medicare. they'll be on that program until their natural death. and many of them, because of our great health care system in our country, will live to be 90 years old. so this idea of killing medicare is an absolute misinterpretation, and you know it. you're misleading the american people. this program that we are proposing -- and it's a proposal. it's something we can work together on both sides of the aisle. we can negotiate. you know, it's not set in stone. but what we say, what speaker boehner says, what chairman ryan says is, look, let's try this program in 2022 where people coming into medicare at age 65, many of whom are working and in excellent health, we will simply give them a premium support but not a voucher in their hands but to send to the insurance company of their choice. let them get their medical care where members of congress get their medical care. let them get the same options to choose from, madam chairman. this is what this is about. if it's $8,000 it will be adjusted every year for inflation and that average $8,000 will be h

well, if you are 65 years and older, 93% of americans say the medicare program as it is right now is very important or sowhat important to them, actually 83%, very important. 55 to 64, 91% say medicare is very important. that's 74% or somewhat important. an if you are 40 to 54, we have 789% of americans -- 79% of americans who say it is very or somewhat important and 18 to 39, 75%. people get i medicare works. medicare is efficient. medicare is good for our country, for people with disabilities and for the seniors. and if we're looking to save medicare, we do have a plan. we know how to make that more efficient. we have done it in the affordable care act. and we are willing to sit down and talk about how we make medicare more efficient, but not by ruining and destroying and getting rid of medicare to the point that you got to find another name. it won't be medicare anymore. so they have admted, it em to me, that people 55 and younger, you better look out, because that program that will allow our seniors to live perhaps to 90 years old, people who are going to be eligible for medicare

people who support the medicare program and care about those who will count on that program today and for many years to come are willing to put serious plans on the table for debate. it is our responsibility to ensure medicare survival for future seniors. doing nothing is the worst for medicare. the surest way to kill medicare as we know it is the democrats do-nothing plan. demagoguery is irresponsible. so i would suggest pull your head out of the sand and join a real debate to save medicare for the future. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: is the senate currently in a quorum call? i ask that it be vitiated. i ask that following my remarks, senator mccaskill be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes. and following her remarks, that senator sessions be recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will

in fact, we put forward a program to reform medicare and to save it. but the congressional budget office as well as the trustees of the program itself say it will go bankrupt. the real question... >> smith: in the next decade. >> within next decade. for those 54 and younger in this country, they won't have the medicare that exists today. and it's a fact. so the fact is-- and i know debbie wasserman shultz will be on after me-- i'd ask her, where is their plan? they don't have a plan. we put a plan forward. you know, again it's a question of leadership here. >> smith: do you and the rest of the republicans in the house stand by the ryan plan, as you all voted for? >> absolutely. i mean, you've seen that. you've seen the vote in the senate. we put forward a plan that saves $6.2 trillion over the ten-year budget window. included in that is a necessary reform to save the entitlement programs. we know... >> smith: but the question becomes, is the voucher the answer? is that the only answer? because if i understand it correctly, i get a voucher and then i hav

medicare has been a steadily improving program. better benefits, much more texture but medicare advantage, d we have parts drug coverage over time. it is a tough time. american healthcare has never faced a more difficult passage then and now faces. we have a care system, not just medicare. it is a player, but as the person with chronic illness, they will often described dropped balls, they do not know where to go, the specialists is not talking to the primary care doctor. the end up back in the hospital. a system is quite fragmented and driven by this payment system which is the more that you do, the more that you get paid. we need a system that says the better that you do for your patience, the more that you get paid. reoriented from this ferry wasteful and fragmented the point. medicare can do that. we are totally allied with the private sector here. every important funder of health care once the health-care system to improve just as medicare does. i am optimistic about what is possible for us as a nation. didn't you get the sense

medicare part d. the pharmaceutical program. medicare part d gives seniors the opportunity to pick from plans that work from them. that are customized to their needs. medicare part d has to do with prescriptions with pharmaceuticals and we provide premium supports so they can pick the plans that work for them and make sure they get the prescriptions they need to have. it's actually been a plan that frankly is one of the few government plans that have ever -- has come in under budget. most government plans don't come in under budget they come in way over budget. medicare part d did. it also speaks to me as medicare part c, medicare managed care. medicare managed care, medicare advantage, which unfortunately the patient protection and affordable care act attacked, went after, medicare part c program, provides for wellness and prevention. folk that was been -- seniors that have had medicare part c has had a program allowed to emphasize prevention and wellness. statistics show that where people engaged in that program, they have been

