Posted on 02/06/2004 10:08:46 AM PST by My2Cents
I assume that by the thrust of your question, you are referring to the program that LBJ pushed through in 1965, and not what has not yet gone into effect with respect to drugs.
No, my suggestion, frankly, is not to end Medicare, cold turkey. While it is not a Constitutional program, recognizing obligations is Constitutional, and I believe that there is a certain moral obligation, here, created by reason of the fact that millions of people have been led to expect that it would be there, and have planned around its being there. This in Law would create what we call an "estoppel"--which, while the Government could possibly defend against it, on the theory of sovereign immunity, it really ought not to, because of the morality involved.
What I would do is gradually phase the program out, while limiting its applicability to types of care that were reasonably anticipatable during the previous lives of the beneficiaries--that is not necessarily covering expensive new procedures, except under circumstances that might be hashed out in Congress.
As for the "hue and cry over such a phase out," I would deal with that on many levels, each designed for different elements of society, putting the whole issue in the context most understandable from the perspective of each such element. I find no difficulty, in discussing this issue with people of all ages, in finding bases to create such understanding.
And understand me, the continuance of benefits for those now covered, or soon to be covered, who have relied on same being available for long periods, is not intended as a way to buy votes. Rather, it is as I suggested, an effort to see that the United States always act fairly towards their people. I know that some will accuse me of rationalizing, but I do not see it that way.
William Flax
Medicare Ad Riles Bush Critics
Excerpt:
In December, President Bush signed a sweeping Medicare reform bill that, starting in 2006, adds a prescription drug benefit to the government insurance program. Beginning this summer, seniors can obtain a discount card for purchasing prescription drugs. The White House estimates the new law will cost $534 billion over ten years.
In the television ad, a senior asks, "So how is Medicare changing?"
"It’s the same Medicare you’ve always counted on, plus more benefits like prescription drug coverage," an announcer replies. The ad goes on to tell seniors "You can always keep your same Medicare coverage" and "You can save with Medicare drug discount cards this June. And save more with prescription drug coverage in 2006."
The ad tells viewers that more information is available at 1-800-Medicare. A print ad delivers much the same message.
Neither ad mentions the role of President Bush or Congress is developing the new drug benefit. But the Democrats who wrote Thomspon — including Ways and Means Committee ranking minority member Rep. Charles Rangel of New York — complain that the ad misleads when it says "It's the same Medicare."
This is key to getting away from having insurance pay for routine checkups and minor medical care. Today's medical insurance is like having your vehicle insurance pay for oil changes and brake jobs.
Well not to put too blunt of a point on it but why should the national government be involved in this fiasco? Can you provide verifiable information that the Founders of this nation of states thought it should be the general government's place to provide such a service? Surely there were older people in those days as well? What did they do? Just get thrown out in the streets? Pushed off the road?
Or perhaps families did their duty and took care of one another. Without depending on the national government to pass another entitlement to 'fix' it. I tell you, the Republicans are really stealing the issues away from the Democrats aren't they? Instead of limiting government they're adding to it. Faster than even some of Bush's predecessors did. That's conservatism?
Presciption drugs ARE cheaper when purchased from Canada and Mexico. I'm assuming because the pharmaceutical companies there don't inflate the price to pay for their research. I imagine there is less governmental regulation and red tape as well.
You assumed incorrectly. Your comment on regulation is close.
Yep... sounds lovely. Too bad the country has moved far, far from that direction. If we want to move it back to the way it used to be we have got an enormous amount of work ahead of us, in the meantime the vast majority of the electorate has grown to expect government health care for those who don't have it.
Meanwhile, we continue to move to the left, incrementally mind you, with no hope in sight of it stopping anytime soon. And the 25 or so brave Conservatives in the House that were willing to stand up to the White House's healthcare entitlement are ostracized and challenged by their 'leadership'
I can hardly wait to see this.
This is a flawed argument. It has been shown on other threads discussing the costs of perscription drugs that the low costs of drugs in other countries is being subsidized by the higher cost of drugs in the U.S. Increasing the volume of low cost drugs sold outside the U.S. will only drive the prices higher in the U.S.
The only true way to reduce the cost of drugs is to eliminate overhead involved with development, documentation and liability.
More energy should be expended on finding creative, innovative ways to attack the overhead aspect rather than trying to play shell games with point of purchase.
It is the same Medicare. If some wants to stay in the traditional fee-for-service, and not buy into a prescription drug plan, nothing changes. The changes are in the new options for alternatives means of coverage. The intent is to, hopefully, get folks to shift away from the fee-for-service option, which is the most costly means of Medicare service.
The ad is accurate. Rangel is a shameless partisan hack.
Sorry, but this debate was lost 40 years ago. Please fast forward to the 21st Century. The existing system is a mess, headed for a disaster. It needs reform, and to be put on a path which will move people away from the tradition form of coverage. This is a start, but only a start. No one is going to propose getting rid of Medicare.
Yeah, I remember that on the TV series "The Waltons."
Right. And back then, the farmer paid for the country doctor's service by giving him a chicken.
The golden age of medicare care...when the main treatment for everything was a good blood-letting.
Oh yes, I can't tell you how much I wait to pay for a $400 billion healthcare program with more taxes. Oh wait, it's $540 billion isn't it? 30% growth and the god forsaken thing hasn't even kicked in. I'm sitting here just joyfully imagining what it's going to be like when the baby boomers start grabbing this entitlement. Of course this doesn't cover the other well thought out programs that are soooo necessary to keep the national government going.
But you and others like you will keep re-defining 'conservatism' until you have a completely Socialist system won't you? But 'our' guy will be in charge so that's all that matters, eh? Tell me, do you know the difference between conservative values and Republican platform planks? Better yet, do you even care? Because to the untrained eye they're quite different
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.