The Conservative Principles Inherent in the Medicare Reform Legislation

Various sources, including Sen. Bill Frist's site, Sen. Rep. Policy Comm., and the White House ^ | 2/6/04 | My2Cents, and various sources

[prairiebreeze]

This is another example of President Bush taking an issue away from the DemocRATS. He's working for true change in the system and not just empty grandstanding which is what the RATS do with these types of issues.

Prairie

[Peach]

That's a very good post, prairie, and I will have to think through some of the issues. You may change my mind about this bill.

Although opposed to one or two of the president's proposals, I strongly support President Bush. Former conservatives who advocate staying home because they don't agree 100% with the president's proposals are, IMO, placing too little value on the judicial appointments coming up in coming years.

For those who oppose various bills or proposals, I believe the correct and most effective course of action would be to phone and write representatives to vent concerns regarding a specific piece of legislation or spending in general.

[Tribune7]

The one thing that makes me thing this article is right is that Ted Kennedy hates this bill.

[alwaysconservative]

I agree that this is a "do-something" President, who takes bold steps because he wants to keep moving on the issues. It is nothing like the paralysis we've seen before, even with Republicans. This is one courageous President!

[BigSkyFreeper]

The one thing that makes me thing this article is right is that Ted Kennedy hates this bill.

What's good for Democrats, is bad for America.

[My2Cents]

The one think that makes me thing this article is right is that Ted Kennedy hates this bill.

That says it all. Thanks.

[My2Cents]

AARP is a big fan of ME, apparently, because they keep sending me membership cards!

[DollyCali]

Excellent work in researching and presenting this material. Will be sending it around..

Ping to ATRW...fyi

Thankyou M2C!

[My2Cents]

Bush was also willing, in 2001, to sign an HMO reform bill ("Patients Bill of Rights). The bill was sent to conference, but never emerged. The reasons nothing ever came out was that Bush was willing to accept everything the Democrats wanted, except unlimited personal damage awards through litigation. The Dems, thinking more of their trial lawyer constituency than actual patients, balked. Also, the Dems really don't want to settle on a bill, because they don't want to lose HMO-hatred as an issue they can manipulte voters with.

Let all of this be a lesson -- The Democrats really don't want to address problems. They only want to allow problems to fester so they can manipulate voters' frustration every two years. The GOP puts forward real reforms, backed by conservative principles.

[My2Cents]

Former conservatives who advocate staying home because they don't agree 100% with the president's proposals are, IMO, placing too little value on the judicial appointments coming up in coming years.

Anyone ignoring the value of judicial appointments coming up in the next few years, and the impact of this election on those appointments, isn't a real conservative.

[Tamzee]

You're #25 adds remarkable perspective, prairiebreeze! I hadn't thought about this problems with relation to the new bill, but it could make a big difference in working to get rid of archaic and counterproductive requirements.

My grandmother in on Medicare now and I've noticed several occasions where the rules forced her into getting other treatment or care that she didn't necessarily need.

[PhiKapMom]

Thought I would add this AP article about Senator Frist supporting the Medicare Bill on this thread since it came out this afternoon:

Sen. Bill Frist Defends New Medicare Law

By MARK SHERMAN
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday he opposes changes to the new Medicare law this year, despite a raft of proposals, higher cost estimates from the Bush administration and steady criticism from Democrats.

Frist, a surgeon, also said he does not expect major health care legislation to pass Congress this year, although he said he plans to focus on limiting awards in medical malpractice cases, a hot-button election-year topic.

The Tennessee Republican said the sweeping changes to Medicare, including a new prescription drug benefit for seniors, should be given a chance to work before changes are considered. He said he was not troubled by the administration's estimate that the law would cost $534 billion over 10 years, a third more than projected by congressional budget analysts.

``I have not seen a proposed change that I am supportive of yet,'' Frist said at a breakfast with reporters who write about health care.

He said Democrats are fearful that Republicans will receive credit for passing a law that improves health care for seniors. ``Democrats are out right now banging this thing, using partisan criticism to tear it down,'' Frist said.

Several senators who voted for the bill last year, however, have said they want to change it.

Two of those, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have proposed giving the government the ability to negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies and removing barriers to importing prescription drugs from Canada.

Snowe said the administration's estimate ``is all the more reason to have this legislation.''

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who voted for the Medicare bill, said legislation is needed to enforce the $400 billion cap on the law that the administration set last year.

``I know I would not have voted for a $534 billion bill, and I know other senators wouldn't have voted (for) that big a bill,'' Sessions told Joshua Bolten, Bush's top budget official, at a hearing on Thursday.

Frist, however, noted that the Congressional Budget Office is standing by its $395 billion estimate - the official number for Congress.

As for Snowe's and Wyden's bill, he said recent government studies have reinforced concerns about the safety of allowing drugs from Canada.

The provision that bars the government from negotiating Medicare drug prices originated in Democratic-backed legislation, he said. ``It is the right language,'' Frist said.

Democrats have said their legislation dating back to 2000 included the prohibition because they assumed Republicans would block a bill without it.



02/06/04 12:08 EST

[ilovew]

**All of those items you mentioned are terrific, could they have been done without adding a bunch more spending?**

Nope. Clearly you're one of those people, however, who likes to sit back and say that if we don't spend money on anything, the country will be better off. Sometimes money has to be spent. I think this is something very important and does require money to be spent.

[windchime]

"So herein is a major difference between the two parties: With the Democrats you will get nothing but further enslavement to federal entitlements. With the Republicans you get real reforms intended to enable people to break free of those entitlements. Will the reforms work? Time will tell, but the effort is being made."

 

Thanks for compiling this information, My2Cents!

Discerning the 'big picture' of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 is imperative in understanding the dem attacks on it (MoveOn ads, etc.).  This Act begins the taming of one of the 'monsters' the dems keep as enforcers.

 

[SuziQ]

I'm glad to see some common sense being used in reforming Medicare. I'm especially glad to see that 'means testing' will be utilized so that the prescriptions of wealthy senior citizens are not being paid for by struggling middle class families!

[My2Cents]

BTW, I love your tag line....LOL

[prairiebreeze]

Ah, yes. The trial lawyers. Mustn't forget their special contributions to the situation surrounding health care in our country. But ambulance-chaser Edwards will stand and spout how he's just like the little guy. Gonna fight for the little guy. Uh-huh.

President Bush has mentioned the cap on financial settlements of malpractice and other lawsuits several times. I believe he'll push it hard in his 2nd term.

Unless some of those who can't see the forest for the trees or past the ends of their self-serving noses help to get him defeated.

Prairie

[Peach]

I agree with you completely.

[My2Cents]

Two of those, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have proposed giving the government the ability to negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies...

No! The way the bill is structured, negotiations with drug companies should be done by the private plans adminstering the benefit! They have more experience in this sort of thing, and many plans have discounts already in place which could be applied to the Medicare drug benefit, simply by arguing that the large new market for those drug companies will provide them economies of scale.

Do we really want the federal government negotiating prices with the drug companies...the federal government, which pays $600 for toilet seats and $65 for hammers?

[Ciexyz]

This is an encouraging article. Why wasn't this info brought to the public's attention before now? The Bush administration better get it together and not let the Dems and the extreme right fringe pf the Republican party (plus Constitutional Party devotees) frame the public perceptions.

All we've been seeing on FR is people screaming about the cost and threatening to bolt the party, with inflammatory language like "why should we pay for a bunch of old geezers."