if we do not use of the above medicare now, the program will be bankrupt by the year 2024, 13 years from now. if we want medicare to be around for current seniors and future generations, we need to make changes now. i am very supportive of a plan that will ensure seniors currently get the benefits that they currently enjoy or are expecting. anyone under 55, a creative program for the future. >> thank you. miss hochul? >> i think that they would be surprised in washington to find out is not a voucher program since that is how they have labeled it. here is $8,000. your on your own with insurance companies. good luck. that is not me talking. that is the "washington journal" or the "chicago tribune." medicare and as we know it. and current seniors are affected because it eliminates the plans to start shrinking that on a whole, which reduces their prescription drug costs. -- the donut hole, which reduces their prescription drug costs. >> thank you. from this point on, the questions will go to both of you. you will each have 90 seconds to respond, and then a 45 second rebuttal time friend. bef

the medicare program is efficiently managed, devoting less than 2% of its funding to administrative expenses. med car haise dramatally improved the quality -- medicare has dramatically improved the quality of life for seniors and the disabled. it is the largest source of health coverage in the nation. democrats are committed to strengthening medicare, not tearing it down. under the guise of reform, republicans desire to end medicare as we know it today. last year the republicans promised the american people that jobs would be their number one priority. well, i ask, where are the jobs? but instead they want to make draconian cuts to programs to help seniors and the disabled, the middle class, the poor and the needy and yet provide tax cuts for over $1 trillion to millionaires and billionaires and so we ask, where are the jobs and where are the opportunities? the estimated one-year impact of anticipated graduate medical education cuts for illinois are $144 million. for indirect medical edution and $39 million for graduate medical education which totals $183 million. if they are -- if there are

if we do not do something about medicare now, the program will be bankrupt by 2024. 13 years from now. if we want medicare to be around for current seniors and future generations, we need to make changes now. i am supportive of a plan that will ensure that seniors currently get the benefits they are enjoying or expecting. anyone under 55 create a program that will have for the future. >> thank you. >> the republicans will be surprised to know that their plan is not a voucher program since they rolled out as a voucher program. it is a plan to tell people that it no longer have that guaranteed insurance are you paid into central high school job. that is not there for you and we will replace it with a voucher. here is a thousand dollars and you are on year-round. good luck. that is the program. that is not me talking. we ought to stay with the facts. it is a voucher program and end s medicare. it eliminates the claims they are shrinking that doughnut hole. even they are afraid. that is the plan out of washington and they do not like it. >> thank you. the questions will go to both of you.

starting in 2022, new medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health care program that i have. that my colleague from arkansas has. and my other colleagues who have spoken here tonight. future medicare recipients would be able to choose from a list of guaranteed coverage options and be able to choose a plan that works best for them. it's not a vouch every system, it's premium support. no money changes hands between the government and the individual. it's modeled after what members of congress and federal employees already have. the reforms are designed to increase fraud -- to decrease fraud within the system an requires congressional oversight by requiring transparent pricing and minimum benefit and quality standards and institute manager competitive forces. that's what the free enterprise system is about. i believe if it has worked for 235 years in this great country, it should be also the way forward. now let me finish by saying this. like my colleague from arkansas, he and i came in as freshmen together, on january 5 in these hallowed chambers, we didn't come he

medicare is by far the most complex, difficult to project of the two programs. social security is a much easier challenge to grasp intellectually. so i willspeak about social security and leave medicare for dr. rieschuor. the story in social security, is pretty straightforward. costs are growing in the program at a pretty rap pace and will do so until 2030s as consequence of baby boomers entering retirement. by our projections cost of paying benefits in 2035 will be 17% of the taxable wages that workers earn and total costs will amount to 6.2% of national gdp. before the baby boomers enter retiment in 2007 report, the last one before the boomers began to hit the rolls, these figures were 11 1/2% of taxable payroll and 4.2% of gdp respectfully. you could see we'll have substantial continuing cost growth in the social security program to the point where mid 2030s, costs will be roughly 50% larger relative to the size of the economy compared to where they were before the baby boomers enter retirement. that much we have long-anticipated. we knew that was coming and w

if not, what makes the plan the best way to ensure the medicare program remain solvent t? >> the plan i am supporting is not a voucher system. what it does is it creates medicare for anyone under the age of 55. that would be like medicare part d, where the government pays the premium directly to the insurance plan, not the individual. there is no doubt involved. as far as additional cost, that issue west addressed through the at the program in new york state. i would be very supportive of an opportunity to rollout a bill at the federal level to address any additional cost that may be there. the important thing is to understand we have a problem. according to president obama and the medicare board of trustees, if we don't do something about medicare now, it will be bankrupt by 2024, 13 years from now. if we want it around for current singers and future generations, we need to make changes now. i am very supportive by plan that will ensure that seniors currently get the benefits they are enjoying are expecting and create a program that will have for the future. >> ms. hochul?

