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

December.8,2003

[JohnGalt]

No, I was complaining about debt financing the war.

That is not a conservative tradition.

But you are mistaken, Osama's stated goal was to provoke an East vs West showdown; he was counting on a response from the United States so that his minion (totaling more than 19) could take better aim at the infidels. The Bush response was to play ball, but to strike back harder and more sustained than "Osama" and "AQ" could compensate for.

Welfare always follow warfare but some are just fine with that. I continue to post so that those who support the warfare but not the welfare that always follows take greater responsibility to be sober patriots.

[JohnGalt]

The Taliban is still in power if in a slightly different geographical location or don't you pay attention?

No, even Wilson bothered to secure funding for WW I with war bonds.

[Guillermo]

Yeah, they're in power in a few caves.

Quite a difference than being in power over the whole country, or can't you see that, you smug jerk.

[JohnGalt]

So, no, you have not been paying attention?

US turns to the Taliban

Afghan security deteriorates as Taliban regroup

Afghan Taliban active in Pakistan despite crackdown

Mullah Omar may be in Pakistan: Karzai

[NittanyLion]

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).

Will the high blood pressure meds prevent a stroke or heart attack from ever occurring? Or will it delay the incident?

I don't argue that medicine is a wonderful thing for improving the quality and length of one's life. But if you're going to cite Rx drugs as saving hospitalization costs down the road, all I'm asking for is your proof. Should be easy to provide, if the case is as clearcut as you state. Right?

[Guillermo]

Yeah, why don't you just throw a burka on your wife and head to the mosque 5 times a day for prayers.

"We can't defeat terrorism!! may as well join them!"

[Tribune7]

I'm not happy with this bill at all, but I'll crawl through broken glass to make sure a Democrat doesn't get elected next year. Some you win, some you lose.

Ditto that. Couldn't have said it better.

[JohnGalt]

That is exactly what the federalis are doing (working with radical Islam) which is why I am calling their War on Terror a bust and a fraud.

You on the other hand try to argue like a Leftie. We cannot defeat an un-defined terrorism any better than we can end rape, murder, and theft. Thus we must look internally for a solution. And that is not say there are not foreign wars that could be conducted to make 'us safer at home' but these wars should not be debt financed.

Debt financing particularly when the debt is sold to foreigners places the American economy in the hands of foreigners and that effects the ability to have a free hand in foreign policy. For example, its possible China holds enough US debt to sway an election if they chose to make economic war with the United States. Or in the case of the Middle East and South America, what would happen if the petro-dollars became petro-Euros?

Since I am a conservative I base my foreign policy leanings strictly on George Washington's Farewell Address. Did they have you read that your government education camp?

I also favor closed borders, a decentralized government, and a well-armed citizenry as the best defense. That is different than you leftwing Wilsonian view of seeking a political solution (in this case a "war" based on the Prussian Clausewitz--not an American-- that war is an extension of politics.)

I realize that in today's paradigm you have been led to believe you are a conservative, but that is simply not the case.

[FrankR]

"...Insure them from things they don't even own. GOP is now officially the cradle(No Child Left Behind) to grave(prescription drugs) party."

You have a point, but on the other hand, all we have heard from the rATS in recent years is how "the GOP is trying to starve seniors, or take away their SS and medicare.".

Now, in this greedy society that we now live in, it's either play hardball and give the seniors nothing at all. If the Pubbies don't do it, the rATS will.

Let the rATS get in there and institute hillary's "socialized medicine"...and the cost of that will make what Dubya has spent, pale in comparison. Not to mention giving the rATS total control over a major portion of the economy and socialized medicine almost always results in lousy healthcare.

So it seems to be the less of two evils, especially when confronted with the enormous, aging, baby boomer population. The President is making good on his campaign promise to overhaul medicare; it will probably be done in stages and this is stage 1. Prescription drugs ARE out of sight, and something needs to be done.

It seems that some in this thread are just jumping on the "bash-Bush" bandwagon. To the stealthrATS (RINO's) Bush can't do anything right anyway.

[aristeides]

Interesting paragraph from pp. xxiii-xxiv of Dr. Tom Coburn's new book, Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders:

Once the Republicans lost the government shutdown battle of 1995 to 1996, winning the next election became more important than risking our majority to fight for the principles that propelled us into power. Lott's argument about waiting to work toward good government after his political position was more secure [after the next election] was the line of reasoning career politicians have always used to justify the cowardice of political expediency. When good government is something to be pursued tomorrow, that tomorrow never arrives; it is always after the next election cycle. In the eyes of career politicians, the perfect political moment for change is a mirage that is always just over the horizon.

[JohnGalt]

I am glad Coburn escaped DC while there was still time.

He is too good a man to be wasting his talents in that swamp.

[FirstPrinciple]

You mean the campaign promise that said he won't spend federal money for fetal stem-cell research or sign CFR. In fact, I can recall that he said it will be signed over his dead body.

[Joe_October]

Proof such as it is.

Joe gets kidney stone. Surgury to remove stone $15K.

Pill to ease pain, allow stone to pass $1.

Savings to insurance $14,999.

Stone is gone. Medicine worked.

