Bush Signs Sweeping Medicare Bill That Includes Drug Benefit

New York Times via yahoo ^ | December 8, 2003 | CHRISTINE HAUSER The New York Times

[supercat]

I'm considerably older than you are, but I think that this drug benefit is a huge mistake. It will cost far more than estimated. Government programs always do. Besides, where in the constitution does it say that if you are over 65, you can force everyone else to pay for your medical care and prescription drugs? What next? Your housing and food? After all, those are necessities as well.

Is there any time the government has acted to subsidize a good or service for a particular group of people, and the result has been anything other than skyrocketing prices for that good or service? Generally quickly reaching the point that even the intended beneficiary of the subsidy ends up paying more for the good or service than would have been necessary were the subsidy not in place?

[Kevin Curry]

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?

You're asking how he would have orchestrated a fiscal trainwreck any better than Bush did? Are we now giving points for how pretty (or how relatively less ugly) a disaster is brought about?

[Djarum]

[clip laundry list of accomplishments]

That's right, this looks very bad, and you're going to have to present something dramatic to offset the discontent people will feel.

[Southack]

Why would you call preventative medicine, a new tax break, and half a dozen Privatization options a "train wreck?"

[Kevin Curry]

You haven't a clue what will happen. You just have this enormous faith that a new trillion dollar government program will somehow liberate us from high health costs and intrusive government. Why? Because it employs words like "privatization" and "preventive medicine" in its justification.

You may reply that I don't have a clue what will happen either. But I would point out that the history of huge government entitlement programs invariably proves that they cost far more than originally intended and spawn costly and wildly destructive unintended consequences never dreamed of by their pie-in-the-sky drafters.

[FirstPrinciple]

That is absurd hyperbole. What you are saying is that if the Red Sox wins one post-season game, that should be the same as them winning the World Series?

[montag813]

Reorganized the INS in an attempt to safeguard the borders and ports of America and to eliminate bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah right, our borders are SO much more secure. That's a funny one. File under "wishful thinking", pal.

[Southack]

"You just have this enormous faith that a new trillion dollar government program will somehow liberate us from high health costs and intrusive government. Why? Because it employs words like "privatization" and "preventive medicine" in its justification."

Why the need to embellish?

This Medicare Reform law authorizes only $39.5 Billion per year, flat rate, for each of ten years.

Why not use the real numbers, do they not frighten people enough to make your case? Does it really take a "trillion dollars" to make your point that this is a bad bill, or can you argue your case convincingly while using the actual, non-embellished numbers?

[Southack]

"That is absurd hyperbole. What you are saying is that if the Red Sox wins one post-season game, that should be the same as them winning the World Series?"

No, all that I was doing was engaging in a simple little mental exercise to show that *you* wouldn't give President Bush credit for killing the Kyoto Global Warming treaty no matter what I did or said.

One can reasonably conclude that you wouldn't give him credit for anything else, either.

That clearly doesn't make you open minded or fair, much less reasonable.

[Revel]

Yeah I like the way that seniors always get the break at the expense of the working. Seniors get back far more in social security then they ever paid in while young people working today to pay for it will probably not receive a dime. This so called benefit is not free. The younger folks who receive no benefit from this are the ones who have to pay for it. So what this does is make it even harder for younger working folks to pay for there own prescription medicine. Recently there was a tax break that only went to those with children. A single young person in America today is really getting the life sucked out of them.

[Kevin Curry]

The true cost of this boondoggle over the next ten to 20 years will be stupifying.

I still recall the verbal scat of foolish politcos who assured us Johnson's "Great Society" would pay for itself.

Will you admit you have misplaced faith in the capacity and will of government to keep entitlement programs from growing out of control?

[Southack]

"The true cost of this boondoggle over the next ten to 20 years will be stupifying."

This law is only valid for the next ten years.

That's it.

Anything else would require new, additional legislation.

Now, can you argue your case against this law using the real numbers of years and Dollars, or does it take hyperbole to make your point?

[snopercod]

I have my mother's SS benefit statement. In her entire 30-year working career, she paid a grand total of $1023 into social security, and not a dime into Medicare.

Until she passed away recently, she received a total of around $150,000 in SS benefits, and a similar amount in Medicare benefits.

The numbers will be reversed for the rest of us.

This ponzi scheme would be illegal if you or I tried it.

[RJCogburn]

Well, Kevbo, looks like we finally find common gound.

[Ben Ficklin]

A president is in a position to administratively implement much of Kyoto.

You got to admire Bush on this. The way he brought the National Acadamy in on it with that little quickie report without the policy recommendations. An enviro lawsuit wouldn't have snowball's chance.

[RJCogburn]

Ah, the famous Southack padded list reminding of the way one would pad a school paper to make it look 'better'.

Yes, GWB has done some good stuff, but overall he is a domestic disaster, increasing the size, power, cost of government far beyond what we might have feared a Dem would do with a GOP Congress.

Truly mind-boggling.

[GetUsOutOfTheUnitedNations]

It ain't perfect, but it's a damn-site more preferable to Hillary care

What are you talking about. This is Hitlary Care. Bet your bottom dollar this is just the beginning. Unfortunately, there is no difference between the dems and repubs any more and this law proves it. Washington and Jefferson must be rolling over in their graves.

[onedoug]

I don't think I agree. This is not National Health Care. It provides tax incentives to encourage engagement with private providers.

I wrote in #50 that people are best weened from socialism, which has been the direction of Medicare since its inception. It's difficult to see how a more overtly market based plan might have been acheived in the current partisan environment.

How might you have acheived the reform you otherwise seem to be championing?

[FirstPrinciple]

This law is only valid for the next ten years.

Yeah and social security is a pension scheme for widows and orphans which there wouldn't be any need for after the Great Depression is over.

[FirstPrinciple]

For the last time, the US Senate killed the Kyoto Treaty. As soon as I brought up that inconvenient fact, you said that somehow XO's were used to enforce it. When I said that XO's that are not based on laws can be overturned in courts, you changed the topic altogether. Even if you find an XO that was overturned, it doesn't mean that you ended Kyoto. The US Senate can still ratify that Treaty. Winning one game in the post-season does not mean you win the World Series. Ask anyone here who is not a bona-fide Bush-bot whether I am being unreasonable.

On a more important note, if you were so convinced that Bush has killed Kyoto with his bare hands, you should be able to cite the XO right away. You don't need to do any research because you have must already done it to reach that conclusion. If you haven't and need to look up, why are you so convinced that he was the one. Doesn't make sense.