the medicare program highlights the best market. >> guest: medicare advantage, you show the medicare benefit program where you have a better market protection. not all states of the same. i talked to several governors who asked us to block grant medicaid because they believe they can make a program work better at a better price and better cost if they can have more control over flexibility and reforming in their state. talk to scott walker and several governors who said give us the freedom and flexibility because we will make the work better. right now we are having problems with this program. on medicare it comes down to this. it is the biggest driver of our debt in the future. it has tens of trillion of dollars of unfunded liability. the status quo is the enemy of medicare. that means collapse. does the money go to the government and come down through price controls and rationing care? we have a board of 15 people making these decisions. or the money goes through the individual. more for the 4, more for the wealthy and give them power to the marketplace to have competition. do you w

we need to take the design and apply it to the medicare program. so the intr is not to pull prescription drugs. that's an important part of health care delivery in america. to have a plan without a prescription drug component doesn't make sense. we need to have a plan that is run efficiently and private sector and is not an unlimited entitlement. we have an uncapped entitlement. we need to put people in charge instead of the government [applause] >> thank you, senator. >> congressman paul. have you said that medical malpractice awards are creating a crisis in the medical industry, driving doctors out of the business and cbo has projected that tort reform could save $54 billion over 10 years. why are you against federal tort reform? >> the federal government shouldn't be involved. it's a state matter. tort law is a state matter. it's a tough vote, as a physician, i know doctors are on the receiving end and it does push up the costs of medicine. but if you look at all of my legislation, i have offered a free-market alternative to this, to allow the d

federal government in regards to the medicare program. i remember correctly, they were agreeing to a settlement of $18.5 million fine in regards to miss using reimbursements that were part of a large whistleblower suit out of the state of minnesota. the pharmacist worked for cbs, i assume went through proper channels, and was rebuffed by the corporate structure of the company that had to file a federal lawsuit. that whistleblowing pharmacist for cbs -- cvs collected $2.5 million, and cvs agreed to an $18.5 million fine. i'm not one to judge just on one issue, but i think that should be made on the record, and since there are concerns brought about the company being new in san francisco, maybe we ought to check this one out. in regards to my own experience, on my trips to washington, d.c., my experience with cvs is that their operations, compared to walgreen's, seemed a bit sloppy. it seems like the stores do not have as many employees as they need because they are out there 8 pete -- they're at their great. their service is not very good.

name me another government program that came in 41% below costs. medicare prescription drug program did. why? because it gives seniors the power. seniors get to choose which among competing private plans did they select from for their drug benefit. and the provider knows that the senior can fire them if they don't perform. if they don't give them competitive prices, good quality service. next year they can fire them and get somebody else. so they compete for the senior's business. that brought premiums down, saved taxpayers, brought 41% down. what we're seeing is replicate that kind of reform for people 54 bean low when they become medicare eligible. this doesn't take effect for ten years. hardly is this radical in my opinion. what's truly radical is status quo. kicking the can down the road, going tens of trillions of dollars deeper in the hole every year we don't fix this situation, means we record a debt crisis and then awe terty, cutting indiscreme knitly against senior where's you're giving them no time to prepare or adjust and taxing to slow us down,

the medicare program is efficiently managed, devoting less than 2% of its funding to administrative expenses. med car haise dramatically improved the quality -- medicare has dramatically improved the quality of life for seniors and the disabled. it is the largest source of health coverage in the nation. democrats are committed to strengthening medicare, not tearing it down. under the guise of reform, republicans desire to end medicare as we know it today. last year the republicans promised the american people that jobs would be their number one priority. well, i ask, where are the jobs? but instead they want to make draconian cuts to programs to help seniors and the disabled, the middle class, the poor and the needy and yet provide tax cuts for over $1 trillion to millionaires and billionaires and so we ask, where are the jobs and where are the opportunities? the estimated one-year impact of anticipated graduate medical education cuts for illinois are $144 million. for indirect medical education and $39 million for graduate medical education which totals $183 million. if they are -- if there

