Posted on 12/08/2003 12:25:37 PM PST by snopercod
President Bush signed legislation today that creates a prescription drug benefit for the elderly, launching the biggest changes to the Medicare system since its creation in 1965.
"For the first time, we're giving seniors peace of mind that they will not have to face unlimited expenses for their medicine," Mr. Bush said just before sitting down at a desk in Constitution Hall, near the White House, and signing the new law, surrounded by applauding supporters and an audience of several hundred people. Presidential bill signings typically are set at the White House, on smaller scale.
The bill, which the government estimates will cost $400 billion over 10 years, would remake Medicare in part by offering drug benefits to 40 million elderly and disabled people while giving insurance companies and private health plans a huge new role in Medicare. The legislation also allows the elderly to set up health accounts in which they can set aside money tax free to pay for future health care.
Mr. Bush hailed the legislation in a televised 20-minute warm-up speech today, offering case studies of elderly people in the audience who he said would be among those to benefit from the Medicare overhaul.
The Republican-controlled Congress gave final approval to the bill on Nov. 25 when the Senate, voting 54 to 44, passed the measure, handing the president a political victory on an issue that has historically worked to the advantage of Democrats.
Eleven Senate Democrats, most of them moderates, joined 42 Republicans and one independent in voting for the legislation; 9 Republicans and 35 Democrats voted against it.
Republicans hope to embrace the legislation as political leverage in the coming election year. Even though a majority of Democrats voted against it, Mr. Bush said that its passage with at least a modicum of Democratic support showed that old partisan differences had been overcome to fulfill a promise to the elderly.
The Medicare overhaul comes at a time when the older segment of the population is growing rapidly, meaning the number of older voters will also be increasing.
"I visited with seniors around the country and heard many of their stories," Mr. Bush said today. "I'm proud that this legislation will give them practical and much-needed help."
But the legislation is not without its critics. Opponents think it risks undermining traditional Medicare, and there have been complaints that the coverage will not be comprehensive.
Medicare beneficiaries will not be allowed to buy insurance to cover their share of prescription drug costs under the new Medicare bill. Health economists have long asserted that when beneficiaries are insulated from the costs, they tend to overuse medical services.
AARP, the largest organization of older Americans, backed the legislation over the objections of some of its members and traditional allies in the debate on the proper role of government and private markets in providing health care to the elderly.
"This bill helps those who need it the most people with low incomes, as well as those with high drug costs," said AARP's chief executive, William D. Novelli, whose endorsement of the bill was crucial to its passage.
The new benefit, covering about 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 a year, would begin in 2006. Next year, Medicare beneficiaries could buy Medicare-approved drug discount cards, which officials say could reduce pharmacy bills by 15 percent or more.
When the bill passed the Senate last month, several Democrats charged that it would enrich insurance and drug companies at the expense of the elderly, who, Democrats said, would would be angry when they learned details of the bill.
"This is lousy legislation," said Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, the Senate minority leader. "We may spend the rest of our careers repairing the flaws of this bill." Mr. Daschle later introduced legislation that would repeal some of the new legislation's more contentious provisions and allow Americans to import cheaper drugs from Canada and Western Europe.
Under the bill, a Medicare beneficiary would be responsible for the first $250 of drug costs, and insurance would then cover 75 percent of costs up to $2,250 a year. Coverage would then stop until the beneficiary had spent $3,600 out of pocket (for a total of $5,100 in prescription drugs). Medicare would pay 95 percent of the cost of each prescription beyond that.
A Medicare recipient could stay in traditional Medicare and get drug coverage by signing up for a stand-alone drug insurance policy. Or the person could join a private plan covering drugs along with doctors' services and hospital care.
Elderly people with low incomes would receive additional assistance enabling them to buy drugs for $1 to $5 a prescription. Premiums and deductibles for their drug coverage would be reduced or eliminated.
Medicare beneficiaries with incomes of more than $80,000 a year would, for the first time, have to pay higher premiums for the part of Medicare that covers doctors' care.
The bill would also increase Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals, speed the marketing of lower-cost generic drugs and offer tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to employers to encourage them to continue providing drug coverage to retirees. The bill also emphasizes preventive health care.
Millions of Medicare beneficiaries have bought private insurance to fill gaps in Medicare. But a provision of the legislation prohibits the sale of any Medigap policy that would help pay drug costs after Jan. 1, 2006, when the new Medicare drug benefit becomes available.
Banning Partial Birth Abortion, signing two laws to arm pilots, reforming Medicare with a half dozen Privatization options, cutting our income taxes so much that a family of four earning forty thousand per year only pays fourty-five Dollars per year in federal income taxes, giving three pay raises to our military, and CONSTRUCTING our ABM nuclear defense systems are a "domestic disaster" to you?!
Say hello to Planet DU for me when you get back there kid.
There's no need for you to beg and plead. If you want *me* to do your homework for you by showing you at least one Clinton XO that forced federal agencies to behave as if the U.S. Senate had ratified the Kyoto Global Warming treaty (even though it never did), then *all* that you have to do is to commit to giving President Bush full and complete credit for killing that treaty (as soon as I deliver the evidence).
