a fiscal crisis.
[ Kerry ]
We have to shore up Medicaid. States are facing large deficits and many
have been forced to slash funding for Medicaid. The Bush Administration
has done little to prevent this from happening. In fact, they have proposed
turning Medicaid into block grant, which would harm the program and
the millions of people it serves. I believe that we need to relieve
pressures on state budgets to ensure the sustainability of the Medicaid
program. That's why I supported increased resources for Medicaid earlier
this year. I have proposed spending $50 billion over the next two years
to help states struggling to bridge deficits. This proposal includes
$15 billion explicitly targeted to increase FMAP.
[ Kucinich ]
Under the Kucinich plan for a single payer healthcare system, band-aid
approaches, such as FMAP and waiver streamlining for Medicaid and other
healthcare programs, would not be necessary. Until a better healthcare
system is initiated, however, Dennis Kucinich has supported Medicaid,
as shown by his co-sponsorship of the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant
Services and Supports Act (MiCASSA). This bill provides funds for personal
care attendants and community-based services for people with disabilities.
For many such individuals, young or old, the choice boils down to a
personal care attendant or a nursing home. MiCASSA will allow large
numbers of people with disabilities to control their own lives. Kucinich
believes the rules, however, must not be as restrictive as current Medicaid
rules, which basically require a person to be homebound to qualify.
Dennis is as concerned with spiritual as well as physical health - and
being able to hire an attendant or to pay a family member for care can
prevent people from feeling that they are an overwhelming burden on
their families.
Another example of his commitment to these principles is Kucinich's
stand against George Bush's proposal to block grant Medicaid. This proposal
would have reduced support for the community-based services on which
many Americans with disabilities depend.
[ Lieberman ]
To begin with, I would create a new universal health care access program
for children. 6 million of the currently 9 million children uninsured
are already eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but are still not enrolled.
As President, I will create MediKids -- a new, flexible, high-quality
health plan in which every baby will automatically be enrolled at birth
or during any lapse in coverage. The plan-which parents are free to
decline-would offer affordable and reliable care to ALL children through
young adulthood, up to age 25. MediKids will be phased in over 5 years,
and children with existing coverage, including Medicaid and S-CHIP,
would be welcome but not required to change. The coverage will be comprehensive
and affordable. Families earning up to 200% of the federal poverty level
($37,000 for a family of four) will receive MediKids coverage at no
cost. Others will pay premiums on a sliding scale based on income, with
no family paying more than 7.5% of their income for the plan.
My health care plan would also give states the authority and additional
funding to fully cover expanding the Medicaid program to all adults
with household incomes less than 150% of federal poverty, or about $28,000
for a family of four. For the first time states would be able to use
federal funding to provide coverage to poor, uninsured adults who are
neither caring for a dependant child, elderly, nor disabled. This approach
will also simplify Medicaid eligibility and streamline enrollment.
I have consistently supported the Family Opportunity Act to give states
the option of allowing families of disabled children to purchase Medicaid
coverage, and I cosponsored a measure that expanded Medicaid services
to those who became disabled before age 22. I also supported a move
to eliminate income, assets, and resource limitations for disabled workers
who buy into Medicaid.
As President, I will work to protect against unfair restrictions of
Medicaid rights, such as President Bush's proposals to cut Medicaid
eligibility and benefits and to waive due process protections to challenge
and appeal adverse Medicaid decisions.
I have long been a supporter of FMAP increases, and I cosponsored legislation
to that effect.
[ Sharpton ]
Response Pending
Medicare Prescription
Drugs
A)
Do you support a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and if so, will
you commit financial resources in your fiscal year 2006 budget submission
to address the serious deficiencies in the reported conference agreement
and work to fix serious structural deficiencies? Specifically, senior
organizations believe that the House and Senate bills and conference
bill each have major deficiencies. The bills, for example, have a "doughnut
hole" where beneficiaries get no insurance help. The bills are
estimated to cause some employers to drop existing retiree coverage.
Will you commit resources to eliminate each of those problems?
[ Bush ]
Response Pending
[ Braun ]
At its heart, the Medicare program is a promise we, as taxpayers, made
with each other and with our government. The promise was that through
our contributions and withholdings, after reaching retirement age, the
federal government would ease the burden that the cost of health care
imposes upon the aged. Citizens of the wealthiest and most powerful
nation in the world should not be faced with choosing between paying
for medication, doctors' visits and food.