an opportunity to start down the path of paying off our debt, of maintaining solvency for the medicare program and other entitlement programs, and that's what we ought to be debating instead of simply saying we're into another new cycle of gotcha , you've touched the third rail, you've made the decision to put medicare in play and we're going to take it to the public and tell them you're going to take away their health care benefits when they retire. it's just the opposite is true. we're trying to save those health care benefits for those who are retiring. we're trying to look at ways that we can structure the program so that it doesn't not only break medicare but break our entire economy. today the average person is living into their 70's and the average woman is living into their 80's and even 90's, and as a result, more elderly americans are on medicare than originally anticipated. the federal government can no longer continue with business as usual. it's time for some honesty with the american people. washington is promising to deliver benefits it can't afford. we can no longer nickel and

medicare is by far the most complex, difficult to project of the two programs. ecurity is a much easier challenge to grasp intellectually. so i will speak about social security and leave medicare for dr. rieschuor. the story in social security, is pretty straightforward. costs are growing in the program at a pretty rap pace and will do so until 2030s as consequence of baby boomers entering retirement. by our projections cost of paying benefits in 2035 will be 17% of the taxable wages that workers earn and total costs will amount to 6.2% of national gdp. before the baby boomers enter retirement in 2007 report, the last one before the boomers began to hit the rolls, these figures were 11 1/2% of taxable payroll and 4.2% of gdp respectfully. you could see we'll have substantial continuing cost growthn the social security program to the point where mid 2030s, costs will be roughly 50% larger relative to the size of the economy compared to where they were before the baby boomers enter retirement. that much we have long-anticipated. we knew that was coming and we knew

but, a tyson to the medicare program. it ties into the entitlement in general. the reason -- one of the reasons we are in this situation is certainly the bad economy, the bad economic conditions we have had in the last two years and the failure of the economy to revive the itself the way that we all hope it would. but another big factor which has been a constant is the rapid rise in health care costs especially in the medicare program. so, you know, that leads to some discussion about what we should do about it. we have seen all sorts of plans come out and so why borrowed some of the analysis from the committee for the responsible federal budget just to show you how easy it is a to come up with different interpretations of numbers depending how you do it and this as much as i think the trust fund view is not useful. this illustrates the budget review isn't that useful unless everybody uses consistent assumptions and similar time period. i'm not going to go through this in detail because i will run out of time to do so but when it does is show you clearly that de

medicare is a very efficient program. you have to do is deal with the overarching problem of medical services in the united states, which is growing. medicare is not causing. medicare happens to be one of the brakes on it because medicare is efficient. the health insurance industry is extraordinarily inefficient. i was the insurance commissioner in california for eight years, and i know the health insurance industry. is extraordinarily inefficient. there are thousands upon thousands of policies out there. it created an administrative morass, chaos, the costs about 30% of every health care dollar and 85 health insurance system simply used -- in the private health insurance system is simply used for administrative costs. no country in the world would tolerate those kinds of administrative costs, and yet we do. we need evidence-based, clinically proven at madison and every level. in light of the medical services are not that way. there is -- a lot of the medical services are not that way. there is fraud out there. the republ

it is a voucher program and it ends medicare as we know it. current seniors are affected because it eliminates the planned touche start shrinking the doughnut hole. even currency is are afraid of this program and that is what schering them. that is not made. that is the plan out of washington and they don't like it. >> the questions will go to both of you from this point on. you will each have 90 seconds to respond or be a 45-second for both ofiod you. let's really dig into the specifics of medicare. what exactly would you do to keep medicare solvent? >> i would insure that the benefit for people 55 and older stay as they are, to ensure that under the age of 55 that insurance prints are paid directly by the government to the insurance plan on behalf of the individual. the individual would choose the plan and it would be mandated in terms of the minimum number of services. i would still lead doughnut hole with an aspect type program which would guarantee. we have to take action now. my opponent is advocating to do nothing. if we do nothing, the

medicare i by far the most complex, difficult to project of the two programs. social security is a much easier challenge to grasp intellectually. so i will speak about social security and leave medicare for dr. rieschuor. the story in social security, is pretty straightforward. costs are growing in the program at a pretty rap pace and will do so until 2030s as consequence of baby boomers entering retirement. by our projections cost of payingenefits in 25 will be 17% of the taxable wages that workers earn and total costs will amount to 6.2% of national gdp. before the baby boomers enter retirement in 2007 report, the last one before the boomers began to hit the rolls, these figures were 11 1/2% of taxable payroll and 4.2% of gdp respectfully. you could see we'll have substantial continuing cost growth in the social security program to the point where mid 2030s, costs will be roughly 50% larger relative to the size of the economy compared to where they were before the baby boomers enter retirement. that much we have long-anticipated. we knew that was coming and we

