[Protagoras]

I'm not a fan of this legislation,

I hope not. What would you be in favor of, if anything?

but there has been a delicate dance going on trying to find a way to avoid HillaryCare and complete price controls.

Two groups of socialists/fascists negotiating the sell out of Indivdual liberty and personal responsibility.

Part-D was effective at staving that off,

No it wasn't, it was a stepping stone.

and then to hear Bush himself put it back on the table was disheartening.

Only if you expected a different path.

[Daus]

I hope not. What would you be in favor of, if anything?

The entire problem with the prescription drug business is the concept of 'rebates' and price controls. Large insurers or Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) negotiate 'rebates' (there are various other words for this type of arrangement, let your imagination run) and the government has the benefit of both Rebates (to the states) and 'Best Price' to the feds.

The rebates do nothing but pad the wallets of the PBMs and float the state agencies. This, in combination, with the price controls caused the 'cash' prices for drugs to be inflated. Previously, Medicare receiptients were the predominant cash customer taking the hit for all of the above. This made for glorious, "Poor Aunt Edna has to buy drugs from Canada" media stories to bash the GOP. Part-D got them in under the third party payor umbrella and they all now enjoy the benefit of the rebates.

So, given that short lecture, a vast majority of the problem would have been addressed by pushing off the medicare receipients into competitive third party coverage, but there was no real need for the government to pick up as much benefit as they did. Market rate insurance coverage, with some guaruntee of coverability would have been fine. But would have had a hard time getting past the Dems would wanted to give it all away.