The current Administration's efforts to address the health care crisis
faced by seniors in this country take us further down the road of privatization,
and further away from the intent of the original promise of Medicare.
Private health insurers and providers must, in order to enhance profitability,
select the lowest risk individuals for whom to provide coverage. This
will leave those at the highest risk, the most infirm of the elderly
and the disabled, without many options and often without coverage. Medicare
is the only system that, by distributing high risk individuals across
the broadest possible population, can cover all the elderly, and should
be fully funded.
Instead of continuing to split pills and split the issue, we need to
institute a single payer universal healthcare system that will close
the gap in coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries and restore the patient
provider relationship. We can make the system progressive by shifting
it off the payroll tax base onto an income tax base. We will save money
and provide Americans with a quality system of health care that is accessible
to everyone. A single payer universal healthcare system that is decoupled
from employment will help contain drug prices under amounts which current
level Medicare beneficiaries pay. As President, I will work to convince
the American people to adopt a single-payer Universal Health Insurance
plan, one that will provide health care coverage to all Americans: the
elderly, the poor and over 40 Million Americans who are currently uninsured.
[ Clark ]
Yes. America's seniors need and deserve a comprehensive, meaningful,
and affordable prescription drug benefit through Medicare. But the prescription
drug bill signed by the president fails on all three counts: it forces
seniors into HMOs where they lose their choice of doctors; it increases
prescription drug costs for many seniors; and it prohibits seniors from
purchasing low-cost prescription drugs from Canada. I advocate a new
approach to a Medicare prescription drug benefit grounded in the three
basic principles: the benefit should be comprehensive for all seniors
through Medicare; the benefit should provide meaningful help for all
seniors; and it should make prescription drugs affordable for all seniors.
[ Dean ]
I am opposed to Republican efforts to dismantle Medicare in the name
of reform. The drug “benefit” recently passed by Congress
was a bad deal. The benefit does not give enough help to seniors, while
the so-called “reforms” amount to nothing more than give-aways
to HMO’s and the drug industry. They have capped spending on the
benefit to limit its size, leaving a gaping hole in coverage, imposing
high premiums and co-pays for little added value. Furthermore, it does
virtually nothing to control drug prices. It pays for less than a quarter
of the drug costs for America’s seniors. It also makes it a federal
crime to import safe, affordable drugs from Canada. That is wrong.
The White House has put the interests of the drug industry and the
HMO’s ahead of the best interests of older Americans. As President,
my priority will be to deliver a prescription drug benefit for all of
America’s seniors that is generous, affordable and federally administered,
using the government’s buying power on behalf of 40 million seniors
to negotiate and drive down prices. There are serious deficiencies in
this new law. We can do better, and it will be my priority to fix these
deficiencies.
[ Edwards ]
I support a comprehensive drug benefit within Medicare. But the Medicare
drug bill recently signed by President Bush is more about giveaways
to special interest than helping America's seniors. I am committed to
dedicating resources to addressing this as soon as I become President.
In addition to the hole in coverage, the problems are many.
- Giveaway billions to HMOs needlessly. The bill creates a "stabilization
fund" that unfairly supports Medicare HMOs of traditional Medicare.
- Force seniors into HMOs. The bill contains several provisions that
will force seniors into HMOs if they want affordable prescriptions.
- Destabilize the Medicare program. The bill will encourage healthy
seniors to join private HMOs, while seniors remaining in traditional
Medicare will pay higher costs.
- Continue to shift the tax burden from wealth onto work. The bill
provides $7 billion for tax-free "health savings accounts"
that would enable wealthy seniors to put away money tax free.
- Overpay pharmaceutical companies. The bill contains virtually no
cost containment provisions: it prohibits reimporting cheaper drugs
from Canada; fails to curb misleading drug ads; and it fails to allow
the government to negotiate lower prices with drug companies.
- Hurt poor seniors. This bill takes away protections enjoyed by six
million low-income seniors who are in Medicaid.
- Drop millions of seniors from employer coverage. Millions seniors
who now have drug coverage through their past or present employers
will lose it.
Congress must immediately start over again on the prescription drug
benefit. As President, I will pass a new bill using the following principles.
- No giveaways for special interests. America can't afford for Medicare
to waste a penny.
- No slush fund for HMOs.
- Control skyrocketing drug costs. Medicare already overpays for
the few drugs that it purchases. I will ensure that Medicare uses
its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices, allow consumers
to reimport cheaper drugs from Canada, and stop misleading advertisements.