additional subjective cuts to medicare will not make the program more efficient or more available. these measures will simply reduce the supply of medical care to the medicare patients of america. the medicare chief act wary richard foster warned us that the health care laws medicare cuts will cause providers to leave the program, and we are seeing that today, mr. president. and it isn't because they don't want to treat medicare patients. it's because the doctors know that the payments will be too low to even cover their costs. mr. foster, the medicare chief actuary has said that approximately 15% of our nation's hospitals would drop out of dmair ten years. and then number five: this board could eventually impact all patients, not just medicare patients. washington democrats have long supported policies that give government more power to set health care prices, not just in public programs like medicare but also in the private sector. president bill clinton asked for this authority in a 1994 debate that at that time was called hillarycare. it was one reason that his effort failed. pr

hospitals would close without medicare, without the medical insurance program. i am 60 so i am not included as part of this new ryan plan, but i have concerns for other people. my mother is on medicare right now, and she pays $100 per month out of personal security for medicare. i pay for medicare now. you are entitled to medicare because you pay for it. doctors are not going to quit. i would rather have a six-month wait for a medical service than to not be eligible period. for it to be to the point where i do not have an insurance program, because i am over 60 with medical issues, the $6,000 would not pay for a medical program. you have a six-month wait just for a physical anyway, but if you have a life-threatening situation, you would not have that way. and people without insurance right now would be happy to have a six-month wait. the latest our locarticle in "politico." also, talking about newt gingrich. he called for more spending on alzheimer's research. here is the story. next is the intent, north carolina. this is willie, a republican. and caller: good mo

that to get my vote we would have to do something long term to make sure that people on medicare still have a program. own trustees of medicare and social security, which include two of his cabinet members, maybe more, at least two of them, declared last week -- this is the president's own cabinet, just last week, that medicare is in trouble -- sen. to suggest that it is not part of the discussion -- i'm just saying it is part of the discussion. >> the vice-president says tax revenues are on the table. >> the vice president can speak for himself. i am saying what it would take to get my vote. how many more? [laughter] >> when it comes to fema, would you suggest cuts to that? >> the house has found a way to pay for it. thank you very much everybody. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," town hall.com political editor and thinkprogress.org editor discuss politics. we discuss political action committees that could affect the 2012 election. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> follow c-span's "washington journal" on twitter, and get the question of the day, high- profile bookings, and links to

medicare is by far the most complex, difficult to project of the two programs. social security is a much easier challenge to grasp intellectually. so i will speak about social security and leave medicare for dr. rieschuor. the story in social security, is pretty straightforward. costs are growing in the program at a pretty rap pace and will do so until 2030s as consequence of baby boomers entering retirement. by our projections cost of paying benefits in 2035 will be 17% of the taxable wages that workers earn and total costs will amount to 6.2% of national gdp. before the baby boomers enter retirement in 2007 report, the last one before the boomers began to hit the rolls, these figures were 11 1/2% of taxable payroll and 4.2% of gdp respectfully. you could see we'll have substantial continuing cost growth in the social security program to the point where mid 2030s, costs will be roughly 50% larger relative to the size of the economy compared to where they were before the baby boomers enter retirement. that much we have long-anticipated. we knew that was coming an

as to medicare, everybody knows it's sinking, it's going broke. the current programchristiane, only has about 50% of it paid for by either premiums or payroll taxes and the rest is deficit spending and debit spending or debt spending so we have to fix it, and president obama has an obligation as the leader of this nation to step forward and solve the problem and he's basically ducking it and then pointing fingers at everybody else. now, as to paul ryan's plan, i'll have my own plan. it'll have some differences, for example, he didn't address social security. i did and we already will. as to medicare it will have differences but if the only choice is we're doing nothing like president obama is doing and paul ryan's plan, i'd sign it. >> so what would you do? what would you do, for instance, you mentioned social security. would you raise the retirement age? >> for the people who are currently in the program, no changes. for people coming up on eligibility, no changes but for the next generation, the people who are entering the workforce, we need to gradually raise the

