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?
Yes, it's here and I agree with it. Do both of you?
If these people had been with Custer at Little Bighorn, they would have invited more Indians.
Washington politicians often resemble Oscar Wilde, who said he could resist anything except temptation. As the fiscal picture gets more and more terrifying, our leaders have gotten more and more profligate. The latest exercise in irresponsibility is the push to provide Medicare recipients with coverage for prescription drugs, a desirable benefit that no one has figured out how to pay for.
...Instead of scouring the budget for every possible way to conserve cash, though, the administration and Congress are holding a contest to see who can throw away the most money in the shortest time. Federal spending has ballooned by 20 percent in the last three years alone.
...The prescription drug benefit approved by the Senate Finance Committee Thursday, the biggest enlargement of Medicare since its creation in 1965, would cost an estimated $400 billion over the next decade. Republican Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma, chairman of the Budget Committee, predicts it may be double that amount.
...A lot of Republicans tell us the deficit is useful because it forces our leaders to do something about excess spending. Judging from this bill, our leaders have figured out exactly what to do: enjoy it."
What Tax Cut? You're Paying More
Republican governors mimic democrats (Spare us, might as well vote for the real thing)Cal Thomas
Bush budget contains $10 in new spending for every dollar in tax cuts
Socialists Unite! 
- OR -
"But I, for one, believe that the one thing this country can and should do is provide GOOD health care for us -- all of us."
16 Posted on 09/23/2000 09:09:07 PDT by Howlin
"Are you just too dense to realize that there ARE some things that the government should do?"
24 Posted on 10/06/2000 11:47:14 PDT by Howlin
Source
Posted on 05/21/2003 7:52 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
What Happened To Limited Government?
The calls I took on Tuesday from guys in their 30's asking what happened to calls for limited government on our side have turned out to be quite prescient, folks - yet apparently they went unheard. Yes, as you can hear in the audio links below, the conservative intelligentsia in Washington D.C. (who only talk to other people inside the Beltway), doesn't think our 20 or 30 million strong EIB family exists and that nobody is making the argument for limited government. They see incremental liberalism (40% of what liberals want) as the new way in Washington.
A memo by Reagan official Donald J. Devine of the American Conservative Union: "Journalistic conservatism is silent about this growth of government, which is especially fueled by neoconservative dreams of empire and which threatens the whole project of American liberty." So fear not those of you who have gotten mad at me for criticizing the Bush administration and GOP Congress for spending more and growing government on the education bill, farm bill, etc., and saying that conservatives should be outraged that the federal budget spends $2.3 trillion a year. Apparently what I say doesn't matter.
Devine claims that "most conservative pressure ends up as simple cheerleading for the White House." I have said that Republicans are spending right along with Democrats, and that the president has gone along with them. I have demanded to know how in the world $50 billion in tax cuts so far equals a $400 billion deficit, yet spending $2.3 trillion somehow has no role in it - especially when tax cuts increase revenue. (See: dynamic scoring) I have said that the more of our money the government spends, the less money we have to spend and reminded everyone that CFR is an attack on the First Amendment and that the Constitution limits what government can do, not what individuals can do.
The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to leave all journalists alone - not just the New York Times, but the National Enquirer and guys like James Callendar who smeared for and against Thomas Jefferson. Ralph Z. Hallow cites this Divine memo and others in his Washington Times column headlined: "Activists on the Right Fear a Waning Influence." He makes this point that there is "nobody" carrying the banner for limited government. He cites conservatives who urged Bush to fight for Senate confirmation of judicial nominees, even those "moderates" from the Clinton administration.
That was the "new tone," and I've ripped it from day one! (But apparently I'm not heard in the Beltway.) I've said that you're nuts if you think you can get along with liberals. I guess people like you and me don't matter until it's election time - and then these Beltway blowhards come calling hat in hand and act like what you want matters. Since it's too far from Election Day, they just talk to each other and decide that they're all that matters. If only I had an address inside the hallowed boundaries of I-495, I could be a voice that the self-appointed conservative intellectuals would recognize. What a bizarre piece. Clearly these guys never heard that so long as I'm here, it doesn't matter where "here" is.
Vote Bush. Presciption drugs for everybody
Secondly, what does Howlin's opinion have to do with anything? Is she setting national policy now?
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.