Posted on 09/20/2004 11:19:16 AM PDT by forty_years
On Monday, December 8, 2003, President Bush signed into law a Medicare prescription drug benefits package designed to help American seniors pay for their medications. This month, the Kerry campaign released a TV ad attacking President Bush’s Medicare record stating, “The very next day George Bush imposes the biggest Medicare premium increase in history while prescription drug costs still skyrocket.” There are several problems with this ad, namely that fact that 1) Kerry skipped the December 8 vote and 2) Kerry voted to support the increase in Medicare premiums that he now criticizes. The Kerry campaign offers no specifics on controlling health care costs, but the Bush administration does.
If the cost of Medicare is so important to Senator Kerry, then why did he avoid voting on one of the largest changes to this health program in history? Eileen McNamara of the Boston Globe has an interesting take on Kerry’s absence:
There is something to Kerry's process-oriented, Beltway view of politics. Senators routinely skip votes when the leadership concludes they would not affect the outcome. Even Kennedy excused Kerry's absence. "John Kerry was there when the vote mattered," he said. "We nearly stopped this misguided bill in its tracks, and John was there fighting hard against it." But most voters do not live inside the Beltway. When they read that this is a "historic" vote, they might wonder why a senator and presidential candidate would choose not to record his opposition.
If the cost of Medicare is so important to Senator Kerry, then why did he vote for a formula which mandated the 17% Medicare premium increase which he now attacks? According to the Washington Post:
But the ad overstates the case by saying that "George Bush imposes" the increase in Medicare premiums. By law, the premiums are set by the Department of Health and Human Services without any White House involvement, based on a formula that in this case largely reflected rising health costs and increased benefits.
Just how will Senator Kerry fix America’s health insurance woes? His website makes lots of promises, but is low on specifics. He claims he will:
- Cut Your Premiums
- Cover All Americans With Quality Care
- Cut the Cost of Prescription Drugs
- Cut Waste And Inefficiency
The Kerry website provides absolutely no details on how the Senator would “cut family premiums by up to $1,000,” or “extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans,” or “harness[es] American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions.” The only specific plan on the website claims that Kerry/Edwards will “reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada … and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition.” This statement is true – that is, if “President” Kerry would have to guts to stand up to the drug lobby. As the senator is the “most liberal member of Senate,” his solutions will most likely involve big spending and big government.
I am thoroughly disappointed with President Bush’s prescription benefit package. It is indeed a $300-500 billion “handout” to the big drug companies. I am surprised that a conservative president would engage in protectionism, shielding American drug manufactures from the forces of free trade. But I differ with Bush on far fewer issues than I do with Kerry. The good senator can’t seem to hold a consistent stance on any issue, let alone health care (see also here).
On the other hand, President Bush has laid out a practical agenda for controlling health care costs. During his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, he laid out specifics:
In a new term, we must allow small firms to join together to purchase insurance at the discounts available to big companies.
We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. These accounts give workers the security of insurance against major illness, the opportunity to save tax-free for routine health expenses, and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs.
We will provide low-income Americans with better access to health care. In a new term, I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.
BUSH: As I have traveled our country, I've met too many good doctors, especially OB/GYNs, who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits.
To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now.
And in all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
Allowing small businesses to pool their insurance buying power is probably the most creative proposal I’ve heard. This is simple supply and demand economics. Consortiums of businesses will be able to bring much greater numbers of workers to insurance companies. Insurance companies will be able to provide lower premiums because of the high quantities of policies written. When large numbers of people buy policies, overall risk is spread out and lowered.
President Bush is absolutely right identifying frivolous lawsuits as contributing to skyrocketing health insurance premiums. Notice that Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards, has been silent on this issue. He keeps playing up the fact that his father was a textile mill worker. But Edwards hasn’t spent much time mentioning that his personal net worth is estimated at between $20 million to $50 million. He made most of this loot as a lawyer by suing people and companies. In other words, Edwards has helped to increase insurance and other costs for the common man. In fact, he has opposed legislation that would’ve tried to put limits on the sue-happy trial lawyers. When companies are sued, how do you think they cover the costs of litigation and settlements? They pass these costs on to the consumer by increasing the prices of their products and services. Litigation is one of the reasons health insurance premiums keep increasing every year. With Edwards by his side, do you really think Kerry will tackle tort reform?