medicare is a very efficient program. what you have to do is deal with the overarching problem of medical services in the united states, which is growing. medicare is not causing. medicare happens to be one of the brakes on it because medicare is efficient. the health insurance industry is extraordinarily inefficient. i was the insurance commissioner in california for eight years, and i know the health insurance industry. is extraordinarily inefficient. there are thousands upon thousands of policies out there. it created an administrative morass, chaos, the costs about 30% of every health care dollar and 85 health insurance system simply used -- in the private health insurance system is simply used for administrative costs. no country in the world would tolerate those kinds of administrative costs, and yet we do. we need evidence-based, clinically proven at madison and every level. in light of the medical services are not that way. there is -- a lot of the medical services are not that way. there is fraud out there. the re

you know, how will we support the public programs that we will have in the future of the class act, the medicare and medicaid programs, the programs we have under the older americans act, disability programs with a paid workforce and provide enough support that they have meaningful careered ladders but also they have a skill set to serve an increasingly aging population. it will take both a paid and unpaid workforce to provide the kaifr needed in this country. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator casey. senator manchin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank both of you for being here. we appreciate it very much. state west virginowest virginia you've done and assistance we get from the older americans act and what it's done to our state. we have the second most aged state in the nation per population. probably one of the most rural states so it's quite costly to get the services that are needed. we've expanded those and i think the word you had mentioned earlier was flexibility. i can't explain enough how much flexibility that we need in some of these states so that the money is not siloed.

medicare is the fight. what newt gingrich started a couple weeks ago on this program has not gone away. pat bagley in "the "salt lake tribune"" with a cartoon of medicare cuts cutting off the nose to spite the face. that's what medicare is doing. the campaign arm of the house of representatives, he was part of our "press pass" conversation. you can see the whole conversation on our website. this is what he said would be the lesson for republicans. >> the reason that kathy hochul won in new york 26 is because she won independent voters and seniors. we lost the majority in the house of representatives because we lost independents and seniors. they came back to democrats in the 26th district of new york over the issue of medicare, and so, that's very instructive to us and it should be instructive to our republican friends. >> so, ruth marcus, what wins here, bold leadership on medicare and the argument that the democrats won't do something courageous or the democrats who say, hey, those guys want to take away my medicare? >> i regret to inform you that i think it's the latter. and i think

and so what they have done is they've set up a drilling rig for the oil industry on top of the medicare program so they can drill in to the pockets of grandma an grandpa to find the $4 billion in tax breaks. and then on top of that, protect them against having to pay the royalties, the taxes on where they're already drilling for free on taxpayers' land in our country. that's an unbelievable combination and they do it while cutting the renewables budget by 70%. can you believe this? it's 2011, the republicans have already passed the bill cutting the renewables budget, wind and solar, biomass, thermal by 70% and they're setting up an oil rig on top of the medicare program of grandma and grandpa to drill for even more tax breaks for the oil industry. this is an unbelievable debate we're having. they say over here, well, you know, we're the all of the above party. we want to do it all. but the truth is, they're really the oil above all party. and that's what this debate is all about. how can we get even more for the oil industry? so what my amendment will do is to give people the opportunity to rec

medicare is by far the most complex, difficult to project of the two programs. ty is a much easier challenge to grasp intellectually. so i will speak about social security and leave medicare for dr. rieschuor. the story in social security, is pretty straightforward. costs are growing in the program at a pretty rap pace and will do so until 2030s as consequence of baby boomers entering retirement. by our projections cost of paying benefits in 2035 will be 17% of the taxable wages that workers earn and total costs will amount to 6.2% of national gdp. before the baby boomers enter retirement in 2007 report, the last one before the boomers began to hit the rolls, these figures were 11 1/2% of taxable payroll and 4.2% of gdp respectfully. you could see we'll have substantial continuing cost growth in the social security program to the point where mid 2030s, costs will be roughly 50% larger relative to the size of the economy compared to where they were before the baby boomers enter retirement. that much we have long-anticipated. we knew that was coming and we knew it

are you afraid of this medicare program right now? >> no. i mean, i'm not afraid. i also want to emphasize it was a third-party candidate. that had a lot to do with it. but it's no question we have to message better. here's the reality. it's easy for democrats to say we want to kill medicare. the problem is it's not true. obama care changed medicare as we knew it, took over half a trillion dollars out of medicare, and put a 15-panel bureaucratic whatever together to decide what our seniors are going to have. i just can't allow medicare to go broke in whether it's 10 year, 12 years, 14 years, whatever, and not say we tried to do something. this is about saving medicare for the future. as tough as that may be, we have to at least try. >> congresswoman, was their messaging wrong or are they just wrong in the substance? >> oh, they are so wrong. first of all, anybody on medicare right now knows when they go to a doctor they don't pay a co-pay because of the health care reform that the democrats passed. they also know that they're getting more money for their drug presc

