Washington » A Republican senator asserted Tuesday during a rancorous floor debate that President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will shorten the lives of America's seniors by cutting Medicare.
"I have a message for you: You're going to die sooner," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., an obstetrician-turned-lawmaker.
A senior Democrat decried such comments as scare tactics designed to kill legislation that he said would improve some benefits for seniors. At times, the debate recalled the raw charges and countercharges of the summer's town hall meetings.
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., defended the health care legislation, saying it would make Medicare a smarter buyer and improve prescription coverage and preventive benefits for seniors.
"I hate to say it ... these are scare tactics," Baucus said. "Sometimes you've got to call a spade a spade." The Senate was debating an amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would strip from the bill more than $400 billion in Medicare cuts to home health providers, hospitals, hospices and others.
Polls show that seniors are concerned that expanding coverage for the uninsured will come at their expense. Earlier this year, former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin warned of "death panels" that would deny coverage to frail seniors -- a charge that was widely debunked. Medicare spending actually would keep growing under the Democrats' legislation, albeit at a slower rate.
Despite the partisan sparring over Medicare, the first health care amendment offered was bipartisan, a measure to increase preventive care for women co-sponsored by Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Snowe was the only Senate Republican to vote in favor of Democrats' health care legislation in committee.
Their amendment would give the Health and Human Services secretary authority to require health plans to cover additional preventive services for women and was inspired in part by controversial recommendations last month that women undergo fewer mammograms and Pap smears to test for cancer. Republicans seized on those recommendations as early signs of rationing of care they say would happen under the Democrats' 10-year, nearly $1 trillion health bill.
The Mikulski amendment "makes clear, no matter what the Republicans claim, that the decision whether or when to get a mammogram should be left up to the patient and the doctor," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "That decision should not be made by some bureaucrat, a member of Congress or someone they've never met."
However the amendment doesn't specifically address mammograms or spell out what additional services would be covered, leaving that to the discretion of the HHS secretary. The Congressional Budget Office said the amendment would cost $940 million over a decade.
Last month, a government-appointed but independent panel of doctors and scientists said women generally should begin routine mammograms in their 50s, rather than their 40s. Then, in an apparent coincidence, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said most women in their 20s can have a Pap test every two years -- instead of annually -- to catch slow-growing cervical cancer.
Health care issues:
Shopping for insurance
The issue » Is there an easier, more transparent way for consumers to shop for health insurance?
The politics » Most Americans under 65 get insurance coverage through their employers. Small employers, however, increasingly find policies unaffordable. And for the estimated 18 million Americans who buy their own insurance plans, it can be baffling to wade through or even understand competing offers. People who buy their own policies risk paying higher rates or being denied coverage for their health history.
What it means » The House-passed bill and the legislation in the Senate would create some version of a purchasing exchange or gateway that would allow small employers and individuals not already covered by government or employer plans to shop for insurance. The idea is to create a competitive, regulated marketplace where people can make side-by-side comparisons of available plans. Plans would have to meet minimum criteria in order to be offered and practices like excluding people with pre-existing conditions would be barred. Subsidies would be offered to low-income people. If Congress creates a new public insurance plan, that would be one of the offerings in the exchange. Although the exchanges would represent a major change in how insurance is offered here, the idea has generated little controversy on Capitol Hill, despite concerns from business groups and insurers.
