Posted on 06/28/2002 11:21:02 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - The American Association of Retired Persons, a senior citizens advocacy group not known for supporting Republican positions on issues, said it likes the Republican prescription drug plan that passed the House of Representatives early Friday morning.
"The passage of prescription drug legislation by the House of Representatives moves the Medicare program one step closer to providing millions of older and disabled Americans with some help against the rising costs of prescription drugs," said AARP spokesman Chris Hansen in a statement.
Hansen called on the Senate to act quickly on the House bill because "AARP members need this coverage now. They cannot wait any longer for protection against the increasing cost of prescription drugs."
Hansen said AARP members want a prescription drug benefit signed into law this year. "The vote in the House to make a voluntary prescription drug benefit a permanent part of Medicare is a step towards that goal."
The Republican plan, passed on a 221-208 vote, would spend $320 billion over ten years to help elderly people buy medication. The plan would depend on private insurers to provide coverage for Medicare recipients, who would pay monthly premiums of about $33.
The annual deductible would be $250. Seniors would pay 20 percent of the first thousand dollars for their medication and 50 percent of the next thousand dollars. Medicare would pick up the full tab once seniors have spent $3,700 in out-of-pocket expenses.
The Bush administration supports the plan passed by the House, but many Democrats don't.
House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt (Mo.) accused Republicans of listening more to pharmaceutical and insurance companies than to "the people of this country."
He called the Republican bill a "sham" and an "illusion." Republicans, Gephardt said, "are so interested in politics and the next election rather than doing simply what is right for the American people." Gephardt said the Republican plan doesn't carry enough of senior citizens' prescription drug costs.
Another critic, Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.), issued a statement saying, "Our seniors deserve better than a deceitful plan written by the private insurance companies and pushed by the Leadership in Congress as our only option."
Democrats are angry that House Republicans blocked consideration of a Democratic plan that would cost seniors less - but taxpayers much more.
The 60-Plus Association, a senior citizens advocacy group, credits President Bush for House passage of a prescription drug bill.
"It's a long overdue benefit," Said 60 Plus Association President Jim Martin.
"I give credit to (President) George Bush because almost a year ago in a Rose Garden ceremony he announced his immediate helping hand and he clearly said this is a step forward - it's not the final solution."
Martin noted that former President Bill Clinton - "in eight long years in the White House did not step forward with a prescription drug plan."
E-mail a news tip to Jim Burns.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
One step closer to Socialism. This AARP is nothing more than a greedy SOB! Demanding that everyone else is forced to pay for his health care. So what if some old lady picks up aluminum cans to pay for her medicine- I have to work to pay for my food and rent- and unlike her, pay taxes on it.
If we're going to be stuck with the bills for seniors' surgery anyway, buying them prescription drugs actually makes economic sense. Many surgical/medical procedures that seniors are prone to—such as heart surgery and dialysis—can be avoided or at least delayed using drugs, saving thousands of dollars. The current systeml, however, provides a perverse economic incentive to seniors to choose the expensive surgical option over the economical drug option, since the surgery costs them less out of pocket than the drugs. And the cost of surgery isn't going to drop, whereas the range of affordable drug therapies that obviate surgery will continue to grow.
If you want to abolish Medicare altogether, I'm with you all the way—although there's exactly zero chance of that happening as long as people 50+ years old are permitted to vote. But short of that, providing a prescription drug benefit is probably in our economic best interests in the long term. Given that, it makes more sense to score points for supporting a tolerable bill now, earning political capital that we can use later, rather than fighting tooth-and-nail against something that is both inevitable and sensible.
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.