Speeches & Floor Statements
Colloquy Remarks of U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Republican Colleagues - Health Care Reform Bill Mean Huge Costs to States
Posted on December 9, 2009
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Idaho. The point you are making is, if you are going to add $1/2 trillion -- this bill as proposed is paid for by about half through Medicare cuts and about half through tax increases, and it is paid for some by sending huge new bills to State governments. But I guess the point the Senator is making basically is that we are going to add $1/2 trillion in taxes over 10 years or much more than that when the bill is fully implemented. Who is going to end up paying those taxes? It is not going to be insurance companies. It is not going to be medical device companies. It is going to be the people who -- it is going to be us. Isn't that true? Don't you expect that most of the companies upon which the new taxes are imposed will pass those taxes along to the American people? Mr. CRAPO. Yes. As a matter of fact, in my own mind, I distinguish between taxes on the American people and fees that will be charged to companies and businesses in the private sector that are also being passed on to the American people. All of those will occur. One interesting clarification or explanation with regard to this refundable tax credit that is talked about so often: it isn't actually refunded to the taxpayer, as I understand it, or to the individual who doesn't pay taxes but is receiving the credit. It is paid directly to the insurance company, as I understand it. So even though some people could be claimed to be paying less taxes by this argument, because some of those who receive the subsidy will get a greater subsidy than they will a tax increase, the fact is even they still get a tax increase and even they still pay their taxes at the higher level. It is just that some of them will get a subsidy that will help to offset that. Mr. ALEXANDER. I wonder if I may take a minute to talk about another form of taxes, which would be State taxes. Now, people might be thinking: Well, you are talking about a Federal health care bill. How do you get State taxes in there? Well, let me try to explain that just a little bit. I remember as Governor of Tennessee some years ago, nothing used to make me madder than Washington politicians who would come up with a big idea, take credit for it, hold a press conference and announce it; call it, for example, historic, and then send the bill to me, the Governor, to pay it. Then usually those same politicians would come back to Tennessee and they would make a big speech about local control at the Jefferson Day dinner or the Jackson Day dinner. In fact, sometimes Republicans were just as bad as Democrats in doing it. I also remember that in 1994 there was a political revolution in the country. This body switched dramatically to the Republican side, and one of the main arguments was no more unfunded mandates. In other words, don't be coming up with big ideas in Washington and sending the bill to the Governor or to the State legislature or to the mayor or to the county commission and expect them to raise property taxes or cut services or raise college tuitions to make it up. So what I wish to say today is this: This legislation already includes a huge new bill for the State governments. As it is now written, Medicaid for low-income Americans is expanded, and there is a big bill to the States. Our Governor, who is a Democrat, by the way, has been very effective in pointing this out; that Senator Reid’s bill will add $700 million over 5 years to our State. There is no way our State can pay this bill without a tax increase of significant size or seriously damaging higher education or seeing college tuition begin to go through the roof, just as we saw it do in California the other day when it went up 32 percent. Why did it go up? Because the State has had to spend so much of its money on health care bills, many of which are required by the Federal regulations of Medicaid. There is a rumor going around that there was a big deal cut last night that would pave the way for passage of this bill that says that instead of a new government-run program, we will simply expand two of the government-run programs we already have -- Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for low-income Americans. I would ask these questions: First, with Medicare, how in the world can we take $1 trillion out of Medicare when the program is fully implemented and give 34 million or 35 million more Americans a chance to opt in it at a time when the trustees of Medicare have said it is going broke in 5 years. Insofar as Medicaid goes, if it is true that the idea is to expand Medicaid to 150 percent of the poverty level -- and, of course, we are not invited to any of the meetings; they were all written in the back room so we don't know the details -- but if it is true we are going to expand Medicaid even more, our Governor has said in our State that doubles the cost of this legislation to our State. So down the road, in a few years, what we are going to see in Tennessee is a new State income tax, seriously damaging higher education, and I think it is – Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield on that point? Mr. ALEXANDER. On your time, yes. Mr. BAUCUS. I will quote from a letter basically to refute the allegations that this is a big obligation on the States. That is totally not true. The question is, Is it not true that on page 7 of the letter from the CBO, dated November 18, to Senator Reid, CBO says: The CBO estimates