Florida: U.S. House of Representatives, 19th District

Candidates

Jack Merkl, Republican
Robert Wexler, Democrat

Issues: Prescription Drugs | Social Security | Health Care |

The issue boxes contained on this page are not clickable online. Please print the page and make notes for your reference.

Question

Many people with Medicare lack adequate coverage for prescription drugs and face skyrocketing costs. What solution do you support to help Medicare beneficiaries pay for their drugs?

AARP Response

AARP believes an acceptable Medicare drug benefit needs to meet the following tests:

First, the benefit must offer real value at an affordable price. The monthly premium should be less than $35. The beneficiary’s deductible and co-payments should be reasonable and affordable, (e.g. a deductible no greater than $250). There should be no gaps in coverage, leaving persons to pay 100% of high out-of-pocket costs.

Second, the benefit should be available to all Medicare beneficiaries on a voluntary basis. No one should be forced into the program. But no one should also be denied access to a Medicare drug benefit because of where they live, how sick they might be, or how much or how little income they have.

Third, the plan must help bring down soaring drug costs.

Fourth, the plan must include additional help for low-income persons.

Issue	Yes	No	Unclear
Creates an affordable monthly premium
Supports a fair deductible and co-payment
Provides no gaps in coverage

Candidate Response: Jack Merkl

Medicare is crumbling due to waste, over-use, fraud and bureaucracy. Doctors and hospitals are over-used; medicines are under-used. I favor a complete revamp of Medicare. The model should be the Federal employees' (and your Congressman's) program. This approach was recommended in the late 1990s by a bi-partisan commission, but never acted upon. The revamped program would cover the cost of prescription drugs. In addition, I support giving each beneficiary $750 annually to use for health care. If annual costs exceed $750, the Federal program would kick in; but , if not used, the beneficiary would keep the $750. The net effect of all these changes will be a reduction in Medicare's costs by 10 to 20%, making the program viable for the long term.

Candidate Response: Robert Wexler

I support a comprehensive Medicare Prescription Drug bill. I introduced the Honor Thy Parents Act to rescind portions of President Bush’s $1.3 trillion tax cut and earmark the money for a prescription drug program under Medicare. My plan freezes the top three tax brackets at the current rate and repeals a portion of the tax cut for individuals earning more than $130,000 and heirs with estates worth more than $4 million. Savings would be used solely to fund a prescription drug program under Medicare.

I am also a sponsor of Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act (HR 5019), which would all seniors who choose to enroll. The plan provides an 80/20 type benefit, like the Medicare Part B plan, with a $100 deductible and a $25 premium. Any costs over $2000 would be covered 100 percent.

Question

Do you support or oppose replacing part of Social Security with individual accounts?

AARP Response

AARP strongly opposes replacing ANY part of Social Security with individual accounts. Social Security is not in crisis. Without any changes in current law, Social Security can pay 100% of benefits until 2041. But individual accounts funded with Social Security dollars mean Social Security would face financial problems sooner.

"Personal control" sounds appealing. But substituting private accounts, even for part of Social Security, drains money from Social Security, which means less money to pay guaranteed benefits.

Creating these private accounts requires trading today’s inflation-protected lifetime guaranteed benefit for an account subject to market risk and not guaranteed to last a lifetime.

Inflation, market turns, or sudden loss of employment can also mean that your private account may not have enough money to provide an adequate benefit. AARP supports options that help Americans save for their retirement through individual accounts on top of Social Security; but opposes replacing any part of Social Security’s guaranteed benefit.

Issue	Yes	No	Unclear
Creates individual accounts out of Social Security
Position means less money for guaranteed benefits
Position guarantees benefits for your lifetime

Candidate Response: Jack Merkl

I oppose replacing part of Social Security with individual accounts. Social Security is sound, but in about 15 years benefit payments will exceed tax collections and jeopardize the pensions of younger workers. I support leaving Social Security AS IS for current beneficiaries and for those now over 50. For younger workers (now under 50), changes should be made in small steps over the next fifteen years. These changes should be developed by a bi-partisan commission similar to the Moynihan Commission of the 1980s whose changes are still taking effect. Individual accounts may have merit in the future as a voluntary supplemental retirement program. But for now we should concentrate on fixing existing system problems.

Candidate Response: Robert Wexler

I strongly oppose Social Security privatization. Creating separate individual accounts for Social Security will drain the current system, thereby bankrupting it sooner than expected. While some Americans might do well under this system, the results could be catastrophic for others. Corporate scandals and stock market collapse have already cost thousands of individuals their retirement savings.

I am also concerned that the removal of Social Security funds for individual accounts would produce a $1.5 trillion shortfall over 10 years; therefore, retiree benefits would have to be decreased or taxes would have to be raised to cover current benefits. I will continue to stand up to those who would weaken Social Security by transforming it into a privatized system of stock market, winners and losers.

Question

In the face of escalating costs, how would you reform the health care system to make it available, affordable and accessible for every American?

AARP Response

AARP supports measures to achieve access to affordable health care coverage for all individuals, an approach that would address the needs of those without public or private insurance or those at risk of losing coverage.

In the absence of universal coverage, AARP supports incremental reforms specifically targeted to particular populations that significantly improve coverage options for those without public or private insurance or those at risk for losing coverage.

These reforms include:

• Opening existing public programs (e.g. Medicaid) to new categories of people who are uninsured;
  
  
• Inducing employers to offer coverage;
  
  
• Subsidizing the cost of private coverage for those who are uninsured, underinsured, or at risk of losing coverage;
  
  
• Expanding the continuation of group health care coverage at group rates to persons whose access is ending (e.g. expanding COBRA coverage).
  
  

Issue	Yes	No	Unclear
Supports health care for all Americans
Proposes steps to cover more people

Candidate Response: Jack Merkl

To prevent its demise, Medicare should undergo a complete revamp. The revamped Medicare would provide a basic "major medical" package that would be free to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary wanted more coverage, alternatives would be available by paying a premium for the extra coverage. Incentives would be built into the program to discourage waste and cap excessive costs. See previous answer for more details on how to revamp Medicare.

For those under the age for Medicare, I support Medicaid as the means-tested program and would be sympathetic to closing any gaps in this "safety net ". I also support: (1) tax-deductibility for those with private health insurance, and (2) creation of cooperatives to provide coverage to workers whose employers do not offer health insurance.

Candidate Response: Robert Wexler

I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to affordable and accessible health coverage, and I am a sponsor of H.Con.Res.99, which directs Congress to enact universal health care by October 2004. I also support increasing federal funding for Medicaid to assist states deal with huge budget shortfalls, and endorse legislation allowing states to use the purchasing power of the Medicaid program to negotiate prescription drug discounts for residents who do not qualify for Medicaid. To reduce drug costs for all Americans, I support the following: (1) closing a loophole in the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act that allowed pharmaceutical companies to receive numerous 30-months patent extensions; (2)allowing generic companies to challenge “frivolous patents” filed by pharmaceutical companies attempting to extend their patents on existing drugs by altering their color or physical design; and (3) allowing the wholesome re-importation of drugs from Canada.