I am inclined to support the Watts-Moran-Thornberry amendment. I am a cosponsor of the legislation of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), which does roughly the same thing. The amendment is revenue neutral. It does have an accounting problem as currently drafted. As drafted, the amendment would increase Medicare utilization undoubtedly as the retirees find it less expensive to seek medical care there. As we all know, we have a long-term financing problem in the Medicare Trust Fund, and if we increase Medicare spending, it is essential that we keep the trust fund neutral. This amendment needs an accounting fix to make sure that that money that the DOD raises gets into the Medicare Trust Fund and not into general revenues. It is my understanding that staff has not yet had time to work out the details of the language, and I am wondering if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) could give us a commitment to address this problem in conference?
Pete Stark: “I am inclined to support the Watts-Moran-Thornberry amendment. I am a cosponsor of the legislation of the gentleman from…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Watts-Moran-Thornberry amendment related to Medicare funding.
Share
More from Pete Stark
I strongly oppose these budget cuts which are kind of like the cable company starting to bill you for a service while you are at home waiting for them to show up and connect it.
If we had vouchers, or whatever you want to call premium support things, the Medicare would stop being a defined benefit plan and become a defined contribution plan, would it not?
What is shocking to me is that you want to spend even more than that and yet leave 30 million people without health care.
Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) should present Congress with an opportunity to set aside our many differences and work together so that women and families across the country can lead safer, healthier, and happier lives…





