James Davis: “I think first it is important to put into context the motion to instruct. The motion is an attempt to try to remove the…”

“I think first it is important to put into context the motion to instruct. The motion is an attempt to try to remove the voucher provision which many of us believe is an obstacle to finding a middle ground to developing a Medicare prescription drug benefit. And the second part of the motion inserts the fallback provision that has been developed by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate that many of us think is critical to having a middle ground. I want to go back to the voucher debate and again try to be as factual as possible as to why that is so highly objectionable to Democrats in the House, and I believe to many Republicans in the Senate. Under the House bill that is being defended tonight, in 2010 seniors are forced to choose between private plans and a voucher. Private plans have made it perfectly clear that they do not want to insure people that are not an attractive risk, people that tend to have health problems after they are 65. So, instead, what those people are left with is a voucher whose value is equal to the average cost of beneficiaries in private plans. Those would be healthy people. The chief actuarial for Medicare at HCFA has said that people who are over 65 that are not accepted by private plans could experience as much as a 25 percent increase in the cost of Medicare.”