Posted on 08/16/2010 6:29:09 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
Bush’s prescription plan employed market forces. I remember Tom Delay saying this would happen. On the other hand, Obamacare doesn’t have a thing to do with market forces so costs are doomed to soar out of control.
Thank you president bush for being awesome.
To his critics faux conservative and liberals— shame on you.
Imagine if Bush could have gotten his Social Security reforms(partial privatization) through congress.
W PING! :-)
No, but I will pay for something I believe is a great good.
I deal with the elderly nearly every day, and this drug program is worth every penny we spend...all 1.6% of the budget.
Porkulus would have paid for this program for nearly fifteen years......
I think most would prefer no government involvement but the mood in the country at that time was that there would be a prescription drug plan. Better to have a program that works than the crap Democrats propose. George Bush campaigned on his plan and followed through as promised.
I wonder if Rush will mention this article tomorrow?
Why would this give them hope? The Medicare Part D program is privately administered and the companies compete for business - innovative, trying to keep costs down while increasing services. Hardly comparable to the Obamacare model. The entire Medicare Program should be reformed into the same model and then ultimately privatized under this model - allowing for purchases across state lines to prevent state monopolistic setups (like the current "private" regular health insurance is currently set up) so there is incentive both for lowering costs and at the same time providing better and ever improving services as the companies compete for business. Services would get better, costs would go down, and burdens would be lifted from the taxpayers and get the government phased out of being directly involved in things it cannot do efficiently and never should have been involved in to begin with on such a scale. But then again...that probably makes too much sense for Congress to pass such a thing.
Exactly. The Democrats would not go along with that even with the proposal to lift the cap on the SS taxes to eliminate their “loss of revenue” concern. The fact of the matter is that they did not want people acting independently from the government - revenues were an irrelevancy.
Exactly. The comment in the article that this gives reason to think Obamacare might also come in under projections is absurd. The way the systems are designed and the principles behind them are completely at odds.
Excellent insight and worth repeating again and again.
What few people realize, mainly because they’re not elected representatives, is that sometimes politics is the art of the lesser evil.
If spending is coming down the pipeline and you cannot stop it, you can at least head it in the right direction.
That happens more often than not and you have to get ahead of the herd to do that.
Instantly you’re called a RINO.
No one says, “Wow, we could have fallen off the cliff.” They say, “You, traitor! Why did you turn the wheel at the last minute!”
My parents are 78 and 80. Generic drugs and Walmart Pharmacies work just fine. Get a 3 month prescription, 20 bucks!
Yes, that’s wonderful for generic drugs.
My parents are 75 and 80 and still going strong, thank God! :-)
Part of why the program cost less than expected was that it included competition and choices. The drug plan was pushed on the Bush presidency by folks like Tom Daschle and the lackeys at MSM. But they turned the tables and made it cheaper and beter - now Obama wants to kill it.
Yep, most any program the Democrats propose has more to do with control than solving problems. In fact, their program usually creates more problems.
Thanks for the ping, Kristinn and thanks for the post, GOP.
I am glad I had the rare opportunity to be here for this.
In 2005 the estimated cost to taxpayers was $926 billion.
By 2006 it had dropped to $797 billion.
In 2008 the cost had dropped 12% to $44 billion at the end of the fiscal year.
2-9-05 — Medicare drug benefit to cost $720 billion over 10 years
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-09-medicare-drugs_x.htm
5-06 — Medicare drug benefit viewed as a work in progress
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15426944_ITM
The cost of the drug benefit has declined from a projected $737 billion over 10 years to $675 billion. Projected cost for 2006 will be $30.5 billion, 20% less than the $38.1 billion originally estimated.
5-8-06 — Online discussion of the drug benefit
Scroll down to Dunn Loring, VA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/08/DI2006050801215.html
11-08 — Medicare Drug Plan Spending Drops $6B in 2008
http://www.agingcare.com/News/133484/Medicare-Drug-Plan-Spending-Drops-6B-in-2008.htm
…spending dropped by 12% to $44 B in fiscal year ending 9-30-08
I despise the overuse and misuse of the term RINO. It has become a pejorative used to stifle debate. The left doesn’t wholly own political correctness. Also, it is my suspicion that many of those accusing someone of being a “Republican in name only” are not even members of the Republican party.
Thanks for the great info, you’re not Just A Nobody!
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.