Bush Signs $400 Billion Prescription Drug Program Into Law: Bush Is A BIG GOVERNMENT Republican

December.8,2003

[Howlin]

Didn't say!

[maui_hawaii]

In England.

[Guillermo]

All wars are debt financed.

I guess we'd be better off with the Taliban still in power, eh?

[onyx]

Thought you would be interested to see what one of the most conservative Senators has to say about why he, Senator Inhofe, supported the bill.

Thank you.

[deport]

Reckon this drug bill the President just signed will help him any?

[onyx]

PhiKapMom; onyx; Howlin; deport; Miss Marple; Wait4Truth

You people are hilarious--there's nothing like screwing over posterity for posterity's sake, is there?

---

Are we hilarious? I couldn't have selected better company if I tried. Thank you.

[deport]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036584/posts?

Ozzy

[Howlin]

Are we hilarious? I couldn't have selected better company if I tried. Thank you.

I just ignored it; too preachy.

Here's a great reply to it though:

To: Reagan Man

The net result of this bill will be a PRIVATIZATION of the drug benny. WHY?

The insurance industry will rush in to offer MediGap policies that make it cheaper for seasoned citizens to buy those policies rather than accept the Mediscare plan. After all, you can't have BOTH MediGap AND the Mediscare drug plan. The insurance folks would rather come up with a more attractive but less profitable MediGap drug plan than sell no policies at all. The Medicare drug plan will end up covering only those who are completely uninsurable. All the rest will find private insurance more affordable. The bottom line will likely be LESS money spent on prescription drug benefits by Mediscare.

It's actually a good approach. Which is why Teddy Kennedy is so rabidly against it.

Michael

31 posted on 12/08/2003 12:24:30 PM EST by Wright is right! (Never get excited about ANYTHING by the way it looks from behind.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Wright is right!]

The net result of this bill will be a PRIVATIZATION of the drug benny. WHY?

[onyx]

Good going, Wright. Thanks Howlin.

A good measure I've always found useful:

Whatever Edward M. Kennedy is FOR, I'm AGAINST

Whatever Edward M. Kennedy is AGAINST, I'm FOR.

[onyx]

We post Soros related articles here all the time.

Permit me to ask Liz to add your name to her ping list.

[Valentine_W]

Sure, I am always interested in Soros's activities. The only positive aspect about Soros's activity, is that he is ample fund-raising fodder, both for the RNC and various conservative advocacy groups.

I find it ironic that so many media outlets refer to Soros as being a philanthropist, while Richard Mellon Scaife is often referred to as a "right-wing" nut.

[Valentine_W]

"A good measure I've always found useful: Whatever Edward M. Kennedy is FOR, I'm AGAINST Whatever Edward M. Kennedy is AGAINST, I'm FOR."

I think this situation is a little bit more complex than what you are inferring, although the basic philosophy is correct.

As with people and acts, there is varying degrees of evil, good, better, and worse. I think that legislation often falls in the four catagories above, as does people and acts.

[billbears]

Whatever Edward M. Kennedy is FOR, I'm AGAINST. Whatever Edward M. Kennedy is AGAINST, I'm FOR.

Wait a minute that can't be right. Kennedy was for the massive education bill and Bush signed that. Kennedy was for some form of healthcare, just bigger than the administration wanted, and Bush signed that.

That used to be the principle here in NC, whatever Kennedy was for, you should be against. But considering our Senatorial representation and the President's lack of disagreement with these Kennedyesque spending bills, you just can't say that always can you? Because to disagree with Kennedy on everything would mean you disagree with the RNC and the administration on more than a few things

Wrap it up. Last person to leave this shell of the Republic remember to turn the lights off. We're on the train to Socialism Central. Unfortunately with this bill, it's quite evident the Democrats aren't driving the train

[billbears]

Excuse me I would like to point this out just one more time

Adding in the projected shortfall of the current Medicare program, the combined shortfall is:
*$132 billion in 2010,
*$276 billion in 2020, and
*$525 billion in 2030.
For 2003 through 2030, the current Medicare program faces a total shortfall of $5 trillion. The drug benefit would add approximately $2 trillion to this amount.

And of course if 'estimates' are any guidepost, the government always is much lower than the costs turn out to be. $2 trillion dollars. Simply shocking that 'conservatives' would vote for something of this magnitude

[onyx]

I'm sticking with my statement. The administration has not always pleased me, but considering the alternative, I shall once again happily cast my vote for GWB.

[billbears]

not if in 04 we get more senators

Looking for an even bigger majority? Heck what can we expect next? The Queen just opened Parliament with a speech calling for Child trust funds of 250 pounds for every child born after Sept 2002 with an extra 250 poounds going to low income children. Basically just for being born. Might as well do that too. Couldn't do anymore harm than this healthcare bill will do.

Hey az, 'Super-Duper Majority in 2004'. Like the sound of it?

[Joe_October]

...Can you show me the facts? I'm not at all convinced that the availability of drugs does anything more than defer surgery until a later time. ....

You are kidding, right? Without high blood pressure medicine, you have stroke or heart attack. Without antibiotics, you get sicker. I, myself, avoided expensive surgery with a few dollars worth of pain medicine (but that is anecdotal).

Next time your family is at the doctor be sure to tell the doctor you don't want medicine. You'll just wait until you have to go to the emergency room.

Please, some things are just too obvious. Prescription medicine is cheaper than other medical care.

You could ask will reducing the price be better than charging the full amount. That's a fair question and I think the answer is that it will cost some. But the benefit of getting competition into the system will offset that cost.

[Joe_October]

.... This bill is nothing compared to the $200 billion debt financed adventure in Iraq to build a welfare state, but it an enemy of civil society. ....

You're complaining about Iraq costing $200 Billion. What did it cost to deal with 9-11? The Terrorists attacked us and would do so again because they believe that the wouldn't fight back. Sorry to disappoint them.

Of course your analysis was complete as always. I've read that this bill is bad, that some have estimated at $40 Billion but government spending is always estimated low, that old people are stealing from the young over and over again. If that is all you have to report, why waste the bandwidth?

[azhenfud]

Hey az, 'Super-Duper Majority in 2004'. Like the sound of it?

I like the sound of "checks and balances" better, BB. Status quo "ain't working"....

[azhenfud]

Oh, BTW, that's not "everyone gets a check and future generations worry about the balances"