are you afraid of this medicare program right now? >> no. i mean, i'm not afraid. i also want to emphasize it was a third-party candidate. that had a lot to do with it. but it's no question we have to message better. here's the reality. it's easy for democrats to say we want to kill medicare. the problem is it's not true. obama care changed medicare as we knew it, took over half a trillion dollars out of medicare, and put a 15-panel bureaucratic whatever together to decide what our seniors are going to have. i just can't allow medicare to go broke in whether it's 10 year, 12 years, 14 years, whatever, and not say we tried to do something. this is about saving medicare for the future. as tough as that may be, we have to at least try. >> congresswoman, was their messaging wrong or are they just wrong in the substance? >> oh, they are so wrong. first of all, anybody on medicare right now knows when they go to a doctor they don't pay a co-pay because of the health care reform that the democrats passed. they also know that they're getting more money for their drug presc

what is your view of the republican increase in medicare prescription drug program? >> the -- of course, right now paul ryan has his budget plan, republican plan, and president obama spoke a couple of wednesdays ago about his way to cut health care. he wants to expand the independent payment advisory over what doctors and hospitals are paid. he wants to bring in price controls on pharmaceuticals to reduce the cost under medicare part d the plan. i think that, you know, seniors need access to drugs and i think, you know, the private market is the way to go. by putting price controls, it's going to a) reduce the ability of drug companies to research and develop and produce any drugs. it cost about $1.3 billion from when you have an idea until a drug or biological make it is through the process. so very, very expensive. but it's done in america. i think we don't want more and more government control over what drugs our seniors can get. medicare part d has been working. it's less costly. it was brought into being by president george w. bush in 2004. >> connecticut, you a

we address the unsustainable growth rate of medicare so the program doesn't go bankrupt in 10 years. the democrats have no plan to stop medicare's descent into bankruptcy but the republicans do. unlike obamacare where you have no choice, the republican plan gives you a choice. now the dirty little secret is out there. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the c.m.s. actuary just came out with the grim news. apparently the insolvency date of medicare was moved up to 2024. that's only 1 years from now and it will probably move up again before we get there. mr. fleming: this is after half a billion dollars has been shaved from medicare to extend the life of medicare and that money is already infamously booked twice, once for middle class insurance subsidies and the other to extend the life of medicare. the 2012 budget that passed the house with support is the beginning to the solution for this -- of this problem

are you afraid of this medicare program right now? >> no. i mean, i'm not afraid.it was a third-party candidate. that had a lot to do with it. but it's no question we have to message better. here's the reality. it's easy for democrats to say we want to kill medicare. the problem is it's not true. obama care changed medicare as we knew it, took over half a trillion dollars out of medicare, and put a 15-panel bureaucratic whatever together to decide what our seniors are going to have. i just can't allow medicare to go broke in whether it's 10 year, 12 years 14shgs years, whatever, and not say we tried to do something. this is about saving medicare for the future. as tough as that may be, we have to at least try. >> congresswoman, was their messaging wrong or are they just wrong in the substance? >> oh, they are so wrong. first of all, anybody on medicare right now knows when they go to a doctor they don't pay a co-pay because of the health care reform that the democrats passed. they also know that they're getting more money for their drug prescriptions than before. a

when you cut a chunk out of women, infants, children program, when you cut -- when you move medicare to a voucher program and when you also take out preventive compare costs then you're hurting women. >> this is a shift in the conversation with obama care, what women really have to fear are the cuts under obama care in access to the care that women need. this is what women have to fear. >> the conversation about medicare really just one battle in the ongoing war to cut costs on the backss of women. this time senior women, whether you're talking about cuts in program, women and children. -- >> what exactly would it cost in older woman if republicans got their way 12,000 year in average income of older woman is 14,000. primarily through social security because women earn less. it's 2,000 less than total income for the year. >> i'm shot sure i understand that. i'm not sure -- we're talking about older women, i don't know what your definition of older woman is, mine gets later and lat -- [laughter] >> 65 is the current eligibility for medicare. the point beyond which quite frankly except