- No tax shelters for the wealthy.
- Protect the Medicare program. HMOs have been operating in Medicare
for years, and they have shown that once they can't make a big enough
profit, they just drop seniors from care. I will strengthen traditional
Medicare by -not by put seniors in HMOs.
- Protect benefits that seniors have today. Millions of seniors should
not be left with inferior benefits, as under President Bush's drug
bill.
- Ensure real choice of services. I will ensure that all seniors will
be able to receive a drug benefit through traditional Medicare -not
just private health plans.
- Improve benefits. We should use resources raised by the measures
above to offer a better drug benefit than the drug bill that just
passed.
[ Gephardt ]
I strongly opposed the bill recently passed by Congress and signed by
the President. This bill undermines the Medicare system by steering
it toward privatization, does nothing to bring down the cost of prescription
drugs, and fails to provide seniors with a real prescription drug benefit.
As president, I would commit resources to providing seniors with a guaranteed,
affordable, and defined benefit under traditional Medicare that doesn't
depend on private plans or contain gaps in coverage. In addition, I
would take steps to ensure that retirees don't lose the drug coverage
they already have.
[ Kerry ]
I support a real prescription drug benefit. However, the Medicare bill
that just passed is designed by and for big HMOs and drug companies.
It forces seniors into HMOs, includes no real cost containment, contains
artificial budget caps, contains no real fall back plan to ensure that
seniors have an affordable option and threatens retiree health coverage
for millions of seniors.
I will work to fix the coverage gaps in the plan and improve protections
for low-income seniors and those with retiree coverage. We need a prescription
drug benefit that: rewards employers who are offering retiree health
benefits rather than undermining them; that assures every senior has
a real affordable fall back plan; does not push seniors into HMOs with
a controversial premium support proposal and includes real cost containment.
I have a comprehensive plan to hold down prescription drug cost increases
by exposing drug company kickbacks, cutting down on medical mistakes,
ending artificial barriers to generic drugs, and allowing states to
follow the Maine example of using their bargaining power to negotiate
better drug prices
[ Kucinich ]
The new Medicare bill passed just before Thanksgiving is not reforming
Medicare, it is dismantling it. It is a windfall for HMOs and big insurance
companies and obscenely profitable drug companies - but a debacle for
Americans senior citizens. This bill does nothing to restrain the skyrocketing
escalation of drug prices. The Republican refusal to confront the pricing
power of the drug companies is the #1 cause of the bill's exorbitant
price tag -- $400 billion - for American taxpayers. Several studies
indicate that the Kucinich healthcare plan would save at least $200
billion annually - more than enough to provide health care and prescription
drugs to all those currently left out.
Dennis Kucinich has addressed issues related to Medicare and prescription
drugs in the U.S. Congress. He recently co-sponsored legislation for
a voluntary prescription benefit to provide greater access to affordable
pharmaceuticals, to negotiate fair prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers,
to provide for accelerated generic drug competition, and to allow for
the importation of prescription drugs from Canada after meeting strict
guidelines for safety and effectiveness.
During the Kucinich Administration, our government will be empowered
to lower prices and impose windfall profits taxes on the exorbitant
pricing of an out-of-control drug industry.
We need a "Prescription for America," a regulatory structure
which puts a ceiling on drug company profits the same way credit laws
establish what constitutes usury. We're already paying for national
health insurance that could include prescription drug benefits. The
only problem is we're not getting it.
[ Lieberman ]
Yes. Recently, we had an historic opportunity to do the right thing
for America's seniors - by giving them a prescription drug benefit under
Medicare. But the Republicans were determined to pay off special interests,
rip off taxpayers, hurt low-income seniors, and undermine Medicare through
privatization.
As President, I'll pass a better prescription drug bill - one that doesn't
raise costs for our most vulnerable seniors or send seniors into HMOs.
I'll harness the purchasing power of Medicare to keep drug costs down.
And I'll ensure that Medicare remains on a financially sound footing,
and provides a meaningful prescription drug benefit for all seniors.
[ Sharpton ]
Response Pending
B)
Structurally, we do not currently know the nature and details of the
final bill, but most LCAO organizations oppose (a) artificial budget
caps, (b) the lack of a dependable fallback delivery system, (c) an
administratively complex means testing of the benefit, (d) failure to
obtain most cost savings in prescription drug prices, and (e) competition
between traditional fee-for-service Medicare and various types of managed
care plans.