that State spending on Medicaid would increase $25 billion over 10 years as a result of this legislation. That is $2.5 billion a year, on average, for all States. Another figure I know is that the State increase will not be huge but about a 1.89-percent increase over the State obligation. Why? Because, as the Senator also noted, an expansion of the population in Medicaid -- the Feds are paying virtually all of it, and part of that is because in the first year the centers get a net increase because of the Medicaid drug rebate. But on a net basis, it is a 1.89-percent only increase in State obligation over 10 years. Does the Senator know that to be true? Mr. ALEXANDER. My understanding of the proposal by the Finance Committee bill and by the Reid bill is that the Federal Government expands Medicaid and pays for 100 percent of it for a few years, but after that, the State has a significant portion of the bill. Am I not correct in that? Mr. BAUCUS. We will have to divide this time. The division is correct. We are only talking – Mr. ALEXANDER. I am not going to divide the time. Mr. BAUCUS. Does the Senator ask a rhetorical question or an actual question? Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will retain the floor, and then the Senator can make his statement later. The fact is, after 3, the Federal Government sends a big bill to the States. The fact is, the Governor of Tennessee, who is a Democrat and who has worked with other Governors and is actually leading the National Governors Association's effort to see the impact of this kind of legislation, says it will cost our State $700 billion over 5 years and $1.4 billion if we expand Medicaid up to 150 percent of federal poverty level. The State pays part of that bill. That means a big State tax increase. It means big higher education increases. As a former Governor, I guarantee that if this happens, a few years from now when the federal government shifts costs onto the states, there will be a revolt in the States and people will be asking who did this. I would seriously say that any Senator who votes to expand Medicaid and sends a significant part of the bill to the States ought to be sentenced to go home and be Governor and try to govern the State under those conditions. I think this kind of legislation, and especially the rumor I have heard regarding a dramatic increase in the expansion of Medicaid, will be a damaging blow to the American public's higher education from which it will never recover, tuition will go to a level where only the rich can afford to go to school, and the idea of public higher education will be left aside, all because Washington politicians ran up the bill, took the credit, made an announcement, and sent a huge bill to State governments that are struggling with their worst fiscal condition since the Great Depression. Mr. CRAPO. I thank my colleague. We will see State taxes as well as Federal taxes going up. Senator Johanns has joined us as well. Before I ask him to join in with questions and comments, I want to make one other clarification. Again, we have the President's pledge up here on the chart. The motion I have offered simply says: Make the bill comply with the President's pledge. If there are no new taxes, the bill doesn't have to be changed if we pass this motion. If there are, it does. Remember, I don't think that when the President made this pledge, he was saying he will not increase taxes on a net basis. In other words, I didn't hear the President say: I won't raise your taxes higher than I would cut them in some other areas. He specifically didn't say he would count subsidies being paid out to those who do not pay income taxes as an offset to any tax increases he wanted to raise somewhere else. The President didn't get into all these nuances. He said he was not going to raise taxes on the middle class. The fact is, the middle class will see huge tax increases under this bill. Before I toss the floor to my colleague, I will say this: CBO estimates that only 7 percent of all Americans will receive any of these subsidies. Yet, specifically, out of the 282 million Americans with some type of health insurance, only 19 million of them will be eligible for the tax credit for their health insurance. The rest of the millions of Americans are going to be the ones paying those taxes. That is how it ends up. At minimum -- and we are still going through the bill, and this number is growing -- at least 42 million people who make less than $200,000 -- and, frankly, far less -- are going to be paying a lot more taxes. That is the reason for the motion. I yield to my colleague, Senator Johanns. Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, Senator Alexander really has this right. I had the honor of being the Governor of Nebraska for 6 years. The whole idea of balancing a budget is not theoretical to a Governor. You have to do it. Let me tell you, if I might, about our State. Many years ago -- decades and decades ago -- when our founders wrote our State constitution, they were worried about the State getting itself embroiled in too much debt. So they said the politicians will be allowed to borrow some money. The limit they put in the State constitution was $50,000. So you see, in Nebraska, when you are faced with an unfunded mandate, like what is happening in this health care bill, I say you get three choices: You can cut programs like K-12 education, higher education, and much-needed services. No. 2, you can raise taxes, sales and income taxes. That is about what you are down to because that is really where the revenue comes from for States. The third choice is, you get