Posted on 11/25/2003 9:59:43 AM PST by Mark Felton
Rush has spent the last several minutes likening Bush to Nixon. Nixon gave us OSHA and the EPA. Bush is giving us Prescription Medicine benefits for seniors.
Rush says the Republican party cannot claim to be the party of smaller government.
This sounds likme the OLD Rush of 10 years ago!
Go Get Em Rush!
You are right...and, I'm sorry, but it's also why he will be overwhelmingly elected...your beef isn't with Bush...it's with a government-money addicted electorate. Just keep remembering this, when you are contemplating a non-Pubbie vote...
"it's about the judges".
The Dems know this, it's why they are risking all on the filibusters...
I don't think "voluntary" is applicable to that "little" rise workers will be seeing in that "Medicare" deduction taken from them every pay period.
Will 2006 also afford those "conservative" lawmakers a nice salary increase? Prolly.
Be sure you go to the second page, which discusses Medicare reform, medical savings accounts, etc.
I've read the entire bill. The MSAs are a big positive, and eventually healthcare will need to be handled in that manner so that deductibles can be raised. I've also read the sections on privatization, and it's far from certain that it will happen. Indeed, I'd say it's more likely it doesn't happen.
Unfortunately for conservatives, we've once again ceded the argument. Previously the question was "Do we need a prescription drug benefit?"; it's now "How big should the benefit be?" I see a lot of folks claiming we have a beachhead in the fight for privatization, yet as I see it the Dems have gained a beachhead in the fight for ever-larger entitlement programs.
Bottom line: The program has expanded, of that we're 100%certain. That the program will become privatized is conjecture, we can argue about the percentages, but it's clearly well below 100%. Personally, I don't like the odds.
The government now has an "obligation" to see to it that seniors have affordable prescription drugs. While moving all seniors to a free market solution would be a great solution, I'm afraid the more likely solution is that the government will lower premiums and deductibles and raise the coverage percentages under Medicare. The clamor will now be that the government plan is too weak - and it will be particularly loud from the people currently on private plans who will lose coverage and be forced to accept a worse Medicare plan.
How will politicians answer those calls? My bet is that they'll revamp the system to provide for more coverage, rather than tell seniors to go back to private coverages. Alternatively, they'll begin price setting precription drug costs, which is little better than the first alternative I posed. And I'd submit that, in the case of virtually every other entitlement program ever enacted, history is on my side.
I have said earlier on this thread that there are a lot of things to be done to fix the health care system, and not all of them involve the government.
This coverage was going to come whether you had a Republican or a Democrat as president. The only difference is whether there is reform to accompany it. The Republicans delivered on that.
When you heard "prescription drug coverage for seniors" during the campaign, what did you think it meant? Simple Miss Marple knew it would involve spending money. Did you think the feds were going to forcibly take drugs from pharmaceutical companies? Did you think the feds werre going to pass a law making the elderly's children pay? What in the world did you think it meant?
I would've hoped for Medicare reform absent prescription drugs. I'm not sure where the conclusion that "it was coming regardless" is drawn from, but I'd expect a GOP-controlled Congress and White House to act with a bit more restraint. I suppose by this time I shouldn't be surprised, however. The discretionary spending figures are disheartening, to say the least.
The only difference is whether there is reform to accompany it.
I've seen that argument a lot, hence the point I originally was trying to make to Dane. The reform component is tiny. I find it unlikely it will ever be of any import. Yet supporters of the bill continue to reference that insignificant section while downplaying the $400 billion elephant that is this bill. Doing so is denial in a grand scale, IMHO.
However, it doesn't matter what I think as an individual. You need to realize that there are millions who think they are not, that medical care is a right, and that those people have a vote equal to yours.
Now, the President could use his bully pulpit to push this position and make a stand. Opposite him would be all the senior citizen organizations, the entire Rat organization, the media, and cluless people (of which there are a lot).
So, he would make a stand, lose a lot of votes, and probably lose the election. In which case you would get Dean and socialized medicine.
OR, he could give seniors a little bit of what they are asking for, get a bill passed, and probably win the election.
Now, which do you want, because those are your only two choices?
Why do you continue to exaggerate the numbers?
This legislation authorizes $39.5 Billion per year for ten years. Any additional funds will require ADDITONAL legislation.
If you want to attack that additional legislation, please feel free to do so, should such legislation ever be proposed.
But if you want to stick to the debate on this Medicare reform legislation, then please stick to the facts at hand.
Based on the historical evidence at hand, the expansion of this program is easily foreseeable. How many entitlement programs have decreased in size/scope over time?
It sounds nice to tell people they should wait and complain if/when the time comes, but the reality is that it's at this time that we've ceded the argument to the liberals. All that remains is bickering about the proper size of this program, and any reasonable person will agree that the bickering will only consist of how much to expand it.
False dilemma. There's a third option: Bush could offer to reform Medicare without adding the prescription drug benefit, put his reputation for integrity to good use in explaining why he chose this action, and still get reelected.
Nonsense. This bill sets in motion the Privatization of Medicare. How is the expansion of a Private program easily forseeable?!
Therefor, either argue the actual numbers in this bill, or else admit that you are arguing about speculative straw men that may never even come to pass. Is your argument so weak that you have to invent numbers, after all, or can you make your case based upon what is written in the current bill?
I'm going with 1 trillion to be near the low end. Look at the original cost estimates of other entitlements SSI and Medicare at their inception.
Well, let me see. I have to limit my case to only the numbers in the bill, yet you get to speculate about privatization that may or may not come to pass?
I read you loud and clear. LOL.
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.