Whitehouse Introduces Amendment to Health Care Reform Bill
December 4, 2009
Madam President, I intend shortly to call up an amendment once the procedural posture is clarified and has been cleared on the Republican side, an amendment to protect the Social Security surplus and the CLASS program savings in this act. When I do, I will then ask for its immediate consideration, but at the moment, that is still being worked out from a parliamentary standpoint, so my words will come in advance of that.
I wish to describe the amendment for my colleagues. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that demonstrates the Senate's commitment to meaningful deficit reduction in this legislation while also protecting both the Social Security surpluses generated by the legislation and savings generated from a significant element of the bill, the long-term voluntary insurance program created by the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, what we call the CLASS Act. The amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that surpluses generated by this bill for the Social Security trust fund be reserved for Social Security and that the savings for the long-term insurance program created by the CLASS Act be reserved for the CLASS program.
The CBO has estimated that this bill will save $130 billion over the first 10 years and roughly $650 billion over the next 10 years. This amendment stands for the proposition that these impressive savings will be protected vis-a-vis the CLASS Act and the Social Security trust fund.
I wish to speak in particular today about the CLASS Act. This act creates a voluntary insurance program for seniors and individuals with disabilities. This program will enable them to afford long-term care even after they have exhausted coverage offered by Medicare or their private insurer. Let me make clear that this is not a mandatory program. It does not increase taxes on anyone. It is a completely voluntary program that offers an additional insurance option for the disabled. Without such insurance, disabled people often cannot afford the massive costs of long-term care. Under current law, they are often forced to sell their homes or otherwise what is called ``spend down'' their assets until they meet a poverty threshold before they can begin receiving the help they need.
Certain colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the CLASS plan would lead to a financially unstable entitlement program and would rapidly increase the Federal deficit. That is simply not accurate. The CLASS plan is fully self-sustaining and actuarially sound, funded by the premiums paid by those individuals who voluntarily opt into this insurance plan. There are no taxpayer dollars involved.
After individuals pay premiums for 5 years, they become eligible to receive a cash benefit of no less than $50 per day to assist with the various costs associated with the onset of a disability or long-term health condition. These benefits could be used to pay for transportation to work, for instance, or the construction of a wheelchair ramp or the hiring of a personal aide--the sorts of things that so often make the difference between somebody remaining an independent and productive member of society and requiring the support of assisted living or nursing home care.
I think we can all agree that it is in everyone's best interest to try to provide this kind of assistance to people when an unexpected disability begins to affect their lives, to allow them the support they need to continue as best they can in their homes, in their apartments, with their families, at their jobs, and remain, as I said, both independent and productive.
The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that this plan is fiscally solvent. In fact, it projected that the program would be solvent for at least 75 years.
There was a helpful amendment offered in the HELP Committee when we considered and debated and passed that piece of legislation. The amendment was offered by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, your colleague, Senator Gregg, the ranking member on the Budget Committee. It passed unanimously, and it ensures and requires that the program be actuarially sound for 75 years.
CBO has projected that, in fact, it would be solvent for at least 75 years. CBO further estimated that the program would reduce the deficit by $72 billion over 10 years, saving $1.6 billion for Medicaid during the first 4 years of the program. So it has a substantial fiscal upside.
I am surprised that our colleagues on the other side are criticizing this element of the bill. It seems to run contrary to the findings that have been made by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It is certainly a stark contrast to their tolerance for their own Medicare Part D Program, the pharmaceutical program the other side touted so proudly, which is different from the CLASS Act in many respects: It was vastly expensive; it was completely unpaid for; it was a massive handout to the pharmaceutical industry, containing within it the, to me, appalling proposition that the government was forbidden by law, forbidden by a previous Congress, to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry over the price of drugs and had to take it or leave it, whatever the pharmaceutical industry charged. Frankly, it is irresponsible to put the government into that situation. It is fiscally irresponsible, and it is irresponsible from a management point of view. It is irresponsible in more ways than I can name. Yet they happily went that way, the path of fiscal irresponsibility, when it suited the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, in order to do so, they had to leave a hole in the Part D pharmaceutical program for seniors to fall into, what the Presiding Officer knows well and what my colleagues know well as the dreaded doughnut hole that has caused so many unsuspecting seniors so much surprise, chagrin, fear, anxiety, and misery. Now, having been the architects of that program, they criticize the CLASS Act even though the CBO has found it to be fiscally sound.
It seems there is an enormous double standard between programs designed for the benefit of, say, the pharmaceutical industry, or perhaps the insurance industry, and the standards they would apply to programs that benefit people who suffer from the onset of a disability--regular Americans, regular families. This is something that happens to people across this country all the time.
That is really the most important effect of the CLASS Act. As good as it is on deficits, as much as the CBO has confirmed that it is to our fiscal advantage to proceed with the CLASS Act, the most important effect is not on deficits, it is on people.
It is on families. This insurance program will allow disabled people, young and old, to live more financially secure and productive lives, free from the fear that medical expenses will impoverish or bankrupt them, able to make those investments in their own adaptation to their disability so they can maintain the lifestyle, the job, and the home they are accustomed to and comfortable with. Studies show that less than a quarter of private long-term care insurance policies provide a lifetime of benefits. The CLASS Act fills an important void that has been left by the public sector for people who seek this protection and this insurance on a paid-for basis. The CLASS plan is a win-win for reducing costs in our health care system and protecting Americans who require long-term care. Our current system plain fails to protect those who aren't healthy or wealthy enough for private market coverage. It fails to create an opportunity for individuals to plan and save for their future lifetime care needs. It fails to provide a sustainable safety net for individuals who require long-term services and supports to keep the familiar aspects of their life around them--job, family, home, hearth.
I will shortly ask that my colleagues support the amendment when it is called up. It will put the Senate on record as protecting Social Security. It will put the Senate on record as protecting the CLASS Act savings scored by CBO. It will put the Senate on record as supporting the impressive deficit reduction in the bill. I look forward to favorable consideration when we have a parliamentary agreement on calling it up.
I yield the floor.