I've been following this issue tangentially, and I don't see another thread on this here (guess that there aren't many seniors in the politics section of BigSoccer), but who the hell wrote this thing so that it prohibits the government from negotiating on price with the pharma companies? This is a bad case of "when lobbyists attack". Here's Bill Frist's take on why they included that provision: "We tend to use the purchasing power of private entities like individual plans to hold down costs over time. The Democrats tend to emphasize, and thus push for, more government control, government purchasing. We just think that competition through the private sector, through bulk purchasing and negotiation, is a more effective means to hold down prices." This is complete bullcrap. No private plan can come anywhere near the bulk buying power of the federal government -- VA hospitals pay less for nearly all drugs than every single private insurer because of that power, and they are nowhere near the size of the population who would be covered under this plan. Hastert, Frist and Bush are selling out to the drug lobbyists on this one, and the Democrats who have come out in support of this like Dianne Feinstein and Ron Wyden -- and the AARP, whose leadership clearly have their heads up their asses on this -- should be ashamed. The only reason why the government should get involved in this in the first place is if they could do a better job than private companies, and the one place where they clearly could do better than the private sector if they put their weight into it is on drug costs. If they can't do that, they shouldn't throw such a massive new program into our already bloated federal budget. Kudos to people like Don Nickles who see this for the boondoggle that it is.
Normally I would say that any bill that is opposed by both the far right and the far left in congress must be a good bill. But I am not sure about this one. Wouldn't it be better to offer medicare and drug benefits only to those seniors who fall below a certain income level? Why should we pay for the medical expenses of seniors, other than those who really cannot afford medical help and do not have a pension plan from their employers? Maybe because it is a politically untenable position, like many other common sense ideas.
On general policy issue I'd tend to agree with you, but when it comes to bills waiting for a vote, bipartisan opposition like this one is usually a sign that the bill is crap. This thing has "we need to pass something so that we can tell our constituents about it" written all over it. People like Kennedy are against it because it won't solve what he sees as the problem, which is reasonable protection for seniors against rapidly accelerating drug costs. People like Nickles are against it because it causes a whole new problem, which is a massive new government program in a time when that's the last thing we need. They're both right.
For better or for worse, it looks like it is the law. The 'compassionate conservatives' strikes again, but I wonder how we'll manage to pay for it. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031125/ap_on_go_co/medicare&cid=716 For what is worth, the couple who lives next door to me, who are retired seniors, think this law is a good idea. But they fall under the category of those who are getting the benefits even though they can afford their own care. So of course they would like it. (Selfish Seniors!)
Ask an old person if this is better then what they have now. They would probably say YES. That is why their organization is for it. If it passes the credit for the improvement goes to the Republicans. That is why every Democratic for president is against it except maybe Lieberman I am not sure about him. That is a losing situation for the democrates with old people. They might just remember at election time that Democrates were against something that will save them money in the now. even if it isn't perfect. So Democrates will vote for it but say it is no good. If they really cared about these people they would say they support it just to get something through that would help old peoples situation. Then say when they win the presidency we will make this better. They can't even do that now because they have to show a big diference between the two parties. A voter can't trust either party because they put the party over what is good for the voter in general. All these politicans are cocksucckers Rep or Democrate.
Just wait until the one-quarter who now have private prescription insurance lose it to this program. There are a lot of people who don't even know what the bill is about, other than the headline. Hell, the Senators even admit that at 1200 pages and less than a week of debate, they don't even know what it's really about. Considering that the procudural vote passed 70-29 and Nickles & McCain voted no, there are at least 20 Democratic Senators who are prepared to vote for the full bill. (Why didn't you know that, Richie?) That tells me that this is bipartisan crap, not just Republican crap. If Bush really cared about these people he would not have pushed a bill that doesn't really take effect until 2006. Watch this thing get repealed during the December '04 lame duck session. The "25% off" cards are the political hook here, as the GOP is looking to just put something into the hands of seniors and say "look what we did for you!" That's bad governance when it's done by either party, but more than that it's bad economics. When all the government does is give a handout with no competition for the product (in this case, patented drugs) and no price controls, all it does is push the price up by the cost of the handout. Look at medical costs directly after Medicare was enacted. Seniors aren't actually going to "save" anything - it will be like a store raising its prices by 20%, and then saying "SALE: 20% OFF". Anybody who buys into that trap is just a sucker.
Also keep in mind that a lot of seniors already have these cards. The cards will be very similar to the drug discount cards you see advertised on TV and Readers Digest. They usually charge the cardholder $25 for the card and then offer about a 12% discount on brand drugs and 40% on generic drugs at retail (the discounts are deeper if they use mail service pharmacies; ~18% for brands and 45% for generics). I think the biggest difference between the currently available cards and new government issued cards is the intial $25 fee will now be waived. If someone does not have a card and is paying Usual & Customary prices at the drug store, they will have some decent savings though. The average U&C price is 9% ABOVE the average wholesale price as opposed to the discounts mentioned above that are off of AWP. Murf
Obie said "Democratic Senators who are prepared to vote for the full bill. (Why didn't you know that, Richie?) That tells me that this is bipartisan crap, not just Republican crap." Yes I knew that they had to vote for it. If they were all running for the president, and there was a tume when most were. They would all hate it, but they would vote for it any way. Can't get the old people against you, you know. So you think the Democrates are better then Republicans right? You don't think they are all full of shiite right? Vote for hillary a women of integrity
obie didn't even mention that the gvt. is paying the health insurance industry $125 BILLION to persuade them to compete. Which puts the lie to the notion that the private sector will be more efficient. If it were, the gvt. wouldn't have to pay them that kind of cash to make it profitable.
