[My2Cents]

The cost estimates of the Medicare bill are of great concern, but are only part of the picture. What most people ingore are the built-in cost-containmnet aspects of the Medicare bill, elements which will greatly improve the efficiency of the program, and will likely put the entire program on a path toward privatization -- decidedly CONSERVATIVE principles. This is another one of those "Big Picture" perspectives that conservatives need to be taking in regard to President Bush and the Congressional Republicans.

[My2Cents]

***Pragmatic Conservatism Ping***

[PhiKapMom]

That is the best article I have seen yet on the "Conservative" aspects of the Medicare bill. Thanks for gathering all this information together.

When my Senator Inhofe voted for the bill, I knew then that it contained "Conservative" parts or he would not have voted for the bill. This bill is going to keep rural hospitals in Oklahoma up and running!

If anyone wants on the Bush-Cheney '04 ping list, please freep mail me.

[My2Cents]

Those who are concerned about the cost of the Medicare drug benefit are really expressing the position that the federal government shouldn't be providing any health care coverage to seniors at all. That's a fair position. But let's be honest: no responsible conservative politician or office holder is going to make that case. Medicare is a reality. The debate was lost 40 years ago. Now the question is how to institute real cost-containment measures into the program, and how to move more beneficiaries into the commercial health care coverage market. The Medicare reform bill includes steps in this direction.

[goodnesswins]

THANK YOU for pinging me to this.....this is great...here's one interesting excerpt:

"Additionally, the very inclusion of a drug benefit to Medicare will reduce the cost of the program. For example, prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs which eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine to treat their conditions."

[WhiteGuy]

The cost estimates of the Medicare bill are of great concern..........

$500 Thousand Million over 10 years in NEW spending (wealth transfers)...........

For many, this is the only issue, new spending.

[Wolfstar]

Outstanding research and analysis of an hugely important subject. Thanks for helping to inform us.

The following bona fide CONSERVATIVE aspects of Medicare reform cannot be emphasized enough:

• enhancing the ability of Americans to pay for their own health needs through expanding the availability of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs);
  
  
• new accounting measures which will enhance accuracy in monitoring the solvency of the overall Medicare program;
  
  
• expanding lower-cost choices in medical coverage for senior Americans rather than placing all into the traditional (and more expensive) fee-for-service side of Medicare;
  
  
• reducing the rising cost of prescription drugs across the board; and
  
  
• cost-containment provisions including income thresholds for Medicare Part B premiums starting in 2007 (the higher the income of an individual or a couple, the less the federal subsidy, and the higher the premium paid for Medicare coverage), and an increase in the Medicare Part B deductible with future raises in the deductible indexed to inflation.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I applaud you for going through the tireless work of putting this all together, backed with your keen awareness of this issue!

For that, I am going to retrieve my pinger/paperweight from my computer desk and ping fellow FReepers toward this thread!

*ping*

[Ol' Sparky]

The bill also contains provisions, unrelated to Medicare, which will lower the cost of all drugs -- benefiting not only Medicare beneficiaries and the program, but every consumer. The law injects competition into the Medicare marketplace, which will drive down the price of drugs. Private health plans have largely been successful in negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare prescription drug program or a Medicare Advantage program will reap additional savings, since these plans will likely combine the attributes of a private insurance company and a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM).

The only thing that will drive down the cost of healthcare, including prescription drugs, will if the consumer directly pays for more of the services or products directly.

Having the government pay for the cost of prescription drugs is the surest way to increase the cost of prescription drugs. A third-party paying for products and services is the problen, a problem that gets worse thanks to this socialist plan.

If there was a true interest in reducing the cost of prescription drugs, seniors would be given greater access to buy drugs on the free market from countries like Canada and Mexico.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for the excellent, excellent article! And thanks to PhiKapMom for the wonderful pings!

For my husband and I, the preventive care coverage (which will reduce the overall cost in the future) and HSA's alone are what makes this truly a good step in the conservative direction. Democrats would still be sitting around b*tching about how the evil Republicans are killing off seniors.

[prairiebreeze]

In the 1990's the health care specialty of home helath care really came into it's own. Patients were being sent home "sicker and quicker" and big changes to what home care had traditionally offered were quickly needed.

Procedures that had usually been only done in hospital were now extended to the home. Home intravenous therapy was one example, frequently for the administration of long term antibiotic therapy.

Insurance companies, HMO's jumped all over this. Pharmacies marketed their home infusion programs, coordinators were set up etc. Home care agencies scrambled to hire staff to cope with the extra case load.

Then, inexplicably, Medicare announced that it would not cover IV's unless they were administered in a hospital or skilled nursing facility which was the old standard that Medicare had used for decades. Although the private sector continued to fund the home IV administration procedures, if you happened to require 3 or 6 weeks of IV's and were on Medicare you had to go to a skilled nursing facility for the duration your therapy. Even if you were well enough and safe enough to be at your own home. So Medicare paid for not only the treatment, but the associated costs of placing the patient in the facility for that time period.

I raise this because it illustrates I believe, some of the severely entrenched thinking that Medicare has been administered under. There have been surface changes to plans, coverage issues, funding etc. for many many years and are often touted as platform issues in political campaigns. There have been new program names. But not much changed has occured to the substance of the program and what it covers and how it pays for it. Old Medicare seems a lot like Old Europe.

What you post about the speculation of the Clintons purposely killing the effectiveness of any recent changes, out of spite, is compelling as well. The time period, at least in my example, fits.

Thank you My2Cents, for putting this information together. Hopefully the effect of having competition to help keep costs down, expanded choices for the consumer, enhanced and coordinated benefits will also translate into a more modern and progressive Medicare. I have good faith in a captialistic market-driven system. Barring any other shenanigans from duplicitous politicians (for example), I believe the principles of a free market should apply here.

Prairie

[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

[Tribune7]

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

[DollyCali]

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

Ping to ATRW...fyi

Thankyou M2C!

[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!

[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."

[Mo1]

What .. we're suppose to read the bill before complaining? /s>

[Neets]

Thank you!!

[Ohioan]

Suggesting that putting some businesslike provisions in a fundamentally Socialist program, somehow makes it Conservative is rather far-fetched. Had Stalin injected Conservative management techniques into the Collectivist Farms in Communist Russia, would that mean that Collectivist Farming is Conservative?

The Federal Government has no Constitutional role in civilian health care. The whole notion of subsidizing anyone's drug bills out of Washington is also very dangerous. The Bill establishes an entitlement, and given the history of entitlements, they always end up being abused. But in this case, given a confluence of many factors, we discuss in Medicare--Panacea Or Death Potion?, this entitlement promises to be abused as none other ever was abused. Washington is on a collision course with the realities of demographics, science and the human capacity for self-centered rationalization, and the future is going to be rather ugly, to put it mildly.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[kitkat]

Many of our seniors worked for salaries based on 1940 to 1980 wages, which means that their retirement (if any) is based on very low wages. A high prescription bill can drain any resources they have.

When that happens, they're told they must go on Welfare. And welfare costs the taxpayers MUCH more than helping the seniors to stay afloat and manage their own money by helping out with prescription costs.

A littlle-known fact: Unless you're currently working or got a golden-umbrella insurance plan from your company when you retired, you CAN NOT buy prescription insurance.

[wooden nickel]

-- enhancing the ability of Americans to pay for their own health needs through expanding the availability of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs);

This is key to getting away from having insurance pay for routine checkups and minor medical care. Today's medical insurance is like having your vehicle insurance pay for oil changes and brake jobs.