Conservatives Should Vote 'Yes' on Medicare

WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | November 20, 2003 | NEWT GINGRICH

[OESY]

Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation's health-care system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.

[OESY]

Painful as it may seem, one needs only to consider the alternatives.

[tomakaze]

re:Conservatives Should Vote 'Yes' on Medicare
 
Dont tell me people are gonna swallow this tripe.

[ChadGore]

Newt Bump !

[from occupied ga]

Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation's health-care system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.

More proof (as if any more were needed) that Gingrich is a liberal sell out even though he mouthed a few conservative phrases ten years ago.

[tomakaze]

re:More proof (as if any more were needed) that Gingrich is a liberal sell out even though he mouthed a few conservative phrases ten years ago
 
Exactly.

[tomakaze]

re:Obstructionist conservatives can always find reasons to vote no,
 
"obstructionist" sould read "Principled"

[TomGuy]

Chief beneficiaries of this drug/medicare plan are drug companies and insurance companies, not senior citizens and not taxpayers.

The plan is reported to provide several $billions in "set up" funds to the insurance companies -- paying them to set up a new bureaucracy. The plan is reported to prohibit price negotiations on drugs. These are just 2 of the idiocies of this plan. The plan is still in closed committee, but it supposedly contains over 1,000 pages--written predominately by drug company and insurance company representatives.

The plan is a boondoggle that supports special interest drug companies and insurance companies.

[Born Conservative]

There are many people with chronic illness that benefit from Medicare, and I don't have a problem with that. But there are many more who receive medical welfare benefits who abuse the system.

In Pennsylvania, the program is called "MA" or "Medical Assistance". Recipients receive a yellow card to access their "benefits" that looks exactly like a credit card. We facetiously call it the "gold card". I'm a nurse in a large outpatient clinic, and it's not uncommon for those with the "gold card" to call for an appt for cold symptoms that started that day. And the taxpayers are paying for that! Many times, their office "co-pay" is $1.00. By law, if they don't have the money to pay, we are not allowed to send them a bill or ask for it the next time they come in! And while we have HMO insurance through our employer and must follow the rules of the HMO (see only doctors within the network, meds limited to what is on formulary, etc.), many receiving MA can go wherever they want, and have very few limitations on what meds they can receive (although there are MA plans that are managed care, and do have limitations). If the taxpayer is providing healthcare to others, I think they should at least be bound by the same rules as those of us working for our healthcare benefits.

[alwaysconservative]

Great article! One wonders how long those of the "obstructionist" bent will take before coming on to bash Newt (Newt, for gosh sakes!) as a liberal. This conservative happens to believe the reform to a broken and inefficient system is worth more than the temporary increase in cost.

[alwaysconservative]

If the taxpayer is providing healthcare to others, I think they should at least be bound by the same rules as those of us working for our healthcare benefits.

Now I wholeheartedly agree with THAT!

[nonliberal]

Newt the Wonder Twerp is a turncoat. This bill would be a disaster. He needs to actually look at the proposal before he shills for Bush.

[sourcery]

Just say no!

[jackbill]

This "obstructionist conservative" would definitely vote against this bill.

75% of seniors already have some form of prescription drug coverage, including me. My former employer pays 50% of the cost of my drugs, at no cost to me, with no deductible and no limit.

The Congress knows that many former employers will drop the coverage, now that the government will pay for it. To keep the seniors from getting pissed off, they are providing a large subsidy to those companies who promise to not drop coverage.

As usual, Congress does a dumb thing and then spends a lot of money trying to fix the problem that they created.

[randita]

The way Democrats are shrieking to high heaven, there has to be something good about this bill.

[hchutch]

Southack has explained elsewhere. But the payoff from this bill is that we have a beachhead putting us on the road to privatizing Medicare.

There are to questions that one ought to always ask:
1. What do I want?
2. How far am I willing to go to get it?

[dalereed]

Cure the problem, eliminate Medicare and all other forms of government paid for or supported health care!