If you can't make that commitment, then why should I spend any time at all on you. After all, if you aren't going to give credit even when evidence is given to you (and to this point you've certainly not wanted to give any), then why *should* I waste my time with you?
Notice that you are arguing *outside* the scope of the actual law itself.
Why is that? Ask yourself, if your argument was really very strong, would you have to resort to arguing outside the actual law with hypotheticals?
It's a ten year law. This law authorizes $39.5 Billion per year.
If you can't make your point that this law is bad based upon the real numbers, then just what are you really arguing? And why...
As am I. In fact, the thought that this is what really makes the Democrats upset thrills me no end. Just think, all those HSAs filled with money they can't spend and which makes us less dependent on government for our medical expenses. It can even be left to our families, because it's our own earned and saved money that we get to keep under our control. This part alone is what is the true reforming of Medicare.
You have a lot more faith in the courts (particularly when so many of them are filled with Clinton appointees) than I do. What XOs have the courts thrown out from the Clinton Administration? It would be interesting to see what has happened to the various Presidents' XOs after they were out of office.
Just learn to say that republican big govt socialism is good.
It's that democrat big govt socialism which is bad.
After all, "Ignorance is strength."
Regards
J.R.
All I know is that W has taken America further and faster down the road to socialism than clinton ever did (see my tagline). He just saddled future generations with the biggest "entitlement" program since LBJ.
He has essentially nationalized the airline industry in America.
He has ignored his oath of office just as much or more than clinton did. The CFR bill he signed trampled the First Amendment, and the (misnamed) Patriot Act is busy trampling the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth.
But hey, look at the bright side. So far, anyway, we're safe from the threat of quartering soldiers in private homes.
You spoke of security. The security of America comes from the preparedness of it's informed, armed and vigilant citizens, not from an army of unionized drones at airports in a make-work program like the TSA.
The security of America comes from a vibrant economy - one with people who know how to acually design and build things, not just shuffle papers and manipulate symbols on a computer screen.
The masthead here at FR says "We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."
Are we?
I'd say that selling oneself as a conservative then acting like a socialist when elected to office qualifies as fraud, wouldn't you? Why aren't we trying to root it out?
And notwithstanding his tax cut which is only temporary, please name one part of government largesse that has been "rolled back" under Bush. Why are we not outraged?
And please tell me how selling out the conservative base in America is "futhering the cause of conservatism"? I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding that one.
GWB didn't ban PBA, the Congress did that.....but you knew that, didn't you? And so on....
Say hello to Planet DU for me when you get back there kid.
Well, the power of that statement leaves me just breathless. Actually, I've been a FReeper longer than you have, but then I am not a brain-dulled citizen of Bushbotland.
You got those talking points down pat.....you been practicing??
With that kind of response, (issuing a personal attack re: "tenure" on the forum instead of arguing his post with some reasonable points) one may mistake you as a newbie.
No, we have the lip-synching fraud, George Herbert Walker Bush to thank for that mess.
84 posted on 12/08/2003 4:36:10 PM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
----------------------------------
When you're bragging about Jorge Delano Bush's legislative prowlness, including his strengthening our southern borders, don't forget to mention that little addition tucked away in the Medicare Bill that is 1 BILLION dollars to cover the healthcare costs of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!
So alot of families can't afford to purchase healthcare coverage , but we can give it to the elderly and Illegals for free.
Welcome to the Compassionate Conservative Platform, SAME AS THE DEMOCRAT PLATFORM. Stick it to the working man, and roll over on social issues.
84 posted on 12/08/2003 4:36:10 PM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
----------------------------------
When you're bragging about Jorge Delano Bush's legislative prowlness, including his strengthening our southern borders, don't forget to mention that little addition tucked away in the Medicare Bill that is 1 BILLION dollars to cover the healthcare costs of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!
So alot of families can't afford to purchase healthcare coverage , but we can give it to the elderly and Illegals for free.
Welcome to the Compassionate Conservative Platform, SAME AS THE DEMOCRAT PLATFORM. Stick it to the working man, and roll over on social issues.
That is preposterous. Ask anyone else if I am being unrealistic. You are stretching things like an elastic band. Do you know how stupid this sounds: "...that forced federal agencies to behave as if the U.S. Senate had ratified the Kyoto Global Warming treaty." I am not trying to insult you, but that is a stretch that no reasonable person can accept. If you don't trust me, ping anyone else who is not a total Bush-bot.
If you can't make that commitment, then why should I spend any time at all on you. After all, if you aren't going to give credit even when evidence is given to you (and to this point you've certainly not wanted to give any), then why *should* I waste my time with you?
Again, I don't think you have the evidence. Otherwise, instead of wasting all this time you would have presented the evidence right away.
. . . On the other hand, the Washington Times is reporting today that this drug benefit will cost about $2 trillion in its second decade. Stay tuned.
Ok, decade, not year as I reported earlier, however, far much more than $400 billion over 10.
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.