SuperD your a well read guy. Is this bill better for old people then what they had before? If it is the old people want it. They also want it to be even better later on is that right or wrong? If it is right you take what you can get now, and hope for better later. You don't say I don't like it now so I don't want it at all now. Everyone wants things to be complicated. I like things simple. SuperDave I value your oppionion Aren't all politicians Republican and democrate all full of shiit?
Correction: It's the AARP that wants it. We'll know after it gets implemented if old people want it. It's 1200 freakin' pages long. None of the "old people" have read through it. Their opinion is, like mine, based on the info that the media has let filter out. As to whether it's a good bill: I subscribe to the theory that if it's a "reform" bill, and John McCain is against it, it's a bad bill. And when you throw in another theory I like, that when the left and right wings are against something as, respectively, inadequate and wasteful, then it's a bad bill. If we had followed these two rules in 1996, we wouldn't have this abortion of a telecommunications "reform." Frankly, I can't figure out the freakin' doughnut. I cannot for the life of me figure out a rational explanation for it. Well, OK, I can...it's a way to keep the costs politically manageable. But as policy, it's moronic. It's Kafka-esque. And the whole "we should let the private market compete, and here's a $125 billion bribe to get you to compete" makes no sense. At best, this bill is 17 steps forward and only 16 steps back (exact numbers pulled out of thin air ), and will forestall real reform. IMO.
If I put this through the Babelfish illiterate-to-literate translator, it seems to say "Democrats need to vote for this bill even if they're against it because it's political suicide to cast a vote against seniors." Interesting perspective but not true. Here's a list of all the Senators potentially up for re-election next November, and there are a slew of people there who voted no (Bayh, Boxer, Daschle, Gregg, McCain, and Nickles, to name just a few). Let's see how they all do next November, and whether or not this vote comes back to haunt them. I doubt it will because by then it will be clear that this was a very ill-conceived handout for insurance and drug companies, solving no problem of consequence. The determinant of the value of this new program should not be simply whether or not seniors are better-off. By that measure I could pass a plethora of spending bills that make the recipients better off. The marginal value that seniors will receive under this is offest exponentially by the poor financial decision-making, and the inabilty to solve the underlying problems. Giving a homeless beggar a dollar makes the beggar better off, but it doesn't solve his problems. Again, if this is such a great plan, why wait until '06 to implement it? Because the writers of it know that it will never get to that date in its current form. Meanwhile, as 'dave points out, insurance companies get their $125 billion starting now. The whole thing is a steaming heap of dogshit.
OLD People don't give a shiit how much the insurance companies are getting as long as it does not come out of their pockets. They just want to spend less for the drugs they need, and that's all.
The vote was 54-to-44. DEMOCRATS VOTING YES: Max Baucus, Montana John Breaux, Louisiana Thomas Carper, Delaware Kent Conrad, North Dakota Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Dianne Feinstein, California Mary Landrieu, Louisiana Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas Zell Miller, Georgia Ben Nelson, Nebraska Ron Wyden, Oregon DEMOCRATS NOT VOTING: John Kerry, Massachusetts Joe Lieberman, Connecticut All other Democrats voted against the bill. REPUBLICANS VOTING NO: Lincoln Chaffe, Rhode Island John Ensign, Navada Lindsey Graham, North Carolina Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Trent Lott, Mississippi John McCain, Navada Don Nickles, Oklahoma John Sununu, New Hampshire All other Republicans voted in favor of the bill. INDEPENDENT VOTING YES: Jim Jeffords, Vermont This following paragraph from the Times says a lot about why the bill passed: "Administration officials, led by Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of Health and Human Services, worked closely with Congress on the Medicare bill. But Mr. Bush left the details to Congress. By contrast, when President Bill Clinton pursued universal health insurance in 1993 and 1994, the White House drafted a 240,000-word bill, insisted on many details and ended up with nothing." (Emphasis added) Also, concerning the AARP: "The group was closely involved in the final weeks of the House-Senate negotiations on the prescription drug bill, demanding changes and offering suggestions down to the wire." So much for the garbage about Republicans running the country in an autocratic fashion. Another key point to remember is that this legislation is voluntary, unlike the 1988 catastrophic illness legislation which had to be repealed.
FWIW, I just read an article that says that alot of retirees are upset about this. About 15,000 AARP members have quit. Not alot in the context of the size of the group, but then, it's early. The article also says that the new bill is unpopular with retirees, but is popular with those over 50 but not retired yet. Since AARP's agenda right now is to get boomers to join before they retire, the article suggests that that's why AARP took the position they did. I'm not endorsing that view, just relaying it. It'll be interesting to watch this angle develop.
Well, like I said, AARP is now also in the insurance business, so their advocacy of their membership might be tempered by the obvious economic benefits that they would see under this plan. FWIW, my mother-in-law (~60 years old) is an AARP member and a staunch conservative. She hates this new legislation, mostly because of the cost to the taxpayers. "You and your children and your grandchildren will be paying for this," she told me.