Thomas Daschle: “basically what our amendment does is simply say: We understand there will be variance. We understand we cannot pinpoint…”

“basically what our amendment does is simply say: We understand there will be variance. We understand we cannot pinpoint with any precision exactly what the cost to the beneficiary is going to be. Why don't we put a cap on what that senior citizen is going to be required to pay, within some reason. If we say the beneficiary obligation is going to be $35 a month, put a 10 percent cap on that premium. It can be below to whatever extent. If it comes down to $15, we all ought to celebrate. But if it is going to be more than $35, say that it cannot exceed 10 percent of the average beneficiary obligation. This would give some assurance to senior citizens that they are not going to be facing dramatically varied costs or facing this extraordinary uncertainty with regard to what the premium will be. But within a 10 percent range, give or take, they will know what their premium obligation will be as they make their decision from one year to the next as to what that premium will cost them. This is exactly what we do with Medicare Part B. Right now with Medicare Part B, beneficiaries pay $58.70 a month for their physician and outpatient care. I might add, that is a consistent figure. It is the same in Alaska and South Dakota as it is in New York and California. That has worked. No one has complained. I don't know that any amendment has ever been offered to suggest South Dakota ought to pay a different Medicare Part B premium than someone else.”