Date: 1987-07-22
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I think that someone from this side of the aisle should talk a little bit of sense about this particular bill. I agree with Senator PEPPER.. I agree with the statements that he has. made. the very eloquent statements that he has made on the floor here today. I agree that catastrophic coverage is longterm coverage. It. is comprehensive coverage. but I am not willing to compromise today. I think amendments should have been permitted. I think if we are going to pass. a. catastrophic bill. it. should be catastrophic. not in the nature of the limited puny coverage available. but catastrophic in. the sense of the way the public deems catastrophic. and that means catastrophic. and that means comprehensive and long term and chronic. not acute and short term. and that is what we have here. It is not a truly comprehensive bill. As the Senator says 80 percent of the costs connected with health. eare are for the longterm chronic cases. They are not covered under this bill as it comes out of the Rules Committee. This is not long term. It may be. as has been suggested. the first historic first step. It certainly is historic and I want to cover that in just a moment. but it is a step of a pygmy. a dwarf. There is no nursing home coverage here. Tell that to your seniors. It is catastrophic. but there is. no. long term. there is no nursing home coverage. The AARP has been! quoted as saying it is in favor of it. Well. let me: quote to you from the. AARP. study just put out on June. 19. a study of costs. health care. costs. The AARP concludes as follows. and I take. it right from the top: An effective catastrophic illness proposal must include. first. real long term. it must focus on the long term. Here is the AARP study. That is what they really think about it. Yes. this is innovative. as has been described. It is innovative. because we have at long last come to the concept of taxing the elderly. This is a huge tax increase- on the elderly. We have got an innovative system now if we pass this. Tax the beneficiaries. Tax the beneficiaries. that is what has been put out by the promoters of this legislation. But where are we going to. stop. that? Are we going to tax the unemployed for unemployment insurance. are we going to tax the elderly for Social! Security retirement. tax. the sick for Medicaid. tax the homeless for housing programs? That is exactly what. this does. The third problem I have is that this has been compared to insurance. from time to time. A tax is: a tax Is a tax. This is a tax as put. out by the bill. and I point out that here is the. schedule of the tax. It goes up In the. first year to $580 per person. which totals up for a couple. plus the other increases. to about. $1.900. per couple for the first year. 1988. and it goes up quickly to $2.600. That is quite a tax almost $2.000 in the first year and $2.600 in. just a couple of years. That is what we- are passing here today. not an insignificant supplemental. that is a euphemism. supplemental insurance premium. and only 40 percent of the elderly are going to pay. I do not have anything against graduated. I am in favor of graduated. progressive taxation. But let us put that taxation on the rest of us who are under 65. Let us put. it in the payroll tax or out of general revenues where it belongs if we. are going to pass this. and if we are going to pass it let it be a comprehensive catastrophic bill worthy of the name. This is not Insurance. and I object to it. and I think we should have- had amendments that required the elderly. 40 percent of them. not to. pay 2%. times as. much as they should.