Problem eventually occurs is your logic for why you wouldn't give someone hypertension medicine. You're a cold fellow. I agree that there needs to be some logic but the majority of medicine does improve quality of life. If you think taking a knife to someone is preferrable to taking a pill where possible, you are blind man.

Sorry, I don't have time to do a detailed breakdown for someone who will not accept it. And sorry the media won't or can't help with such an analysis. So, I have to believe that Delay, Bush, Frist, my gut (and lying eyes) are right or Hillary, Ted Kennedy, or CNN are right.

I wish someone would do a real analysis and report the truth but until then, I know who I believe.

[NittanyLion]

Sorry, I don't have time to do a detailed breakdown for someone who will not accept it.

I certainly would accept the results of a legitimate analysis. Frankly I don't know what the answer is, and freely admit it. And since you stated, "The real facts are that people who get prescription medicine need less surgury and hospital care." I assume you did have the facts. What you're telling me now is that what you have aren't "real facts". Rather, it's your assumption - which may or may not be correct.

Honestly I find it rather strange that you assert something to be "fact", I ask for your evidence, and immediately you call me "cold", insinuate that I wouldn't accept the analysis anyway, and claim I'd prefer taking a knife to someone instead of giving them medication. Next time you think something to be true, say that as opposed to claiming it is true.

[Joe_October]

....insinuate that I wouldn't accept the analysis anyway, and claim I'd prefer taking a knife to someone instead of giving them medication...

Perhaps you didn't read my post. I PERSONALLY have benefited from medicine over surgury as has my insurance company. So, it is not improbable.

Further, I PERSONALLY have talked to Doctors who indicated that treating illness with medicine is significantly better for patients rather than putting them in hospitals.

Giving no coverage limits what the medical community can do.

To say that medicine does not improve the quality of care is idiotic. My doctor gives me medicine over medical treatment as does the doctor of everyone I know. Wait a minute, it's a grand conspiracy to wring more money out of us. My doctor secretly knows that I'll be back to get the care that my prescription medicine isn't fixing.

Pick at a thread to justify your narrow minded opinion if you like but I'm guessing you haven't read the bill either and have no clue what the implications are. All this rhetoric about cost is just rhetoric.

Let's just buy our all our medicine from Canada. That is just as likely to solve the problem as whining about it.

But, we can agree that the media is useless. Or, there would be a complete analysis. That would be the same media that picked the points that everyone is whining about.

[NittanyLion]

Perhaps you didn't read my post. I PERSONALLY have benefited from medicine over surgury as has my insurance company. So, it is not improbable. Further, I PERSONALLY have talked to Doctors who indicated that treating illness with medicine is significantly better for patients rather than putting them in hospitals.

Thanks for the anecdotes...very interesting. But of course they have no bearing on this thread.

To say that medicine does not improve the quality of care is idiotic.

Of course it is. And oddly enough, I never said that. Did you read what I said?

Pick at a thread to justify your narrow minded opinion if you like but I'm guessing you haven't read the bill either and have no clue what the implications are. All this rhetoric about cost is just rhetoric.

Actually, I read this bill in full. Let's review our prior conversation: you claimed providing medicines will save cost over the term of a patient's life. I asked for the evidence. You've done nothing but attack from that point forward.

Let's just buy our all our medicine from Canada. That is just as likely to solve the problem as whining about it.

I'm not sure where buying medicine from Canada entered the conversation. Perhaps that's thrown in to distract me from the actual topic at hand?

But, we can agree that the media is useless. Or, there would be a complete analysis. That would be the same media that picked the points that everyone is whining about.

So now you're admitting that there is no complete analysis of whether providing Rx drugs will reduce total cost over a patient's lifetime. Why didn't you just say that up front, instead of claiming you had the definitive answer?

[Joe_October]

Your argument is silly. It is not practical for me to analyze to cost of millions of patients over several decades to answer your question. And you know that. Your debating skills are exquisite. Hooray the victor. You must be right because I cannot perform thousands of hours worth of analysis.

Whoops, sorry, you didn't prove your point either. You just proposed it was not effective. You can't prove it either.

Yet, my personal experience as well as yours is that it is more effective.

Men that I trust over anonymous posters on the Internet also believe it.

Men that I don't trust are opposed.

I gotta' stand somewhere and for now, it's easy for me.

[NittanyLion]

Whoops, sorry, you didn't prove your point either. You just proposed it was not effective. You can't prove it either.

Let's be clear. You asserted your position as fact. I asked for the proof and freely admitted I don't know the answer. I merely stated the case may not be as clearcut as you claimed.

You've since admitted that you have no data to back up your position. And hey, that's fine - neither do I. That's why I say up front I don't know. Until you do know, I suggest you do the same in order to avoid further confusion.

I guess I'm just a stickler for bringing data to support your assertions of fact.

[Joe_October]

Perhaps the words were too hard for you. In the abscence of a complete analysis which we will only see after the fact, I have:

...Yet, my personal experience as well as yours is that it is more effective.

Men that I trust over anonymous posters on the Internet also believe it.

Men that I don't trust are opposed.

I can't "know" everything but I can conclude enough to get to understand what is the best course.