What
is your position on each of these five issues?
- Artificial
budget caps
- The
lack of a dependable fallback delivery system
- An
administratively complex means testing of the benefit?
- Failure
to obtain more cost savings in prescription drug prices?
- Competition
between traditional fee-for-service Medicare and various types of
managed care plans?
[ Bush ]
Response Pending
[ Braun ]
Refer to the above Medicare Prescription Drug response (2A)
[ Clark ]
(a) I oppose arbitrary caps on Medicare costs such as those contained
in the prescription drug law. We need to provide the resources for seniors
to get the medical care they need through Medicare, not impose spending
caps designed to undermine the entire Medicare system.
(b) I support a prescription drug benefit administered through Medicare.
It's the most reliable and cost-effective way to deliver the benefit.
If Medicare supplies the benefit everywhere, we won't have to worry
about "fallback" delivery systems for regions of the country
where private insurers decide they'd rather not supply the benefit.
(c) I believe that Medicare is an important part of the social compact
with all seniors and that all seniors and that all Medicare beneficiaries
should get the same benefit. I don't support bureaucratically cumbersome
means tests for a prescription drug benefit.
(d) The bill passed by Congress fails to take any meaningful steps
to control the spiraling cost of drugs. I believe Americans should be
able to import, safe, low-cost prescription drugs from Canada. We also
need to remove the legal loopholes that allow brand-name drug companies
to block access to the market to generic drug makers that provide drugs
at low cost. Finally, the government must be able to negotiate directly
through the free market with drug companies for bulk discounts on popular
drugs.
(e) The so-called "competition" that Congress's bill sets
up is really a scheme to undermine traditional, fee-for-service Medicare.
The bill bribes HMOs and PPOs to cherry-pick the healthiest seniors
for their plans, leaving Medicare with the highest-cost seniors. Rising
premiums will eventually send Medicare into a "death spiral,"
leaving our sickest seniors to fend for themselves. I oppose such unfair
competition because it's unfair to seniors who need Medicare the most.
[ Dean ]
Refer to the above Medicare Prescription Drug response (2A)
[ Edwards ]
I opposed the drug bill that passed, and I am troubled by each of the
issued you raise. My plans to address them are described above.
[ Gephardt ]
I oppose artificial budget caps, the lack of a dependable fallback delivery
system, means testing of the Medicare benefit, the failure to bring
down the costs of drugs, and unfair competition between traditional
Medicare and private plans. The inclusion of these provisions in the
bill is why I voted against it on the House floor.
[ Kerry ]
A) I absolutely oppose artificial budget caps on Medicare spending.
B) The lack of a dependable fallback delivery system is a major problem
with the current bill and could cause seniors to pay excessive premiums.
Every senior must have access to a reliable Medicare-run plan.
C) I don't support means-testing the program. The legacy of Medicare
is that everyone pays in and everyone gets something out. We have to
keep that solemn agreement.
D) The bill that passed actually keeps drug prices high - because it
prevents Medicare from negotiating better drug prices and prevents access
to lower-cost drugs available in other countries - allowing drug company
profits to skyrocket at the expense of seniors. We need a benefit with
real cost containment provisions.
E) I oppose the Bush Administration's scheme to privatize Medicare.
Seniors should never be forced into HMO's. The problem with the competition
provisions in the current bill is that many seniors will be forced into
HMOs or they will have to pay significantly higher premiums to stay
in traditional Medicare.
[ Kucinich ]
Refer to the above Medicare Prescription Drug response (2A)
[ Lieberman ]
I signed many letters and cosponsored amendments to oppose each of the
concerns outlined above. There are many reasons why I opposed this legislation.
First, I fear the privatization of the prescription drug benefit could
lead to the destruction of Medicare in the next ten years. Second, the
new drug benefit is actually going to harm millions of low-income seniors
by making them pay more for the drugs they are currently getting under
Medicaid. Not only will the drugs cost more money, but the choice of
prescription drugs will be significantly limited. I do not believe the
government should be in the business of telling seniors what drugs they
can and cannot have. I believe that is the responsibility of doctors.
Additionally, this law provides billions of dollars in subsidies to
private insurance companies to encourage them to participate in this
program. This money could be used instead to provide seniors with better
prescription drug coverage.
