And how would *you* have convinced 40+ Democratic Senators to support *your* plan to Privatize Medicare, and how would that have differed from President Bush's successful strategy in this law?
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.
And how would *you* have convinced 40+ Democratic Senators to support *your* plan to Privatize Medicare, and how would that have differed from President Bush's successful strategy in this law?
Prior to Bush's doing that, the radically liberal ABA got the first pass at vetting judges, even before the President or Senate.
Do you honestly think that Pryor or Owen would have made it past their first cut under the old way?!
We're going to Privatize Social Security next, and the whining about Privatizing Medicare from shills around here will more than double when that process starts.
If the "privatization" includes a 40% budget increase, you're right. I know we've discussed this at length so there's probably little to be gained by going over old territory, the "privatization" piece in this bill is a myth. Six metro areas beginning in 2010? Please.
If Medicare becomes privatized, it'll defy the course of every entitlement program in history.
The nerve.......LOLOL.......not fair, whine whine whine.
Too bad most are too shortsighted to see that it is better to spend on prevention than on hospitalization.......having been there it's better to medicate in time rather than hospitalize.
And the government will likely need to collect another $5000 just to administer the $1000 benefit to the end user...
The only positives mentioned were that "the rich" would have to pay higher premiums, and that "the poor" (me) might be able to use before-tax dollars to pay for health care. Oh yes, there may be "competion" in the future - if approved by the monopolist. Snicker...
You're getting way ahead of yourself and engaging in wishful thinking.
>>>... the whining about Privatizing Medicare from shills around here will more than double when that process starts.
I'm happy to be a conservative spokesman for less spending, smaller government and tax cuts. It's called being fiscally responsible.
You support the GOP plan to increase spending by the federal government to the tune of $400 billion, in unfunded mandates. Thats gambling with the economic future of America and makes you a BIG GOVERNMENT shill.
This Medicare PDP is a boondoggle for BIG GOVERNMENT, drug companies and financially secure seniors. It will not lead to privatization of Medicare. It will lead to more and more spending by the federal governemnt. PresBush won't have to worry about the fall out either. He'll be long out of office when the bill comes due for this new entitlement program.
Pardon me for asking, but what is the point of electing Republicans to enact entitlements? Isn't that what Democrats are for? Where does this $400 billion (that's the first estimate, we'll see how close it was in 10 years) come from?
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.