Posted on 11/22/2003 9:39:01 PM PST by sruleoflaw
Dear fellow conservatives:
The die has been cast. The Republican Party, once the party of limited government and lower taxes, has decided overwhelmingly to cast its lot with the largest expansion of the federal government since Lyndon Baines Johnson.
I have spoken with leading anti-tax officials in Washington, D.C. and they tell me we have only a 10 percent chance of stopping this Medicare prescription drug boondoggle. I would urge you to call California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Louisiana Sen. John Breaux, the Republican leadership in the Senate (Sen. Bill Frist) (toll-free number to the Capitol switchboard is 800-648-3516 or 202-224-3121) and MORE THAN ANYTHING to inundate the White House with calls to defeat the GOP Medicare prescription drug plan. You can call the White House (202-456-1111 and press "1" twice to get a comment line operator), call talk radio shows, forward this email to others, post it on the Free Republic website and do anything else you can. No bill is better than this bill. The House has already passed the measure; it is before the Senate; and sadly, I believe President Bush will sign it without a tidal wave of opposition.
There are many superb things that President Bush and the GOP Congress have done -- fighting the war on terror, the president's tax cuts, nominating and confirming many excellent judicial nominations. But the GOP (once the party of fiscal conservatism) has presided over the largest federal government expansion in the last past half-century.
As the Heritage Foundation notes, "The federal government will spend $21,000 per household in 2003, up from $16,000 in 1999. Adjusting for inflation, this amounts to the largest four-year expansion of government in more than 50 years. Not since World War II has Washington spent more per household than now." Please don't console yourself by believing that most of this increase has gone to the war on terrorism; it hasn't, but to bloated education and farm bills, and others.
Let the words of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey resonate: "This bill will add at least $400 billion in deficits over the coming decade. Worse, (the) AARP and others have made it quite clear that they see this bill as just the opening gambit. They will be back, year after year, petitioning Congress to massively expand this already oversized new entitlement. Hillary Clinton's wish for ever-increasing government control over the American health care system will come true" (AND BE DONE BY REPUBLICANS). The last five words are my words insert.
In conclusion, let me share this paragraph from the lead editorial in Thursday's Wall Street Journal entitled "Entitlements are Forever":
"As Congressmen are by now well aware, 75% of Medicare beneficiaries already have some kind of drug coverage. That's why they have devoted about a fifth of the resources in their bill toward bribing employers not to drop the benefit. An estimate from the National Center for Policy Analysis suggests that only one of every 16 dollars spent in this bill would go toward purchasing drugs seniors otherwise would not have had. The rest simply displaces spending by the private sector and state Medicaid programs. We wonder how many seniors will thank Republicans when they learn that their new Medicare benefit is worse than their current one.
By the way, a recent survey of seniors (conducted by Basswood Research) shows that 81 percent of seniors are "satisified" with their current drug coverage. I have no problem with a small effort, such as a senior drug discount card or low-income subsidy. I cannot and I will not support this bill, the largest expansion of the federal government since LBJ. Please join me in registering your strong and vocal opposition.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Entitlements Are Forever Republicans make a bad deal on Medicare.
Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
The GOP's free-market Medicare reformers are wondering what to make of their leadership's deal on a prescription drug benefit. Let us suggest one way of looking at it: as an awfully high price to pay for expanded Health Savings Accounts.
Try as we might, we just don't see much else besides HSAs to be enthusiastic about in the 10-year "$400 billion" (yeah, right) package heading for votes shortly in the House and Senate. True, conservatives can claim some symbolic victories on means testing and deductibles, which Newt Gingrich stretches into epic virtues nearby. But the bottom line is that the bill would add a universal drug entitlement to a largely unreformed Medicare program.
That's the same Medicare program the White House Office of Management and Budget labeled "the real fiscal danger" in a report earlier this year, noting that it is expected to spend $13 trillion more in current dollars over the next 75 years than its payroll tax and premiums will take in. OMB estimated that adding a drug benefit would worsen that picture by something like $7 trillion.
Ever since the bipartisan Medicare commission of the late 1990s, every serious person in Washington has understood that the least painful way to address this looming problem is to move Medicare toward a premium-support model. Seniors would apply a government contribution to the purchase of different insurance policies offered by the private market. Yes, they would be asked to share some of the cost of their coverage choices. But they would be assured access to benefit packages (including prescription drugs, and who knows what future innovations) that evolve naturally in response to market demand, not once-in-a-generation political brawls. American medicine would in turn be progressively freed from the destructive shackles of federal price controls.
But as this year's Medicare debate wore on, our courageous leaders shrank from asking grandparents to make the trade-offs the rest of us do. Out first went President Bush's idea of tying the drug benefit to participation in a private Medicare plan. Out next went Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas's modest proposal to ask seniors remaining in traditional Medicare to pay a little extra if it costs more.
Instead of nationwide price competition between government and private plans beginning in 2010, as envisioned in the House version of the Medicare bill, the conference deal envisions it as a time-limited "demonstration" in at most six metropolitan areas. The history of political interference with similar experiments offers little hope of success.