But most problematic is that this law actually prohibits the federal
government from negotiating the best possible price for prescription
drugs. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not permitted to
use the buying power of more than 40 million people to help bring down
the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. The Veterans Administration
has been negotiating drug costs for veterans for decades and Medicare
should too. Many Presidents and Members of Congress have made the promise
to seniors to provide them with a sound prescription drug program under
traditional Medicare, but regrettably, have failed or been unable to
keep that promise. I had tremendous hope that this Congress was finally
going to deliver on this promise, and the Senate bill that I voted for
in July 2003 took great steps in doing just that. Unfortunately, behind
closed doors, the solid, bipartisan effort that created the Senate bill
fell apart. And as a result, seniors got a bill that will benefit some,
but also hurt millions by reducing the coverage that they have now and
could ultimately threaten Medicare as we know it.
I will continue to fight to ensure that seniors are given a benefit
that is truly beneficial; one that does not lead to the privatization
of Medicare and one that provides true cost savings to seniors by permitting
Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for cheaper drugs.
[ Sharpton ]
Response Pending
Medicare
The Medicare program only covers about half of the medical cost of seniors
and the benefits package needs to be improved and modernized. The number
of Americans enrolled in Medicare will double between 2010 and 2030
and the program will roughly double in cost. The program can be financed
by (1) increased taxes, (2) provider payment cuts, either directly or
through intermediaries such as managed care plans, (3) increased cost
sharing by beneficiaries, or (4) a combination of the above.
What are your specific plans to help ensure the financial future of
the Medicare
Program?
[ Bush ]
Response Pending
[ Braun ]
Refer to the above Medicare Prescription Drug response (2A)
[ Clark ]
Medicare is a vital part of the social contract between America and
its people. It's vital
that we I have proposed a detailed "Saving for America's Future
Plan" to save $2.35
trillion over ten years for deficit reduction and investment in priorities
like Medicare.
The plan saves money that can be used to ensure the solvency of Medicare.
It also
includes specific measures to modernize Medicare, increasing its quality
and costefficiency.
These include instituting competitive bidding and payment constraints
for
medical equipment suppliers; better enforcement of the Medicare secondary
payer
provision; and savings on drug payments (for the few drugs Medicare
has always
covered, and now for the many additional drugs covered under the new
benefit). These
and other steps will go a long way towards ensuring the financial future
of Medicare.
[ Dean ]
I am firmly committed to the long-term solvency of the Medicare program.
As a medical doctor, I have a special understanding of Medicare's critical
importance to seniors. Medicare is a part of the foundation of our social
contract with our seniors. We met the challenges facing the looming
insolvency of the Medicare program in the late 1990's through a strong
economy and because of the political leadership of President Clinton
who focused on the interests of our seniors and not the interests of
the HMO and Drug Industry. As a result, Medicare today has sufficient
funding to pay full benefits through 2026.
The first and most important thing we must do to ensure the financial
future of Medicare is to reverse the fiscal disasters of the Bush Administration
and to develop an economic policy that invests in job creation and strengthens
our economy. A strong economy is fundamental to addressing the challenges
facing Social Security and Medicare. As president, I will do all in
my power to ensure that the long-term health of Medicare is protected
for my generation and for future generations to come, and will oppose
any efforts to dismantle it in the name of modernization and reform.
[ Edwards ]
Under President Bush, Medicare's lifespan has shrunk by 20 percent.
The Trust Fund is expected to become insolvent in 2026. To fix this,
I reject the notion that the only solution to the Medicare crisis is
to cut benefits, cut provider payments, or raise taxes. I've outlined
steps that will both improve the quality of Medicare and reduce costs.
- Care For Chronic Illness More Effectively. For Medicare beneficiaries
with chronic conditions, I will establish a disease management program
to ensure to provide quality care at the best price.
- Encourage Cost-Saving Preventive Benefits. Medicare will offer the
full range of modern preventative benefits and will not charge copayments
for such treatment. In addition, Medicare will cover education efforts
that help beneficiaries better care of themselves.
- Get The Best Products At The Best Price. I will ensure that Medicare
uses competitive bidding to purchase a range of products more efficiently.
- Reduce Prescription Drug Costs. Medicare already overpays for the
few drugs that it purchases. I will ensure that Medicare uses its
purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices, allow consumers to
reimport cheaper drugs from Canada, and stop misleading advertisements.
- Combat Medicare Mismanagement And Fraud. I will undertake a full
audit of the contractors responsible for processing Medicare claims
to ensure that only proper claims are paid. I will enable more whistleblowers
to come forward by strengthening the protections against retaliation
and creating more incentives to speak out.
