Posted on 11/11/2002 10:53:53 PM PST by USA21
Bush and G.O.P. to Push for Medicare Drug Benefit
ASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — Republicans say they are planning to use their new control of Congress to provide prescription drug benefits to the elderly, while offering tax credits to the uninsured and imposing new limits on damages in medical malpractice cases.
President Bush, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Trent Lott, the Senate Republican leader, all said health care legislation would have a high priority in the 108th Congress, which convenes in January. Republican candidates for Congress promised to add drug benefits to Medicare, Mr. Bush made a similar promise two years ago and Democrats have vowed to hold Republicans accountable in the 2004 elections.
"There are some issues that I intend to work with the Congress on, and one of them is to get prescription drug benefits to our seniors," Mr. Bush said on Thursday. "That's an important issue. It's an issue that I talked about at every speech."
Republicans said that by taking the initiative on prescription drugs, they could neutralize the Democrats' historic advantage on health care issues and help the president in 2004 in Florida, Pennsylvania and other states with many elderly voters. But the return of federal budget deficits, after four years of surpluses, could sharply limit the generosity of any drug benefits.
John C. Rother, policy director of AARP, said: "The Republicans may not be able to afford everything the public expects, but the option of not acting on prescription drugs would be catastrophic for them. They have clear control of two branches of government. They pledged to act. Now they have to produce."
The House has twice passed Republican bills to offer drug coverage to all Medicare beneficiaries. The Senate spent more than two weeks on the issue in July and voted on four separate proposals, but all failed.
The biggest source of disagreement is how to balance the roles of government and private industry — a question that goes to the heart of the two parties' philosophical differences. Democrats favor a larger role for the government, while President Bush and Congressional Republicans would rely heavily on competing private health plans and pharmaceutical benefit managers, like Express Scripts and Medco Health Solutions, a unit of Merck & Company.
Republicans said the starting point for any measure would be a "tripartisan bill" drafted over the last two years by Senators Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, all Republicans; James E. Jeffords, independent of Vermont; and John B. Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana.
Under the proposal, the government would pay subsidies to private insurers to get them to offer drug coverage with a monthly premium of about $24 and an annual deductible of $250. The standard Medicare insurance policy would cover 50 percent of drug costs up to $3,450 a year; after beneficiaries spent $3,700 of their own money, the government would cover 90 percent of drug costs.
Mr. Grassley, the chief sponsor of the bill, is in line to become chairman of the Finance Committee, and he said he could build a "bipartisan consensus" for the bill in the committee. Mr. Bush and Senate Republican leaders support the measure, which closely resembles the legislation passed by the House.
Republicans said they were considering a plan to include Medicare drug benefits in a bill extending the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut signed last year by Mr. Bush. If Republicans tried to pass the tax bill by itself, they would provoke a partisan furor. Many Democrats contend that further tax cuts will cripple the government's ability to pay for adequate drug benefits.
Mr. Grassley's proposal would cost $370 billion over 10 years. That is less than half what Democrats want to spend and would cover less than one-fourth of total projected spending on prescription drugs for the elderly, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.
The other items on the Republicans' health agenda are intended to address the rising cost of care and coverage. For two years, Mr. Bush has asked Congress to authorize tax credits for the cost of health insurance bought by people who are not covered by an employer's plan and not eligible for public programs. The president's commitment is reflected in the large amount of money he would devote to this proposal: $89 billion over 10 years.
Many Democrats have balked at tax credits for health insurance. They say the government could cover more people at lower cost by expanding programs like Medicaid, for low-income families. But recently, some have said they are willing to consider tax credits, if the government sets standards for the insurance bought with such assistance.
As a possible model, Republicans cite a provision of the trade bill signed by Mr. Bush in August. The law authorized tax credits equal to 65 percent of the amount paid for health insurance by people who lose their jobs because of increased imports.
Republicans in both houses said they would also push for legislation to cap damage awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. The House passed such a bill in September, 217 to 203, but Senate Democrats have shown no desire to act on it.
