Nominations

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, shortly before Easter, the junior Senator from Vermont introduced a new version of his so-called Medicare for All plan. Given the staggering pricetag of his previous plan, it was reasonable to wonder if he would think about producing something that was at least a bit more modest and achievable. So what is the new plan like? Is it any more realistic? Did he figure out a way to actually pay for a government takeover of healthcare? Well, the answer is no. In fact, the new plan is even worse. It is more unrealistic, more costly, and even more likely to result in massive tax hikes on middle-class Americans.

Analysis of a previous version of the Vermont Senator's Medicare for All plan found that it would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. Now, to put that number in perspective, that is more money than the Federal Government has spent combined in the last 8 years on everything-- defense, law enforcement, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, agriculture, Foreign Affairs--everything.

Here is what the Washington Post had to say back in 2017 about the pricetag for government-run healthcare:

But the government's price tag would be astonishing. When Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . proposed a ``Medicare for all'' health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it.

Fast-forward to today, and, once again, the Senator from Vermont has proposed a government-run health plan without even coming close to presenting a way to pay for it. The only difference this time is that the pricetag is likely to be even higher--much higher. Why? Because the Senator from Vermont's new plan also includes coverage for long-term care--an incredibly expensive part of the healthcare system.

The Democrats' last attempt to have the government run a long-term care program fell apart before it was even implemented because the program was not financially viable. Thirty-two trillion dollars was a staggering enough figure, and now we are talking about having the Federal Government spend even more. Where do the Democrats think we are going to find the money? The list of proposed tax hikes that the Senator from Vermont released would not even come close to covering the estimated cost of his original plan, much less the cost of his new, expanded Medicare fantasy. This is not a plan that can be paid for by using the Democrats' favorite solution of taxing the rich. If Medicare for All ever became law, it would be paid for on the backs of middle- class families.

It is impossible to have a discussion of Medicare for All--or maybe we should call it Medicare for None given the fact that it would end Medicare as we know it--without focusing on the insane pricetag. Yet that is not the only unrealistic aspect of this bill. The Senator from Vermont is proposing to implement his plan in 4 years. That is right-- in 4 years. The Obama administration had 3\1/2\ years to implement the ObamaCare exchanges, which were intended to cover a tiny fraction of the number of people who would be covered under Medicare for All. As I am sure most Americans remember, the government couldn't put together a working website in that time period. The idea that the government could successfully transition more than 180 million Americans into government-run healthcare in the space of 4 years is ludicrous, not to mention what that healthcare would be like when Americans would have made it into the system.

As a recent Vox article pointed out, the Senator from Vermont is proposing extremely generous benefits--benefits that are substantially more generous than those that are offered by other countries with government-run healthcare. Yet, again, he has no viable way of paying for any of this. The likelihood that Americans would actually see all of those benefits is slim.

When the government reaches a point where it can't pay for all of the benefits it promised, it has basically two options. It can raise taxes even further--and that would undoubtedly happen; I think that is a given--but the government would also inevitably have to turn to the other option: the kind of control over healthcare we have seen in other countries with socialized medicine. Americans would also undoubtedly soon find themselves facing that other hallmark of socialized medicine: long wait times for care.

The leader recently said on the floor that Republicans stand for ``preserving what works and fixing what doesn't.'' That is exactly it. Republicans know that our healthcare system is not perfect. We are committed to finding solutions to make healthcare more affordable, but we don't think tearing down our entire system is the answer. We can address the healthcare challenges we face without ripping away Americans' health insurance and forcing them into a government-run, one-size-fits-all plan and then raising their taxes to pay for it. We can make healthcare more affordable without destroying Medicare as we know it.

Democrats' socialist healthcare fantasy sounds nice in theory, but the reality would be anything but--huge new tax hikes for the middle class, long wait times and lower quality of care, government involvement in your healthcare decisions, and no choice at all when it comes to your insurance.

Let's hope the Democratic Party halts its mad rush to the extreme left before Americans are forced to live under the ugly reality of socialized medicine.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source