[ Gephardt ]
First, through my plan to cover the uninsured, I would bring down the
cost of health care. Uncompensated care, which results from uninsured
patients, is a major reason why health care costs are rising. By bringing
down the number of the uninsured and reducing the amount of uncompensated
care, my plan will reduce the cost of health care. Lower health care
costs mean that Medicare dollars will go further and the longevity of
the program will be extended.
I will also help ensure the financial future of Medicare by making
sure that cuts in the Medicare program are never used to balance the
budget. As House Minority Leader, I fought back attempts by the Republican
leadership to cut Medicare by $270 billion. I also fought against attempts
to privatize Medicare and turn it into a voucher program. You cannot
save Medicare by cutting it, reducing benefits or raising costs to those
who depend on it, or threatening the livelihood of the providers who
serve it. These "reforms" do nothing but weaken the program
undermine the basic principles of the Medicare system. Instead, the
best thing we can do for Medicare is what we did in the 1990's: grow
the economy, increase revenues - and as a result, extend the life of
the Medicare trust fund.
[ Kerry ]
I believe that Medicare is more than just a program - it is a commitment
between generations that has helped tens of millions of seniors and
people with disabilities live better and healthier lives. Before Medicare,
fully half of seniors were uninsured.
In 1993, Medicare was scheduled to go broke by 1999. We knew we had
to act and we did. Democrats came up with a reasonable plan to improve
the economy and strengthen Medicare. We did it again in 1997 and now
the program is strong until at least 2026.
We need this same approach again: 1) Improve the economy; 2) Cut fraud
and abuse out of the program 3) Improve our health care - I gave a speech
at Dartmouth recently about how much we can improve health care. Only
55% of people get the most up-to-date care. And one in four hospitalizations
among older Americans are due to prescription drug errors. We can do
a lot to improve quality and save money.
What I won't do is force seniors into HMOs and I wouldn't support a
drug plan that helps pharmaceutical companies and HMOs above seniors.
And I won't balance the budget on the backs of the middle class. I
believe that we need to strengthen Medicare, not slash its funding.
I stood shoulder to shoulder with President Clinton during that watershed
moment for the Democratic Party when the federal government was shutdown
in order to protect Medicare.
[ Kucinich ]
Dennis Kucinich was one of the leading voices in the U.S. Congress trying
to prevent the disgraceful new Medicare bill from becoming law. Medicare
privatization is bad for seniors, bad for retirees, bad for employers,
and bad for the economy. The only ones who benefit from this plan are
the pharmaceutical companies and insurance giants who seek to continue
health care for profit in this country. As president, Dennis Kucinich
will fight to reverse this shameful bill, and to make Medicare a solemn
contract with America's seniors again.
The Kucinich plan for Universal Health Care is enhanced "Medicare
for All": non-profit, universal, single-payer national health insurance.
It will be publicly funded health care, privately delivered--similar
to that used in most of the other developed countries of the world.
It will decrease total healthcare spending while providing more treatment
and services. It will remove private insurance companies from the system,
along with their bloated bureaucracies, excessive paperwork, executive
salaries, advertising budgets, and profits.
Since Medicare was enacted in 1965, seniors have gone from being the
group least likely to have health insurance to the group most likely--because
of Medicare. Medicare has achieved goals that Congress has not been
able to accomplish for the rest of our population. But American seniors
are concerned not only with their own health care, but with the health
care of their children, grandchildren, and all Americans. No candidate
offers a more comprehensive solution to the nightmare that is American
health care today than Dennis Kucinich.
Eventually, the essentials of the Medicare social contract will be
extended, not just to seniors, but to all. Dennis Kucinich believes
that health care should be a public good rather than a private commodity.
[ Lieberman ]
I have long fought for increasing provider payments under the Medicare
payment system, eliminating regional disparities in Medicare payments,
and keeping Medicare costs for seniors as low as possible. For example,
I introduced legislation to increase provider payments and decrease
patient co-payments for colon cancer screening procedures under Medicare.
I have also cosponsored legislation to reduce Medicare patient co-payments
for care for mental illnesses.
But in addition to these measures, I have called for decreasing upper
income tax cuts, decreasing middle class taxes, and reducing the unreasonable
federal deficit so we can afford to keep our promise to American seniors
through Medicare and Social Security.
[ Sharpton ]
Response Pending
|
