Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives voice doubts on US Medicare bill
Reuters ^ | 11-17-03

Posted on 11/17/2003 4:57:20 PM PST by Brian S

Alerts

Topics Municipal Bonds Muni news Insurance Medicines Enter E-Mail Address: FAQ | Privacy Policy

Mortgage Services from Homebound Mortgage

Apply For A Mortgage By Joanne Kenen

WASHINGTON, Nov 17 (Reuters) - The largest organization representing older Americans on Monday endorsed the Medicare reform bill heading toward votes in the House and Senate this week amid questions about how much support it will garner from key conservative lawmakers.

As expected, the 35 million member AARP formally endorsed the $400 billion 10-year bill to revamp Medicare and add a prescription drug benefit. The group's executive director, Bill Novelli, has pledged a major advertising and education campaign to get it enacted.

"Though far from perfect, the bill represents an historic breakthrough and important milestone in the nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens at a time when it is sorely needed," the AARP said.

Republican strategists hope the AARP endorsement will help them win support from some moderate or conservative Democrats. support they would need in the narrowly divided House and Senate if some of their own conservatives vote against it.

"AARP gives the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval when it comes to seniors issues," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican.

Before his scheduled departure for Great Britain on Tuesday, Bush met late Monday afternoon with key congressional leaders to build support for what would be a major domestic victory as he prepares to run for re-election.

"I urge members of both political parties to study the legislation, to remember the promise we have made to America's seniors, and to vote yes for this legislation," Bush said.

Democratic leaders, including several of those seeking their party's presidential nomination, strongly oppose the bill, charging it does more for drug companies and insurers than it does for the elderly.

Some Republican conservatives complain it is a large and unwarranted expansion of a federal entitlement program that already has a troubled financial outlook. Many of them would prefer a smaller bill targeted narrowly on the poorest of those 65 and older, the age group Medicare was created to serve.

'A VERY BIG ENTITLEMENT'

Conservatives also say provisions of the bill to expand private health plan participation in Medicare and trigger congressional action if spending rises too much don't go far enough. A spokesman for conservative Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence said: "He's definitely against it. ... It's a very big entitlement."

Other influential conservatives, including Oklahoma Republican Sen. Don Nickles, have not publicly opposed it but have not signed off on it either. Nickles was invited to the White House meeting but did not attend.

Nickles was on the negotiating team, called a conference, that spent months trying to meld separate House and Senate Medicare bills before congressional leaders stepped in to close the deal. The conference must ratify that agreement before it goes to the House and Senate.

"He has not committed to signing the conference report," said his spokeswoman. She said he is waiting to see all the details, including a final budget analysis.

Liberal Democrats and allied consumer and seniors groups continued to pound on the bill as a Republican vehicle to undermine and ultimately privatize Medicare.

House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, blasted the AARP, saying it endorsed a bill that violated many of its own principles.

"The country cannot afford a Trojan horse deal which purports to help America's seniors but is really a cruel hoax that dismantles Medicare and does not provide seniors an affordable, defined guaranteed Medicare prescription drug benefit," she said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: healthcare; medicare; medicarereform

1 posted on 11/17/2003 4:57:20 PM PST by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Sorry for the sloppy "pre-post" cleanup at the start of this article.
2 posted on 11/17/2003 4:58:44 PM PST by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Though far from perfect, the bill represents an historic breakthrough and important milestone in the nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens at a time when it is sorely needed," the AARP said.

I don't think you can expand it and strengthen it at the same time.

3 posted on 11/17/2003 5:00:02 PM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Is anyone else rooting for Ted Kennedy and his filibuster?
4 posted on 11/17/2003 5:01:58 PM PST by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
"I urge members of both political parties to study the legislation, to remember the promise we have made to America's seniors, and to vote yes for this legislation," Bush said.

A more accurate statement by politician Bush might have been, "I urge both parties to make the government even larger and more expensive."

5 posted on 11/17/2003 5:18:13 PM PST by RJCogburn ("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect.".......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal
Is anyone else rooting for Ted Kennedy and his filibuster?

Nauseating as it is, I say, GO TED GO!!

6 posted on 11/17/2003 5:18:56 PM PST by RJCogburn ("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect.".......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
No kidding. Baby boomer Bush and his baby boomer cronies are really sticking it to Gen X and Gen Y here.
7 posted on 11/17/2003 5:30:15 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I thought we had something called MEDICAID that took care of needy elderly seniors medical needs including pharmaceuticals?
8 posted on 11/17/2003 5:37:46 PM PST by Whispering Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
That should be, "Go Fat Teddy, Go".
9 posted on 11/17/2003 5:40:33 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
Okay. GO, FAT TEDDY, GO!!
10 posted on 11/17/2003 6:51:49 PM PST by RJCogburn ("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect.".......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Phrases i'd never think i'd see on FR.
11 posted on 11/17/2003 7:58:10 PM PST by John Will
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal
As gauling as it may be I agree with Teddy.
This is likely to pauper everyone for the sake of what. It is wrong to entitle some to raid the purses of others. The only part with which I agree is to allow people to choose doctors outside the system and use their own funds to pay for that care.
This is what my Mother wanted and by law she could not do since she did use Medicare for some (very little) of her care. She could not go to a non-Medicare physician and pay that person with her own funds! The rich go outside the US to do it.
If medication is needed, I believe there should be no thievery from the homes of others to pay for it.
12 posted on 11/17/2003 8:35:26 PM PST by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal
Is anyone else rooting for Ted Kennedy and his filibuster?

I hate to say it, but yeah.

13 posted on 11/17/2003 9:08:15 PM PST by irv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
This is just one more government-sponsored ponzi scheme like social security - as I understand the bill, it requires a $35/month fee plus a $250 deductible before it starts to pay anything toward medications - that's something like $750/year; there are many seniors who don't pay anything like that for drugs each year, yet they'll be required to pay that much before getting any benefits and still pay out of pocket for the few medications they do use before reaching the threshold - essentially subsidizing the system...this could end up like the long-term care "insurance" bill passed a few years back, which was promptly repealed when seniors finally caught on to how much it was costing and how little they got out of it......
14 posted on 11/17/2003 9:20:35 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirited
Here is something else in the bill: Means testing. Ordinarily I would favor this but there is a problem here

Wealthier Americans made more money while they worked, therefore they paid MORE into Medicare than the average worker. Now, after paying so much into Medicare, they will be charged more than the ordinary old people for trips to the doctor.

Does that not punish acheivement?

15 posted on 11/18/2003 9:03:28 PM PST by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson