Posted on 06/14/2003 12:03:32 AM PDT by Uncle Bill
THE MEDICARE DRUG BILL: An Impending Disaster For All Americans
The Heritage Foundation
By Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.
June 13, 2003
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
With the support of the Bush Administration, or at least with the White House’s passive acquiesce, Congress appears on course to enacting a huge new entitlement aimed at middle-income Americans. President Bush likely will sign whatever bill emerges. And as President Clinton’s Medicare administrator puts it “In signing it, as he will surely be forced to do, he will preside over the biggest expansion of government health benefits since the Great Society.”
The legislation makes a mockery of sensible budget control or prudent reform. Rather than combining steps to help some seniors with reforms to the unsustainable finances of the Medicare program, Congress’ “reforms” will reduce choice and innovation and impose staggering financial burdens on our children and grandchildren.
No Fixed Budget = Massive Tax Burdens
Congressional proponents of the legislation maintain that the new drug benefit will cost $400 billion over the next 10 years. This of course is merely a guess. Since the program is an entitlement there is no fixed budget. Moreover, the evidence from both the private and public sectors in recent years suggests that future costs are likely to exceed projections. But even if they are accurate it is not the next 10 years that matter. It is the years after that when the full force of the Baby Boom generation hits Medicare and Social Security. Within 15 years Medicare already faces a Niagara Falls of red ink. Adding a drug benefit without serious reforms and constraints on future spending means massive tax burdens on generation to come.
The bill is needed, say leaders of both parties, to help seniors who face heavy prescription drug costs. To be sure, many lower-income elderly do need help. But today about three-quarters of all seniors already have private insurance against onerous costs, and the pricing of that insurance does force seniors to strike a prudent balance between desire and cost.
Unconscionable Approach
It makes sense for our society to provide assistance targeted toward those who still face heavy burdens, chiefly because of their income. But Congress’ approach would institute a government-sponsored drug program for all Medicare recipients, not just those who need help. For several reasons that approach is unconscionable.
First, there will be powerful incentives for current and future middle-income seniors to forego private insurance protection at realistic prices in favor of government-sponsored drug coverage at subsidized prices. Moreover, corporations and other entities facing high retiree health benefits will soon find creative ways to shift retire drug costs to the taxpayer. The result: taxpayer costs will rise further.
Second, proponents are naïve when they claim that seniors will have many choices of coverage under the legislation – private plans as well as traditional Medicare benefits. Hard lessons from the past, combined with likely design requirements in the final bill, suggest that few private plans will join the program. Mass withdrawals of plans from the existing Medicare+Choice program show what happens when Congress imposes regulations and controls in an effort to cut costs. And in an effort to curb a surge in spending, the government will no doubt gradually tighten regulations on any private plans that do join the drug program, leading to fewer and fewer private plans. It remains to be seen how seniors will respond to this. But when Congress last tried to provide a drug benefit that jeopardized coverage many seniors already had – in 1988 – the backlash was so severe that Congress repealed the legislation within a few months.
Third, despite claims that the new program is modeled after Congress’ own health program, which includes drug coverage, nothing could be further from the truth. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) is open to virtually any private plan or insurer meeting some basic benefit requirements and consumer protections. Premiums for these plans vary and reflect the benefits included in the plans, and federal workers choose from among many competing plans.
No Serious Reforms, Fuels Taxpayer Costs
By contrast, Congress will determine the benefits in the legislation moving through Congress, and the government will decide how many of the lowest bidding preferred provider plans will be permitted to offer coverage to seniors in any area. Moreover, because Congress would take a prominent role in influencing prices and benefits – unlike in the FEHBP – the political dynamics would work in the same way as they do today in Medicare. Politicians would be under relentless pressure to keep prices down for their constituents, while drug companies, doctors and seniors would press for ever-more generous coverage. The result: larger and larger subsidies and costs to future generations. Thus not only does the legislation contain no serious reforms to control costs without undermining quality, it actually fuels taxpayer costs.
President Bush and congressional leaders had an opportunity to combine help for some Americans in genuine need with sensible reforms so that our children and grandchildren might look forward to an affordable and high-quality Medicare program. With the looming political and financial juggernaut of the Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, this legislation probably is the last opportunity for hard decisions. But rather that taking a firm leadership role in the legislative process, President Bush elected instead to send Congress a framework and then invited lawmakers to fill in the details. The result was predictable. The process is fast becoming a political feeding frenzy, in which short-term partisan advantage trumps responsible action. While today’s politicians may reap the benefits, it is future generations who will have to pay for this unforgivable failure of leadership.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]
Bush Urges Congress To Add Drug Coverage To Medicare
"Republicans and Democrats have distracted us with unending battles between haves and have-nots for decades. Over the same period, they have bankrupted the country,"
Source
Senate Panel Adds Drug Benefits in Medicare Overhaul - June 13, 2003
"An influential Senate committee tonight approved the biggest expansion of Medicare in its 38-year history, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote to add prescription drug benefits....
