Why would you call preventative medicine, a new tax break, and half a dozen Privatization options a "train wreck?"
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.
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?
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?
Why would you call preventative medicine, a new tax break, and half a dozen Privatization options a "train wreck?"
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.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah right, our borders are SO much more secure. That's a funny one. File under "wishful thinking", pal.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.