Posted on 12/08/2003 8:47:55 AM PST by Reagan Man
President Bush has made it official. By signing into law the new Medicare Prescription Drug Program, the President has given his approval to the largest increase in spending by the federal government since Medicare itself was created and signed into law by the liberal Democrat, President Johnson in 1965. The President has given his okay to raise government expenditures by $400 billion over the next ten years. We all know spending on this Medicare PDP, will not stop at $400 billion. As with all government entitlement programs, the costs to run this new addition to the federal bureaucracy will double or triple over the next ten years.
Bush does win on the politics, but its not a political victory for conservatives or for the GOP in the long term. Medicare is not on the road to privatization.
Throwing money at problems is the way liberal Democrats solved things throughout the 1960`s and 1970`s. That's how the governments entitlement programs grew to over 60% of the current budgetary expenditures. Most traditional conservatives don't oppose assisting the elderly poor, the seriously handicapped or America's military veterans. However, this addition to Medicare, is a boondoggle for government, the drug companies and financially secure seniors.
In the 2000 election campaign, candidate Bush ran on reforming Medicare. His plan called for $158 billion program that assisted the elderly poor, while injecting a much needed modernization phase into the system. What the President signed into law today, was not what he ran on in 2000. President Bush has proven, he is a BIG GOVERNMENT Republican.
The Hertitage Foundation did a solid analysis on the new Mediacre-PDP. You can find it here, Why Medicare Expansion Threatens the Bush Tax Cuts and Undermines Fundamental Tax Reform . Robert Samualson wrote a good piece on the subject. Medicare as Pork Barrel. Here's another good article, Analysts: Medicare Drug Costs Will Rise.
A snippet from the Heritage Foundation analysis.
The Medicare prescription drug proposal is bad health policy, exacerbating the flaws in a system that has almost no market-based incentives to improve service and control costs. But the House and Senate bills also will undermine sound tax and economic policy in several ways. Specifically:
The size of government will expand
A new entitlement will take America even faster down the road that has caused so much economic damage in Europe's welfare states. Indeed, the unfunded Medicare expansion is essentially a huge future tax increase since the population of Medicare recipients will nearly double once the baby-boom generation retires. Ironically, just when some European countries are waking up to the problem and restraining unfunded entitlements, America will be creating an enormous new entitlement.
President Bush's recently enacted tax cut and tax reform package will likely be the first casualty
Because of arcane budget rules, the bulk of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2008 and the end of 2010. Extending these tax cuts or making them permanent will be enormously difficult in an environment of skyrocketing spending for government-provided health care. Indeed, the creation of a prescription drug entitlement may be akin to repealing the Bush tax cuts.
By adding to the deficit, the huge new unfunded liability will likely be the death knell of further tax relief and fundamental tax reform
A prescription drug benefit means bigger deficits--a problem that will intensify as the baby boomers start to retire in the next decade. Once these demographic and fiscal variables become part of the budget forecast, lawmakers seeking to cut taxes and create a simple and fair tax code, such as the flat tax, in all probability will face insurmountable political obstacles.
Thank you.
I just ignored it; too preachy.
Here's a great reply to it though:
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
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.