Nor should House conservatives be fooled by the addition of a phony cost-containment "trigger," which would require an unspecified "Congressional response" once general revenues (i.e., revenues beyond the payroll tax) account for 45% of program spending. Let us try to get the logic of this one straight: Representatives are supposed to feel better about voting for this bill because it acknowledges they're passing the buck to a future Congress?
The authors of this drug bill do deserve credit for proposals that promise, in the short run at least, to substantially strengthen the role of private insurers in Medicare. Medicare Plus Choice (M+C), the current HMO option, is slated for a much-needed cash infusion. A new program would open the door for preferred-provider networks--the less restrictive doctor networks that now cover many working Americans--to participate in Medicare. The number of such providers is not limited (as in earlier drafts), and the conference agreement appears to guarantee plan payment at least equal to the cost of traditional Medicare.
All in all, Medicare Administrator Tom Scully tells us he expects that 35% of Medicare beneficiaries would enroll in private plans within a few years of the program's implementation. He may be right, and we hope he is. The experience of M+C shows that private plans can offer attractive benefit packages when adequately funded, and that beneficiaries will enroll. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates a much lower take-up rate, in part because the drug benefit would no longer be a unique selling point of the private plans. The experience of Medicare Plus Choice also shows that the fate of private plans is at the mercy of regulatory and funding decisions. Since peaking at 16.1% of the Medicare population in 1999, M+C enrollment has dropped to 11.7% as Congress squeezed funding and providers dropped out. The private plans created by this new bill could likewise end up being strangled--either by a penny-wise, pound-foolish GOP Congress facing large future budget deficits due to runaway Medicare spending, or by a Democratic Administration ideologically intent on killing them.
Do Republicans really want to gamble on committing the country to an unending drug entitlement in the hopes they'll control Washington long enough to midwife these private plans into the foundation for future reforms? Especially when that entitlement doesn't meet a pressing need?
As Congressmen are by now well aware, 75% of Medicare beneficiaries already have some kind of drug coverage. That's why they have devoted about a fifth of the resources in their bill toward bribing employers not to drop the benefit. An estimate from the National Center for Policy Analysis suggests that only one of every 16 dollars spent in this bill would go toward purchasing drugs seniors otherwise would not have had. The rest simply displaces spending by the private sector and state Medicaid programs. We wonder how many seniors will thank Republicans when they learn that their new Medicare benefit is worse than their current one.
Reluctant Congressmen also needn't be swayed by White House arguments that this bill is their only chance to do something before November 2004. They could easily regroup to pass a low-income subsidy, drug discount card and Medicare Plus Choice stabilization. If polls indicating senior unhappiness with the proposed drug benefit are accurate, that may in fact be the politically savvy thing to do.
We recognize that the U.S. is in a political race on health care, between liberal Democrats who want to socialize the system in stages and those of us who want to introduce market forces and more individual choice. One test of any specific proposal, therefore, is whether it moves in the market direction.
We had hopes that a GOP Medicare reform might do so, but this bill's fine print reveals that short-term politics has overwhelmed the policy. Republicans are offering the certainty of trillions in new entitlements in return for the mere promise of future reform, and that's too expensive a gamble for principled conservatives to support.
Senior Moment
Stephen Moore
Rep. Mike Pence the second term Indiana Republican who is heroically leading a band of conservatives in the House against the $400 billion Medicare prescription drug bill, notes that it was exactly 10 years ago this week that the Hillary Health Care Plan was revealed to the world in all its splendor and glory. When it was first unveiled, Hillary-care was widely hailed as the silver bullet to solve all our health care system woes. The plan was quickly endorsed by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
Six months later the Clinton health plan was the butt of late night talk show jokes as it lay political tatters after being universally rejected by voters. Voters turned down the socialized medicine scheme because of its complexity, high cost, and over-reliance on big government.
Now we have Republicans on the verge of repeating this fiasco, as they offer a prescription drug benefit plan that is complex, costly, reliant on big government, and enthusiastically supported by the AARP. What’s wrong with this picture?
The policy deficiencies of the prescription drug bill are by now well documented. The plan will dump roughly $2 trillion in added unfunded entitlement liabilities into the laps of our children and grandchildren on top of the $21 trillion in unfunded debt already baked in the cake. As Rep. Pence stated on the House floor a few days ago, “Our children will never forgive us for this act of financial malpractice.”
The plan could lead to as many as 4 million seniors to lose their private-employer drug coverage to be thrust unwillingly into a Medicare program that offers worse benefits than they already have. This, of course,is precisely why corporate America has so energetically embraced the plan and is spending millions of dollars in advertisements to sell the public on its virtues. This plan could lead to billions of dollars in liabilities to be erased from the balance sheets of Fortune 500 companies and then shifted onto the books of Uncle Sam. There are no real cost containment features to the bill, and as Rep. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania intimates, “almost no one in Congress really believes this plan has any chance of holding costs to anywhere near $400 billion.”
