Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan Congress, and today we are considering the budget framework that will put our Nation's finances in order by the year 2002. Republicans and Democrats alike have often stated this goal. Today we all have an opportunity to literally put our money where our mouth is and support this budget resolution. Within this budget agreement is language that specifically addresses one of my greatest concerns. I know I am not alone in this view. I want to ensure that seniors in rural northwest Iowa are going to enjoy Medicare benefits not just in the next couple of years, but for the next generation and beyond. Our seniors have paid into the Medicare system and have every right to expect efficient health care coverage. However, the current Medicare system has always comparatively overcompensated urban areas in regard to the Medicare reimbursement rate at the expense of rural States like Iowa. By efficiently utilizing our health services in the past, the current Medicare law punishes Iowa seniors through low reimbursement rates. Some urban areas receive 2 rac{1}{2} times the reimbursement rate per person than rural areas like northwest Iowa do. What does this current Medicare inequity do for Iowa's seniors? It means a lack of choice in the Medicare plans. No managed care organization could even afford to do business in Iowa to serve my constituents.
Tom Latham: “Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan Congress, and today we are considering the budget framework that will put our…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the budget framework and Medicare reimbursement rates for rural seniors during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Tom Latham
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment…
I have to oppose the amendment. The fact of the matter is the bill provides $340 billion in operating grants to Amtrak, which will fully cover their operating losses. If in fact the amendment were put in place, there could very easily be…
I make a point of order that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states: ``It shall not be in order to…
The reason I objected is we weren't sure as to what the amendment was, and we would accept the amendment. Mr. DeFAZIO. We won't take much time if the gentleman just would allow me 1 or 2 minutes.





