Why Medicare Expansion Threatens the Bush Tax Cuts and Undermines Fundamental Tax Reform

The Heritage Foundation ^ | July 25, 2003 | Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.

[NittanyLion]

I've read it in its entirety, as well as most articles on the topic.

Was that an attempt to avoid answering the details in my post?

[Pukin Dog]

I think you should read it again.

[dalereed]

"what makes you think that Medicare will be gone in 10 years"

Hopefully we will get a conservative Supreme Court that will rule on the basis of the Constitution AS WRITTEN and all social programs including SS and Medicare will be thrown out as unconstitutional.

[NittanyLion]

All bluster, no facts.

I understand it just fine, although your claim that Medicare will not exist in 10 years demonstrates quite well that you either haven't read it or are incapable of comprehending it. Either way, you're not worth listening to.

Feel free to address my #13 whenever you like...I won't hold my breath though...

[FirstPrinciple]

If that is the case, then why is it that every estimate of this bill suggests that it will cost more and more into the future. What happens when private health insurers start dropping people who are too expensive to cover? To operate efficiently, they must be allowed to charge higher premiums which will meet stiff resistance from the senior lobby. Also, the "demonstration project" suffers from key problems.

1. It doesn't even start until 2010.
2. It only takes place in 6 metropolitan areas, and not the whole country. There is no guarantee it will be taken up by the rest of the country.
3. Most importantly, various providers who wanted to be insulated from both price competition and congressional micro-management or obstruction have deliberately undermined previous Medicare demonstration projects.If you want to know why demonstration projects like this fail, read this:http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/BG1708.cfm

[FirstPrinciple]

Yeah...and if pigs could fly.

[dalereed]

Since all federal social programs are unquestionably unconstitutional why shouldn't they be ruled so by the court.

All it takes is a court majority that believes in the Constitution.

Im sure with the right court makeup the funds could be put together to launch a law suit.

[FirstPrinciple]

You are more idealistic than I am. No social program has been ruled unconstitutional in the last 60 years. If there hasn't been a "truly" conservative court in the last 60 years, what are the odds you will see one in this lifetime.

[KriegerGeist]

Whether under Republican or Democratic control, limited [or reduced] government is non-existent. Government size is growing as is government bureaucracy and government entitlements.

The Republicans had the chance to reform taxes in this nation to either be a flat tax or a consumption tax.

The Reppublicans had a chance to reform [or totally faze out]Social Security to resemble the Galviston, Texas model of opting out and privatizing the whole thing [with a safety net for seniors who can't start over].

The Republicans had a chance to close down and do away with many bloated and corrupt departments and agencies and trim down government.

The "Republican Contract With America" is dead and buried.

The wrote these words:

"Like Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act 'with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.' To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves."

Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

Here are a few of the points of the "Contract" gone by the wayside:

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. I would add: There should be two 4-year terms for Presidents; two 6-year terms for Senators and four 2-year terms for Representatives.

The difference is that Republicans are just slower than Democrats at taking this nation to big-government Socialism

[dalereed]

A good start would be to elect a Republican President that isn't "compassionate"!

[rdb3]

Hopefully we will get a conservative Supreme Court that will rule on the basis of the Constitution AS WRITTEN...

That wouldn't be a good thing for me, personally.

[FirstPrinciple]

I had no idea about the price-tag of compassionism.

[inquest]

That wouldn't be a good thing for me, personally.

Why's that? In any case, it's their job to rule on the basis of the Constitution as written. Hopefully you're not suggesting that they should disrespect their responsibilities. That might not be a good thing for you personally, either.

[rdb3]

Why's that? In any case, it's their job to rule on the basis of the Constitution as written.

Because I'd cease being a citizen and will be 0.6 of a person again.

As written, you say?

[meenie]

I don't know why everybody is so opposed to prescription drug benefits being added to our socialist system. The quicker we bankrupt this system, the quicker we can go back to a functioning government. It will probably take a revolution in the process of returning to a Republic, but it will be a blessing in the long run.

[jagrmeister]

Heritage has been taking an extreme position, in my view, on this. You can't preserve political power by constantly doing unpopular things like denying medical coverage to seniors. If you don't maintain power, you can't fulfill the other 99% of your agenda. I'm not dead set against every single government program, some are useful. I think Bush made the right move in this case- both policy-wise and politically.

[inquest]

Yes, as written. See the 14th amendment. What you describe is utterly contrary to what's written.

And even if, as some people charge, the 14th amendment was improperly enacted, the only way you'd be counted as 3/5 of a person is if you somehow became a slave. The 13th amendment would have something to say about that.

[inquest]

The quicker we bankrupt this system, the quicker we can go back to a functioning government.

Unless, of course, the bankrupting of the system will cause an economic meltdown followed by rationing and martial law. One very correct thing Hitler once said is that war is like entering a dark room. I would add that with revolution, the room's even darker.

[meenie]

Tell me more, what is the other 99% of the agenda that Bush is promoting? If Aids to Africa, No child left behind for twenty billion each, Homeland Insecurity for 80 bil, Iraq supplemental for 87 bil only represents 1%, I don't want to see the remainder of his agenda. Half a trillion of unfunded spending is enough for me. I don't need any more agenda.

[inquest]

You can't preserve political power by constantly doing unpopular things like denying medical coverage to seniors.

That doesn't make it right. He may do what he feel he needs to do, but we have to do what we need to do - namely speak up against more socialistic impositions on the economy. If he feels the heat from seniors, he should feel it from us, too. Remember also that seniors aren't the only political constituency in this country. There's also all the people who are going to be bilked for these handouts, either directly through taxes, or indirectly through debt. They need to be made aware of what's going on.