medicare part d. prescription drug program that forces the government to pay retail giving drug companies billions while throwing medicare into a crisis and hundreds of billions of dollars in tax giveaways for millionaires and billionaires courtesy of the bush tax cuts that have people over the doubt from these guys back then and not a peep about the debt when their hero ronald reagan ran up nearly three trillion dollars over the debt in eight years more than any other president in history from george washington to jimmy jimmy carter combined not to mention the danger of mcconnell have already voted to increase the debt limit eight different times in congress eight times without hesitation so why the foot dragging now could it be that republicans really do want us to default but they want to bring about the next great depression and forever link president obama and the democrats with economic disaster just like what happened in herbert hoover is this the scorched earth policy the republicans talked about when obama won the presidency and they're doing to destroy the democrats for a generation the way ho

medicare, you know. guest: i don't think these reforms would change any other benefits outside of medicaid. that is a programhe elderly, the disabled, and people with certain unspecified medical conditions. if you're on medicare because you're disabled, you're going to be traded -- you're going to be treated the same. a plan that meets your needs. the venture will be higher if you're low-income -- the voucher will be higher if you are low-income -- low income. that will help you purchased a base plan that will help to get the care you need. they will have incentives to say no to services that may not be the most valuable and use their resources to focus on the services that are the most valuable to them. host: let's go back to some earlier comments. this was in "the washington times." he is a cousin to the president . . "made all sorts of promises. would allow you to keep your doctor." host: is that accurate? guest: i cannot vouch for the number. the claim you'll be able to keep your health care is false more so than true. lots of americans have had to give up the health plan they had in scarlet or chains th

you know, how will we support the public programs that we will have in the future of the class act, the medicare and medicaid programs, the programs we have under the older americans act, disability programs with a paid workforce and provide enough support that they have meaningful careered ladders but also they have a skill set to serve an increasingly aging population. it will take both a paid and unpaid workforce to provide the kaifr needed in this country. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator casey. senator manchin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank both of you for being here. we appreciate it very mu. state west virginowest virginia you've done and assistance we get from the older americans act and what it's done to our state. we have the second most aged state in the nation per population. probably one of the most rural states so it's quite costly to get the services that are needed. we've expanded tse and i think the word you had mentioned eaier was flexibility. i can't explaienough how much flexibility that we need in some of these states so that the money is not siloed. transpo

we have a very important entitlement program medicare that millions of seniors depend on. saying don't change these benefits to people that are in and near retirement. they've organized their lives around these benefits but we have to reform this program for the next generation if we're going to save it for the next generation and that's what we're proposing to do. >> two quick questions i must ask you. one, i know you are giving a big speech tomorrow in chicago. i don't think it is coincidence it is the president's hometown. heard from a number of democrats who knew you were coming on going this is a do-over tour that you're on, that you got so blasted for your -- >> anything but. >> is there anything different in these speeches? >> no. it's basically we believe the president is articulating a vision which i would call shared scarcity. believe the president's economic vision and the speeches he's been given are speeches in which they pit people against each other, play class warfare, envy economics which is bad economics. i think it is really a vision of shared scarcity i

name me another government program that came in 41% below costs. medicare prescription drug program did. why? because it gives seniors the power. seniors get to choose which among competing private plans did they select from for their drug benefit. and the provider knows that the senior can fire them if they don't perform. if they don't give them competitive prices, good quality service. next year they can fire them and get somebody else. so they compete for the senior's business. that brought premiums down, saved taxpayers, brought 41% down. what we're seeing is replicate that kind of reform for people 54 bean low when they become medicare eligible. this doesn't take effect for ten years. hardly is this radical in my opinion. what's truly radical is status quo. kicking the can down the road, going tens of trillions of dollars deeper in the hole every year we don't fix this situation, means we record a debt crisis and then awe terty, cutting indiscreme knitly against senior where's you're giving them no time to prepare or adjust and taxing to slow us down,

medicare. treasury secretary timothy geithner, a trustee of the programs, says the new forecasts show why changes must be made. >> while social security and medicare have sufficient resources to meet their obligations for at least the next decade, it is important that we put in place reforms to strengthen these programs. social security and medicare benefits are secure today, but reforms will be needed so they will be there for current and future retirees. >> reporter: medicare's condition worsened the most. costs were higher than expected last year, leading government forecasters to predict the hospital insurance trust fund will run out of money in 2024-- five years earlier than predicted last year. while medicare spending is on an unsustainable path, the brookings institution's gary burtless pinning down future medical costs is hard to do. >> it's growing faster than the price of most other service providers, but the question is how much faster and will eventually those excess cost increases for medical care slow down so the rate of increase is closer to the prices we pay for other services. >>