Letting doctors and patients make health decisions will most likely reduce costs. Yes, there are plenty of crazy people out there, but by and large American physicians and patients can make good decisions one-on-one in the examination room. Having an army of government and/or insurance company bureaucrats pushing papers for every health decision costs a lot of money.
Only one of Bush’s points bothers me: “I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.” He doesn’t explain how this can be done. Leave it to government, and their initial solution would be spending lots of money. Perhaps a program that gives monetary incentives (student loan forgiveness) to medical school graduates if they agree to spend 2-3 years in a rural practice?
Kerry’s latest Medicare ad belies his usual flip-flopping on issues, his disingenuousness, and his desperation. The opinion poll bump that President Bush received after the Republican convention, and which he now maintains, has got the Kerry campaign worried. Americans are listening. They do want facts. They do want consistency. Unfortunately for Mr. Kerry, he can offer none of the above.
Nice article!
Also, wasn't it the Policy Memo by the WSJ that pointed out that Medicare hasn't had a prescription drug benefit, something the previous admin had 8 years to accomplish?
In my opinion, it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO SUPPLY MEDICAL CARE. That is the way it is in SOCIALIST countries -- and America is NOT a Socialist country, although the extreme leftists want to make it one.
It is the job of government to encourage the medical industry to reduce its costs and thus, what it charges, for medical services. The fundamental problem with our medical industry is that it is charging excessive costs to the end consumer. This is NOT NECESSARY, as it was not necessary decades ago. The medical industry has become of a network of profiteering businesses, many of which are unnecessary middle-men. This is where the problem rests -- the industry continues to overcharge to feed an out-of-control profit system.
The other MAJOR PROBLEM with the system, which feeds the excessive charges, is THE U.S. GOVERNMENT feeding the Medicare system, with cooperation for excessive charges. The government must put pressure on the medical system to get its costs down, by refusing to feed the excessive portion of costs.
The article says that Kerry supported the law that resulted in this 17% increase, but no specifics of when it was enacted, and who signed it into law. If it was not Bush who signed it into law, then that should be noted.
Sorry but Bush shouldn't draw any attention whatsoever to that boondoggle that gives free pills for the elderly. Next to CFR, it was one of his administration's lowest moments.
Both candidates are irresponsible and at fault for placing the cart ahead of the horse. Medicare and the costs of making it actuarily sound were not done before adding prescription drugs to the mix. Similar to a citizen running up his credit card balance before he realizes he can't make this months payment. Both Kerry and Bush are economic illiterates. Now you see it, now you don't. Tax cuts and Medicare premium increases, does this ring a bell? It should for the prescription drug benefits do not go into effect until a year after the election. Both candidates have no judgement whatsoever on the reality of our debt repayment problems.
Kerry Voted For The Bill Requiring Higher Medicare Premiums
Kerry Voted For Balanced Budget Act Of 1997 Conference Report. Adoption of the conference report on the bill to cut projected entitlement spending by $140 billion, establishing a balanced budget by fiscal 2002. The bill would reduce Medicare funding by $115 billion; increase health insurance options available to Medicare beneficiaries beyond fee-for-service programs; and permit up to 390,000 Medicare beneficiaries to establish tax-free medical savings accounts. The bill also would include a $24 billion block grant program to help states improve health coverage for uninsured children, funded in part by a federal tobacco tax increase of 15 cents per pack over five years, and restore Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid benefits to certain legal immigrants.
Balanced Budget Act Of 1997 Mandated Formula That Resulted In 17 Percent Increase In Medicare Premiums This Year. "The Secretary, during September of each year, shall determine and promulgate a monthly premium rate for the succeeding calendar year that is equal to 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over, determined according to paragraph (1), for that succeeding calendar year." (PL 105-33, Sec. 4571, 8/5/97)
Sounds like it. In other words, Bush had nothing to do with it. Another Kerry lie exposed.
Sounds like it. In other words, Bush had nothing to do with it. Another Kerry lie exposed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.