Exploding Cost of Drug Benefit Should Wake Up Conservatives

Detroit News ^ | 2/1/04 | n/a

[jimkress]

It didn

[sauropod]

I've got your number now.

[Ahban]

Good article. If Dane and his fellows were really interested in electing a conservative, instead of hurling insults at the conservatives who post on this forum, he would join us in supporting the Constitution Party Candidate for President (likely Mike Peroutka).

If the only argument they have is the "electablity" issue then we must point out that the only reason they are not electable is because guys like them spend a lot of time loudly proclaiming they are not electable. If they would join us in backing a true conservative instead of bitterly fighting us at every turn, then a true conservative WOULD be electable.

Dosn't matter to me. I will not be pushed into voting for a big-government liberal no matter what. W has simply not earned my re-vote. I prefer gridlock to what we have now.

[Ches]

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! "
Samuel Adams

Perfect! Thank you for posting that.

[Map Kernow]

I love this thread, people who call themselves "principled conservatives" are voicing their support of a Kerry victory, in the name of "what's best for America".

Hey, Luis! How come you guys always put "principled conservatives" in sneer quotes? Conservatives aren't supposed to have "principles" if they get in the way of el poder del caudillo, del partido? And how do you know I want a "Kerry victory"? Because "objectively" I am in favor if I don't vote for Bush? Doesn't that sound kinda Marxist to you, compadre?

Coincidentally, the Democrats are supporting the same notion.

Hmm, more Marxist phraseology: "it is no accident that.." Ergo, we and the Democrats have the same perfidious objectives, right? Claro que si!

Then, after having voiced their support for a Democrat in the White House, in spite of the inevitable fact that the SCOTUS will be repopulated by the person occupying the Oval Office over the next ten years, they attack anyone who supports the GOP, and the incumbent Republican President, which is the exact same thing that happens to me every time I post in Democratic Underground.

Did I "voice my support for a Democrat in the White House"??? Oh, I get it, not explicitly---but "objectively." I don't have the right as an American citizen, a registered Republican, a financial contributor to Bush, a voter for Bush in 2000, to complain about what he's done, to threaten to withhold my ultimate weapon, my vote, unless he straightens up? Oh, OK...

What's even more comical, is the fact that after all that, they have the nerve to call me a "Republican In Name Only", and accuse me of thinking and behaving just like a Democrat.

Call yourself anything you want, Luis. I'm not calling you a RINO---I'm calling you "wrong" if you support ruinous spending, amnesty for illegals, etc.

Go figure.

I already have. I can figure things for myself, you see. And unless you Bush partisans intend to frog march all of us "principled conservatives" to the voting booth and pull the lever for us for GW, you're going to have to deal with us courteously and in terms of what our concerns are to get us back in the fold, not simply accuse us of "supporting Kerry" or that other caca.

Say, Luis, what ever happened to us, amigo? The two of us stood shoulder to shoulder four years ago to keep Elian Gonzalez here. You were a right on Republican then. Que' paso', pues?

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's not totally about the electability issue, it's about the fact that in order for me to vote Constitution Party, I must first believe in Star Trek politics.

What is that you ask?

It's the fact that even if the Constitution Party's candidate would actually win, the implementation of any segment of the Party's platform upon his election is incumbent upon the existence of a political wormhole, or a fold in the fabric of political time and space so that we can advance to a time in future American politics where there is no opposition of equal power across the aisle in the halls of American government.

Sorry, I loved the TV show, but this is real life.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Did I "voice my support for a Democrat in the White House"???"

Was my post directed at you?

It wasn't, but interestingly enough, it must have stung you, otherwise you wouldn't have taken it so personal.

Get a hold of yourself, it ain't all about you you know, but if the Kerry fits...

[Sabertooth]

I'm practically begging you to discuss the facts of this thread: this program has expanded 33% in 3 months. Doesn't that trouble you?

Actually...

Bush's budget will show a $530 billion cost over 10 years for the addition of a prescription drug benefit for the Medicare health program for senior citizens. That is 33 percent more than was anticipated when the Medicare overhaul was approved less than two months ago.
Bush Seeks to Soothe Republican Worries on Budget
Reuters - Sat January 31st, 2004 - Caren Bohan

But that $400 billion is up from $300 billion over ten years from two years ago.

WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) - Congress will seek to set aside approximately $300 billion over the next 10 years to fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit, congressional aides said Friday.

Aides to House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert (R-IL) said that he would seek to attain the $300 billion figure, an amount roughly equal to the money approved for the benefit as part of last year's budget resolution. Early negotiations last year failed to produce an agreement on prescription drugs or on overall Medicare reform.

The $300 billion is likely to exceed President Bush's budget request for prescription drugs by approximately $100 billion, said Hastert spokesman John Feehery.
Congress to Seek $300 Billion for Medicare Benefit
Reuters - January 28th, 2002 - Todd Zwillich

$530 billion is almost a 77% increase from $300 billion, and we're just getting started.

However, that $300 billion exceeded "President Bush's budget request for prescription drugs by approximately $100 billion," so we're looking at an initial projection of $200 billion.

So the new fuigure of $530 billion represents a 265% increase over the $200 billion projection.

But it gets better...

Another Republican acknowledged today that the $153 billion President Bush set aside in his budget for a Medicare prescription drug benefit would not be enough.

"Every body knows that figure is gone,"Energy and Commerce Chairman Tauzin told reporters at a briefing. number, he said, was set before CBO re-estimated last year‚'s House bill, which he said is "already over $200 billion and climbing."
CongressDaily
Medicare and Prescription Drugs - Billions of Dollars, 2002 - 2011
March 22, 2001

So, since early 2001, President Bush's Prescription Drug entitlement has gone from a projected $153 billion to $530 billion in the first ten years. That's a over a 340% increase from the initial estimates.

Of course, all of those numbers are projections for the time period prior to the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

Then it gets worse.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You were a right on Republican then."

I'm still a Republican, you seem to be elsewhere.

[citizen]

"I guess you want a $800 billion prescription drug bill..."

We already have an $800B+ bill signed into law. By 2014 it will certainly have cost considerably more than $1 trillion.

Consider: The surge in the number of the elderly and the new, costly drugs becoming available yearly will baloon the costs of Bush's vote-buying program.

At less than 7%/year growth, modest by federal standards, today's taxpayer funded drug plan will top $1 trillion for the 10-year period.

[FreeReign]

Actually it led to the Republican takeover of the Congress in '94, with a conservative tilt.

Which then led to Newt's roly-poly head being served up on a Clinton platter in '95.

Which then led to R's saying we have to show more compassion.

Which then led G.W. Bush.

Which then led to RJCogburn longing for the days of the 94 Congressional takeover...and round and round we go.

[RJCogburn]

YOU'RE GONNA VOTE FOR KERRY???

I said I would not vote for Bush again. I did not say I would vote for the Dem.

[RJCogburn]

but aren't those the voters that so many conservatives are now complaining about?

I'm "complaining" about the people elected, not the voters.

[Consort]

I'm "complaining" about the people elected, not the voters.

But the voters elected them. It's the voters.....it's always the voters.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

But you indicated you would not be voting third party. What's left?

[RJCogburn]

But the voters elected them. It's the voters.....it's always the voters.

Too busy on Superbowl Sunday to get into a protracted discussion on this. Too often the candidates say one thing and act otherwise in office. Who would have predicted GWB's push to the left?....to the extent he has gone?

Had we known what he would do perhaps we'd have chosen another candidate in the primaries, even if still voting against Gore in the general election.

Getting close to game time. ;^)

[RJCogburn]

What's left?

Not voting in the Presidential election while still voting for our great NH governor (Benson) and Senator Gregg.

[Consort]

That's a given, but it's like choosing a SCOTUS Justice....you can never be really sure.

[Ol' Sparky]

Third party vote for President = Gridlock. That is preferable to a socialist Republican.

[Ol' Sparky]

If a Democratic President had proposed this plan to a Republican Congress, the total cost would have been $0. This Medicare expansion would have been DOA in that scenerio.

[Ol' Sparky]

Those abandoning Bush KNOW Kerry will be elected. So what? Kerry and Republican Congress and gridlock are preferable to what Bush has been doing.

Bush has done more to destroy the principles of limited government than any Republican in 30 years.