None of these fiscal realities seem to matter much to the White House or the congressional Republican leadership, which as we speak are dangling pork barrel goodies in front of the noses of conservative health care skeptics in the House to buy their acquiessence. None of this matters because Republican political strategists are convinced that this bill will earn Bush the gratitude of senior citizen voters, who will flock into the Republican column in November 2004.
This is a potentially tragic political miscalculation on the part of the GOP deep thinkers. In fact, the Medicare prescription drug bill could have just the opposite electoral effect: it could easily so antagonize legions of seniors that it could bring to an end the Republican majority in the House in 2004.
As evidence of the political unpopularity of the drug bill consider the poll results released this week by the Club for Growth. The poll of 800 seniors finds that any support that retirees have for this bill transforms into hostility when those over the age of 65 are told the full details of what this bill would actually provide. For example, when seniors are told that as many as one-in-three of them “may lose” their private drug coverage, 71% of seniors say they disapprove of the bill. When seniors are told that they will have to pay premiums of roughly $500 to $600 a year, 72% say they oppose the bill.
As the researchers at Basswood Research, which conducted the poll, conclude: “the more seniors learn about the prescription drug bill, the less they like it.” Only 19% of seniors support the bill when they are informed of the full costs and the full risks. Republicans are especially vulnerable to retribution by seniors if employers accelerate the trend already in motion of firms discontinuing the prescription drug packages in their health care plans. This may infuriate retirees, because the poll finds that 81% of them with private coverage are satisfied with that plan. These seniors are going to be as livid as late arrivers at the weekly Church bingo game, who can’t find a parking space.
The prescription drug bill is based on a faulty premise: that seniors want to swallow the pill that the Republicans are offering. That is perhaps the biggest myth in American politics today. It’s a myth that could create a Speaker Nancy Pelossi scenario in the House in 2004.
On the other hand, these poll results provide kernels of good news. If Republicans come to their senses and vote down this colossally expensive new entitlement program and replace it with a scaled back plan that just gives benefits to low-income seniors without existing coverage, they will not only be saving their children a king’s ransom, they may be saving their own political hides to boot. And we know that this latter concern trumps every other consideration for our elected officials in Washington or we wouldn’t be having this debate at all.
Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth in Washington, D.C.
Since when has that idea ever stopped a congresscritter? Kill the bill. It's SOCIALISM - if backed by Dims, X42, Hitlery, W, or anyone else - it's socialism either way.
but the fact is that America wants to keep medicare.
What America "wants" and what's good for it are often, particularly today, two entirely different things. Ostensibly, politicians should be taking this into consideration when "leading" us. If strict constitutionality were followed, it wouldn't be much of a problem, but now it's Katie bar the door for bread and circus'...
The bill is well-crafted and encourages physicians and hospitals to compete for your healthcare dollars
Oh. WHEW! I thought they were going to spend a lot of taxpayer money on it, glad you cleared that point up... <\Sarcasm>...
The only way that socialist programs can be reversed is to legislate them out of existance. The entire program.
I don't know if we are going to see a revival of common sense, an armed revolution or an admittion of defeat as America drops off the financial cliff but I do know we will be in serious trouble shortly.
As soon as our kids realize what their parents and the Republican Party has done to them, be prepared for a butt whipping like none of us has ever seen before.
I would agree on that point, but how does this bill, all underestimated 400Billion limit the scope of Medicare?
Bush is the first Republican President since Dwight Eisenhower to enjoy outright majorities in the House and Senate. If he can't get a Bill written the way he wants it with both majorities the future is dim. He hasn't done squat about reversing any of the Executive Orders issued by Clinton. His administration reeks of Clinton personel. He can't seem to get his selected judges to the courtroom bench.
(snip) This plan could lead to billions of dollars in liabilities to be erased from the balance sheets of Fortune 500 companies and then shifted onto the books of Uncle Sam.
(snip)
For some people, personal integrity and ethics go together like bread and butter or children and toys. When we think of one the other always comes into the picture.
I wish I had studied him more before I voted because now I regret it. Voting for him was a mistake that I'll not make again.
His respect for veteran soldiers certainly isn't reflected in his budget. We had to scream and holler to get wounded soldiers to not be billed for their hospital meals. The VA needs the $15 billion he gave to Africa!
Mr. Bush had promised the American people to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending. He said he would support the 2nd Amendment. I sure haven't seen any sign of these yet.
He had promised not to raid the $175 billion surplus in the nation’s pension trust fund except in times of war, recession or a national emergency. Now he has all three going and our trade deficit with China continues to reach peaks that Republican Senators and Congressmen promised us would never happen.
He pledged that he would provide no bailouts for Latin American nations.
Isn't leaving our Southern border open 24/7 a bailout for Mexico? You're damn right it is!
Then he okayed a $30 billion 'rescue loan' for Brazil, presumably because the collapse of Brazil's economy would have caused serious problems for Wall Street and his personal friends . I'll bet this turns into a loan that will be written off by Washington leaving it for us to pay with interest.
Oh Yeah, He's a great guy but a lousy President.
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.