Posted on 02/12/2005 2:13:24 PM PST by neverdem
LOL The first time I've seen that.
I am 60 yrs. old. Would someone please show me in the Constitution where the taxpayer MUST pay for prescription drugs for the elderly? I pay for my own. Where in the Constitution are ANY of the entitlements spelled out. I don't see it. And, I am a uber conservative and voted for Bush. I don't like this.
Yep. It's time for Bush to learn how to spell O-V-E-R-R-I-D-E. And the RINO Congressmen better learn it too, if they expect a Republican Congress in 2006. There's a larger and larger group of people fed up. $400 billion was the initial estimate (not that I ever believed it for a moment), now $700 billion, in a couple months maybe $1 trillion?
Fine with me if they want to means test the program but at this point there is no way on earth that these inflated figures reported in the Washington Post can have any validity at all.
BUWAHAHAHAA! I love it! :D
*LOL*! That one's a keeper.
But they need to change the expiration date to 2008.
Tell me why, exactly, I was supposed to vote for this Big Stupid Government politician again? Awww, never mind; I didn't buy the BS the last two times, either.
I agree with the unfortunately named Mr. Flake. Means testing is essential. Also, if the government is going to be in the business of paying for prescriptions, they need to use their power as a big-volume buyer to control costs. Hell, they are bigger than Wal-Mart, right, so why not throw their weight around and get lower prices from the companies who are getting their business? Ditto for paying for health care.
Here is the gist of what George W. Bush did: he took away an issue the Democrats had been bandying about for years.
If, when the Democrats had control of the House, Senate and White House, they had passed a drug benefit for seniors, we may be sure of several things - first, the annual cost would be several times as much as the Bush plan. Second, drugs would be even more expensive, or far more difficult to obtain, than they now are, because of the huge number of lawsuits that the drug companies would have to defend themselves against, with the result that several companies that now produce drugs would either flee overseas, or terminate the pharmaceutical research and production facilities altogether. The Democrats would have muscled down the "profits" the pharmaceutical firms received, and effectively created an artificial scarcity. Third, practically all the drugs available in this country would have to be imported from some foreign country, from sources of questionable reliability, as they would no longer be under FDA review, and quality control would be a thing of the past.
Under the Bush plan, the production of drugs and the oversight on their manufacture remains in this country.
Some enterprising insurance and financial services company has an excellent opportunity to step in here, and provide a "prepayment" plan for pharmaceutical products, that would be a stopgap between what is offered under the drug benefit, and the full cost or the needed prescriptions. Under something like a Health Savings Account, perhaps.
The Medicare thing was already out of control and the same type of low ball projections for it were produced by LBJ only to be revised upwards by (I think) over tenfold just a few years later.
On top of an obviously failed Social Security System, a failure abundantly clear at the time of it's inception, and a Medicare System that was already threatening to swamp the budget, they pile on even more seemingly endless benefits. Where I come from they advise that, if you find yourself in a hole - Stop digging. It would appear the recognition of the position in the hole is some time off.
Did I hear an argument about the lesser of two evils? How come the primary in 2000 was basically between two moderates, Bush and McCain? No conservative had any traction. Now we know what a compassionate conservative does, and we have pubbies in Congress addicted to pork now.
The thing is, as much as people characterize our older generation as people struggling to get by, the fact is they are by far the wealthiest segment of our population. Why we need a subsidy program for a group of people who largely don't need it. I am sure there are plenty that it will mean a lot to, but $70 billion a year is a chunck of change.
But I am not even sure Bush got much milage out of it. For as massive assistance as it will be, Democrats just brushed it off as a subsidy to drug companies and seniors did not seem all that excited about it.
Isn't this the first time Bush threatened a veto ?
Ever hear of Medicare?
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.