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.
I week ago we just had a
Why not campaign as the party that gave bread and circuses to the masses?
Since the average life expectancy continues to grow while our reproduction rate stands below replacement (1.96), we need to blow the entire wad faster than bread and circuses. In the modern age, you have to run your Ponzi (I mean prescription pill) schemes much faster than the Roman Emperors did. Ah, progress.
Bush was the best we could get, but he is a RINO. Even the Great Bubba was able to bomb the Serbs into oblivion. We'll soon see whether compassionate conservatism was a brilliant ploy, or just another version of socialism lite.
Spoken like a true conservative!
Good. Cut off the DNC trial lawyer contributions. This is why health care costs are sky rocketing. Get rid of the frivolous DNC enouraged law suits, and the doctors can do their jobs the way they should be done.
The higher the cost of health care, the closer they get to their facist universal health care. Head 'em off at the pass.
What? No "Free health care and proscription drugs for EVERYONE?"
Poor AlGore. His dreams of a health care take over are RUINED!
(I like deficits. It slows down social spending. Deficits go away, social programs do not!)
Someone should bookmark that one. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable over at DU?
I personally think the cost of health care is way too high for most people - simply because of the overhead costs of bureaucracies, litigation, and inefficiency. But basic health care is actually quite cheap.
Do I think we ought to foot the bill for the elderly? No. The elderly in general are not social contributors. If they wish to prolong their existences, they may do so as long as they pay for it themselves. (Oh gosh, what a harsh view.)
On the other hand, I think prenatal care ought to be totally free. Because it pays for itself. It is generally cheap, and giving prenatal vitamins to pregnant women, and making sure that the babies will be healthy when brought to term, costs way, way, way less than lifetime care of babies born stupid or with birth defects because of ignorant, careless mothers who will then abandon the babies at the hospital or draw SSI payments for the baby (which they blow on drugs.)
There was a time when people actually saved for their retirement. That idea went out the window when during the great depression the younger people needed a job. The elderly were "carried" by government (taxpayer) funds until the depression was over. Hello??? The depresion has been over for years. Social Security was meant to be a temperary aid. Since then, the Democrats have "volenteered" to do everything for them,with other peoples money,of course.
Now, the eldrely are stuck in the Democrat rut with no way out. They're held financial prisoners because they believed the "great lie."
"Vote Democrat. We'll care for you - forever."
While the cost is way too high, the cause starts with the government. The system in this country favors employer paid insurance which equates in most instances into a system in which the patient has little responsibility for cost or interest in how much various types of care cost.
The government restricts the availability of medical care through licensure and restraints of trade. It increases the cost of meds by a prolonged and expensive process. It mandates various coverage by insurance for select groups that increases the cost for all.
Is government the only reason for expensive medical care? Of course not, but it is cause #1.
I think prenatal care ought to be totally free
No problem if you and others of like mind wish to pay for it. To coerce others who do not share your view is not conservative, IMO.
No problem if you and others of like mind wish to pay for it. To coerce others who do not share your view is not conservative, IMO.
I am a pragmatist. Consider we want to eliminate abortions. Now, the women who would otherwise get abortions are now going to carry those babies to term. But they don't want them. Therefore they are going to (a) be abusive to the "fetuses" (as they put it), and (b) not get any prenatal care if it costs them one dime, and then (c) when the baby is born they are going to abandon that baby as soon as possible.
So what are you going to do with all those sick, damaged, abandoned babies, hmmm? And you are going to pay! Of course, you could legislate that women who abandon their babies go to jail - so you can pay for them in jail and pay for their babies.
And who is going to adopt sick, damaged babies, hmmm? You? Or are you going to have some kind of govenment program to pay people to adopt them?
Sorry - any way you slice it, free prenatal care is VASTLY the cheapest solution. And since we are going to be forced to pay one way or another, this way we pay the least. At least this way when people adopt those abandoned babies they will be healthy.
This board is so funny sometimes.
Probably about as sweet as the smell of the burning corpse that is Reaganism.
Alas.
"What does that leave the Dimmies?"
A leg up on nationalization of American health care.
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.