to do both. I guarantee you that none of those approaches is very popular. Just within the last few weeks, our Governor, dealing with the recession, like every Governor in the country, stepped in front of the unicameral, as I did as Governor, and he said: My friends, we have to cut the spending. It was just as clear as can be. He said: We have to cut the spending. People are hurting. They are laid off. If they are hurting, they are not spending as much; therefore, our revenues are down. We have to cut spending. They worked over a couple-week period of time, and they came up with a plan -- I think it was unanimously approved -- to cut the spending. Well, here we are in Washington, and when you pull the gimmicks out of this bill and score it realistically over 10 years, this is a multimillion-dollar hit to every State, including the State of Nebraska. So what are we handing off to the State? Guess what. We are saying: You get a chance to raise taxes -- not because of any vote you took on the floor of the unicameral in Nebraska but because of what happened with Washington unfunded Federal mandates. That is what this bill is all about when you look at the expansion of Medicaid. I read the reports about the possibility this might go to 150 percent. Keep doing the math, keep loading the unfunded mandates on our State Governors. Do you know why we are doing this? We are doing it to try to convince the American people that this is a cheaper bill than it is. When they figure out that the Governor of their State has this problem to deal with and they come to figure out they are going to pay higher taxes or get fewer services and less education, it will become very real to them. I have said many times on this floor that with this bill, reality will set in. Here is another piece of reality. Then you look at the overall bill. About $1/2 trillion -- in addition to this Medicaid mess we are going to push onto the States, there will be about $1/2 trillion in new taxes. Senator Crapo put up the promise the President has made. Well, gee, when he is done with that board, we can ceremoniously tear it up because, you know what, that promise isn't anywhere near being kept. When he said those things, quite honestly, there was no way he could deliver with this health care bill. Uninsured Americans get taxed. Insured Americans get taxed. Families with high-value plans get taxed. High-health-cost families get taxed. Flexible spending gets reduced. Small businesses get taxed. We can go on and on and on, to the tune of $1/2 trillion. That is not even counting the unfunded mandate hammer we are sending to every Governor in this Nation. Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I will add some statistics that I was reading while my colleagues were commenting. If you take out that CBO report, which is what actually analyzes this on a nonpartisan basis, the impact of these Medicaid expenditures, not including the proposed increase we heard about overnight, it clearly says: CBO estimates that State spending on Medicaid would increase by about $25 billion over the 2010-2019 period as a result of the provisions affecting coverage in table 3. That estimate reflects States' flexibility to make programmatic and other budgetary changes to Medicaid and CHIP. That is the statistic my colleague from Tennessee was looking for. Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator. It is true that in the legislation the estimate is that the Federal Government would pay 100 percent of the increased expansion of Medicaid for 3 years and that it will cover about 90 percent of the cost after that, which sounds like a lot. But we throw so much money around up here, we have completely lost any appreciation of what that amount of money costs at the State level. In our State, our Governor has said that the 133-percent increase is about $700 million over 5 years, and that is a big, new tax or a big increase in college tuition. If I may, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Wall Street Journal of December 4 from the dean and CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine. (Print material) Mr. ALEXANDER. The dean, who writes a very sympathetic column which I will not read but a sentence or two of, is describing the current health care bill. He says: Even if only half those individuals seek Medicaid coverage, such a large expansion would likely have an excruciating impact on the State's budget. And Maryland is not alone. According to a Kaiser Foundation survey conducted earlier this year, three-quarters of the States have expressed concern that expanding Medicaid could add to their fiscal woes. Already, as Kaiser notes, 33 States cut or froze payment rates to those who deliver health care to Medicaid patients.... The proposal -- and the Reid bill is maybe exacerbated by this deal we have been hearing about -- is to shift millions more low-income Americans into a program called Medicaid, when only 50 percent of doctors will see new patients in that program, and then send a huge bill to the States, which will damage higher education. I remember, after I was Governor, I heard on the radio that the State of Tennessee had done a wonderful thing. It would double the number of children covered by Medicaid at the same amount of cost. It went through my mind that it would never happen. That program became the TennCare Program, which has nearly bankrupted our State. Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments. How much time remains on our side? The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Six minutes. Mr. CRAPO. I will make a couple of other comments, and I will allow my colleagues to wrap up with their final comments. I want to raise an additional issue. On this chart, we show what is going to happen with the IRS. Right now, the CBO estimate indicates that because the IRS is in charge of the implementation of so many of the mandates and other requirements in this bill and because of the new taxes that will be forced onto the American people, there will need to be an expansion of the IRS. The CBO says that could mean as high as an additional $10 billion at the IRS. If there are no new taxes in this bill or no new mandates in the bill, if there is no increased role of the Federal Government in the management of the health care economy in this bill, why do we need to have the size of the IRS, which is a $12 billion institution today -- why does it need to grow to almost double, up to $22 billion? The point is, the motion I have made is very simple and straightforward. We can argue back and forth about what the President said or whether this bill has tax cuts or tax increases in it or whether, in the net result, it does one thing or another. The bottom line is, with regard to about 157 million Americans who get their health insurance through their employer, by 2019, they are not going to be eligible for these tax credits people are talking about. They are going to be paying increased taxes. All this motion does is protect those 42 million people we were talking about who are going to see their taxes go up; 42 million households will see their taxes go up. If the other side is right and what we are talking about does not exist in the bill, then this motion should be harmless because all the motion says is commit the bill to the Finance Committee and tell the Finance Committee to take out the taxes that impact the middle class. I ask if either of my colleagues from Nebraska or Tennessee would like to make any concluding remarks. Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, let me offer a thought or two. Senator Crapo has hit the nail on the head. If this is not happening, if, in fact, the argument of the other side is accurate and this is not happening and this is some made-up sort of argument, then the Senator from Idaho is absolutely right, this motion will have no effect. So why would you not support the motion? Why wouldn't you want the health care bill to reflect the promise of the President of the United States? Why would you not stand and say: Look, it is a hard time out there. Unemployment is 10 percent. People are hurting. Unemployment and underemployment are 17.5 percent. This has been as tough a recession as we have seen in a long time, and it has hurt real people. Why wouldn't you want to stand for them and say: Man, we understand. We have heard you at our townhall meetings. We have heard you back home. We have heard you, and we are going to make sure we are not going to add to your burden. I appreciate Senator Alexander putting in that article. I thought that was a tremendous article. Medicaid is chewing up State budgets. I managed one of those budgets. Keep in mind, this is an entitlement program -- no deductibles, no copays, no premiums. If you qualify, you get it. So there is no way you can manage this budget. It is exponentially growing. Forty percent of the docs do not take Medicaid patients. Why? Because they go broke on the reimbursement rate. Hospitals tell me all across the State of Nebraska: We cannot keep our doors open on the Medicaid reimbursement rate. So what are we doing? We are adding millions of people to that problem. They will have an access problem. State budgets will have a problem. They will be in crisis. Our hospitals are going to face the same crisis. It is the wrong policy. It is the wrong course of action. Let's start listening to the American people. Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time remains? The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 1 1/2 minutes remaining. Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, day in and day out Republicans have come to the floor and said: Instead of a comprehensive, 2,000-page approach to try to fix this massive health care system all at once in a way that raises taxes and premiums and makes Medicare cuts, why don't we, instead, identify the goal of reducing the cost of health care to individuals and to the government and take commonsense steps toward that goal. We have suggested small business health care plans which have been offered, scored by the CBO to save money and expand coverage. We have offered proposals to limit the number of junk lawsuits against doctors. There may be an argument about how much that saves, but there is no argument that would not drive down the costs. We have suggested allowing purchasing of health insurance across State lines to increase competition, and creating health insurance exchanges. There are efforts in wellness and prevention that we have made specific proposals concerning. In terms of corralling waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and then spending the savings on Medicare, instead of a new program, that is the Republican agenda. Pick a goal: reducing health care costs and move step by step toward that goal in a way that reearns the trust of the American people, instead of a comprehensive, 2,000-page bill filled with taxes, mandates, surprises, and a Washington takeover of health care. There is a real choice. We regret the fact that we seem to be continuing to move on this track without the track we are offering. We want to defeat what is proposed, not in the debate. Change the debate toward reducing costs step by step. I yield the floor.