The bill would increase federal spending by $400 billion.."
Bush Urges Congress to Deliver on Prescription Drugs for Medicare
.jpg)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/danger.html
"The current system is financially unsustainable."
THE BUSH/GOP SMALL LIMITED GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRINCIPLES
Is the Tax Cut for Real?
"The Bush administration inherited a federal budget of $1.86 trillion, and now proposes to spend $2.3 trillion in 2004, for a whopping 23.6 percent increase in federal spending in this short period. The Bush presidency has far outspent Clinton's in every category. As Cato's Chris Edwards says, "[B]ased on his first three budgets, President Bush is the biggest spending president in decades." To close the gap between spending and revenue, said a report commissioned by the US Treasury, would require an "immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase."
President George W. Bush - Biography
SOURCE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html
"George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. Formerly the 46th Governor of the State of Texas, President Bush has earned a reputation as a compassionate conservative who shapes policy based on the principles of limited government,..."
HOW CONSERVATIVE IS PRESIDENT BUSH?
Is the United States flat-out broke? Feds deny report
"the government's debt is actually "a mind-numbing $43 trillion,"
HOW BIG IS THE GOVERNMENT'S DEBT?
Increased Spending, Deficit Produce Political Danger for GOP
Honey, don't you think
it's great how President Bush
and Congress have spending and fiscal
responsibility under control. Yes, did you see
Laura kiss the President today?
"Why should we waste another dollar on a program that's already losing $43,750 a minute in fraud?" asked Dasbach."
Source
The great flaw in our system is, by and large, the American people do get what they want. You know, I know and the writer of this article knows what will happen. I suspect even those for this bill know. But the ball is rolling down hill and there is no way to stop it.
Btw...I am not this negative toward the future in general. I believe we are entering an era when much of the New Deal will be rolled back.
Medical care just won't be part of it.
Al Gore’s Prescription For Medicare: Cutting Funding While Opposing Bipartisan Reform
AUSTIN, TX - Instead of explaining why the Clinton-Gore Administration has opposed bipartisan Medicare reform and proposed cuts in Medicare funding, Al Gore today again changed his position on a major issue in this campaign.
"Governor Bush supports providing prescription drug coverage to America’s seniors, but Al Gore’s charts and graphs can’t hide the fact that the Clinton-Gore administration opposed bipartisan Medicare reform and they submitted a budget to cut Medicare spending by $70 billion," said Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett.
Me too, right after the collapse.
..."Political leaders . . . seeking to strengthen the state or to advance their own or their party's interests have used insurance against the costs of sickness as a means of turning benevolence to power."
So wrote Princeton University Professor Paul Starr, an architect of the Clinton health plan, in a 1982 book. Having failed to place one-seventh of the economy under government control in its first year, the Clinton administration now hopes to achieve that goal in its waning days by enticing the nation's seniors with the prospect of expanded prescription drug benefits."
I keep wondering how many big government things GW can do before "conservatives" start taking notice.
He has promised to sign an assault weapons ban and now supports a Medicare drug benefit. This is a perfect example of a hugely expensive band-aid fix that leaves the root cause of the problem in place.
The Root Cause? How about the absurd testing requirements imposed by the FDA. Costs from $500 to $800 million are typical for new drugs. Do you think that those costs might just have something to do with the price of drugs.
We also know that the idiots in the FDA bureacracy are holding back approval of good drugs for years, costing thousands of lives in the meantime. The whole Martha Stewart affair originated with a totally nonsensical decision by the FDA to demand further testing of a life saving cancer drug using logic that only insane bureaucrats could understand.
No one who cares about the American future ought to be supporting this.
William Flax
That's the only way to bring down costs ---EVERYONE needs to pay out of their own pockets, including those on Medicaid ---they might have less money for lottery tickets and beer but it's up to them how they'd spend their welfare check or cash.
"All seniors should have help in buying prescription drugs,"
George W. Bush
"Yet the chorus calling for a benefit has become deafening. Even conservative Republicans have joined in. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, now blames Democrats for the lack of a benefit, saying they balked at earlier compromises."
SOURCE: Can U.S. Find Money To Pay For Medicare Drug Benefits?
Brought to you by the GOP and George W. Bush
Of Medical Marxism - The Washington Times
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.