President Bush strongly supports the House bill, saying it would slow the rise of malpractice insurance costs for doctors and hospitals.
The House bill would cap damages for "pain and suffering" at $250,000 and limit punitive damages to $250,000 or twice the amount of economic damages, whichever is greater. Plaintiffs' lawyers oppose the bill, saying it would unfairly limit compensation for the loss of a child or a spouse, or a limb or sight.
They already do.
But it must be paid for.
Get the government out of health-care, end the regulation and high taxes - then seniors can afford prescription medication.
And what, pray tell, is there NOT to hold one's nose about? Exactly which level of government has become less costly or less intrusive?
Republicans have been holding their noses so long their nostrils have grown together, completely cutting off their sense of smell.
The only thing Republicans offer over Democrats is that they do the wrong thing a little more slowly.
Show me where I'm wrong.
Regardless of your value choices here, the major vice is that you think you have the right to choose how to spend my money - supporting YOUR values.
Got news for ya, Bub - you don't.
Personally I think we should spay and neuter those who produce children they can't or won't care for. The number of single mothers and non-supportive fathers would drop dramatically, as would welfare costs and crime.
Health care is available; the question is whether some people get their health care for free by making others pay for it.
Funny how people who claim that they "can't afford" health care (whine, sniff) can very well afford cable TV, dinners out, alcohol, lottery tickets and the like.
Logically, then, your position is all tax is theft. Period.
I respect your position but I will point out pigs will fly before your position becomes reality.
Well bully for you! And I guess you think I should pay for it, too. I think all Americnas should have a new red Mustang convertable Can we get a government program for that?
Health care *IS* available. The cost of paperwork and litigation triples the cost of going to the doctor. Even so an office visit is what, about $80? The question is "does everyone deserve as a birthright the most complex and complete health care we can invent". Remember medical science hasn't stopped, and as long as there is a market more and more high end treatments will continue to come out. MRIs are a good example. I don't see the logical case for this claim on my liberty. You must surrender an ever increasing amount of dollars to pay for health care for others because we, the collective, say so. Sounds very socialist to me. Not at all conservative.
Logically, my position is that taxes are an inherent evil that must be controlled. The Constitution actually lays out the few, narrow things that the Federal Govt. is allowed to do and also the mechanisms to fund them. Prior to the 1913 ammendment permitting it the Supreme Court found that the Federal Income Tax was unconstititional. But you know we'd still managed to run the governemnt for 120 years without them somehow.
The invasion of the Federal Govt into every aspect of life started under FDR, who was a Socialist. It violated the Constitution then and it violates it now. The Dems have used the Supreme Court to void the Constitition since his presidency. They know it, which is why they care so much about the Presidency and the Senate. The best thing GWB could do to restore the constititon is find justices to the right of Scalia and Thomas who do not agree with the ongoing voiding of the Constitution and who are prepared to rule abominations like Social Security unconstitional. I agree this is unlikely, but I'll keep working for it anyway. We real conservatives *are* moving the country to the right slowly, at the same time the R's are capitulating to the achieved artifacts of 50 years of liberal, democratic and unconstitional laws and programs. It's a race.
We need to keep finding, funding and recruiting the most right wing (ie: Constitutionalist) people we can to replace RINOs and Democrats. We should be looking for a Presidential candidate a little to the right of Bush2 now, else wise we might get a RINO like Powell shoved down our throats by the media and RINO insiders.
For example, I believe it is clear that the right to an abortion should never have been found in the Constitution based on the "right of privacy". However, I would also assert that the Constitution cannot be used to make abortion illegal based on a "right to life". While it is true that article 14, section 1 states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;", it is also true that article refers only to "persons" who are "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Since the unborn are not born yet, they are not covered as "persons".
Ergo, while a constitutionalist justice would (should) throw out any "right to abortion" in the Constitution, they should also not find a "right against abortion" in the same document. And that would make the right-wing very unhappy. Too bad. Abortion should be a state issue, not a federal one.
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.