Did they get it right

[NamVet4]

As a slight diversion from the previous threads...... :)

The Medicare overhaul bill passed by Congress recently contained key elements regarding prescription drug costs and coverage. One keystone of the bill was the annual monthly premium seniors would pay to buy coverage and the coverage gap that occurs between some form of coverage, no coverage and increased coverage. While I am at that senior time, many of you are not. However, you have parents and/or grandparents who are directly affected by this bill.

Your thoughts:
Who will really benefit?
Who will reap the financial windfall?
Is this enough or is more required?

(something to think about between eating turkey, watching football and holiday shopping ;) )

Link # 1 (http://www.msnbc.com/news/992373.asp)

Link # 2 (http://www.msnbc.com/news/998150.asp#BODY)

[RedskinsDave]

Based on those most vehemently against it (Kennedy, Clinton and Daschle), it must be okay.

[lakewinola]

The financial windfall belongs to the drug companies themselves. The bill does nothing to control the cost of drugs, and in effect will increase sales for them.

[Minnesota Mike]

It will increase the unit sales of drugs and it will allow for higher prices. It is definately a win/win for the drug companies, and that is who it was primarily designed to benefit. In about 3 years there will be some ancillary benefit to a small segment of the population that will have access to medications that they previously were unable to obtain.

Immediate benefits will go to hospitals who got a nice little pay raise from the government (in the form of an "inflation adjustment") and doctors, who signed on after they were given a bump up on the Medicare pay schedules.

And of course the benefit will go to the GOP who will be able to spin this Corporate Welfare program into a "see what we did to help seniors" claim out on the campaign trail, because the so called "liberal media" will give them yet another Free Pass.

[Spence]

The bill is a disaster, which is why the GOP leadership had to bribe and threaten so many Republican members of Congress into voting for it. [They even threatened one Republican Congressmen that they would destroy his son's political career if he didn't support the Medicare bill.]

Of course, your opinion of the bill depends on what your priorities are. If you are in favor of controlling costs, it's a terrible bill. If you are in favor of expanding coverage, it's a terrible bill. If you are in favor of shifting billions of dollars in taxpayer money to gigantic, rich, and politically-connected HMOs, then the bill was a spectacular success.

So, it's all about your priorities.

[NamVet4]

Spence,
Aside from opinions on the bill, and the concurrent political manuevering, is the bill correct in its intent? That is, if you believe what we hear or read, will seniors receive a benefit, or will it be a burden.
Your thoughts, and anybody else who wants to chime in, please do so.

[RedskinsDave]

No NamVet, they don't get squat (..waiting for Spence to get up). The bill still calls for too much out of pocket money, they have to purchase the card that gives them discounts and it takes too long (2006) for alot of the benefits to have any effect.

The only way to fix medicare is to put a cap on the price of prescriptions but that ain't gonna happen.

[Spence]

Well, I agree with Dave on that. What's worse is that the federal government [read: taxpayers] will be paying HMOs tens of billions of dollars a year to do what they do already--insure senior citizens. It amounts to a slush fund for gigantic healthcare companies that have good political connections [and have been defrauding Medicare for decades].

[NamVet4]

Right now there is "zero" asssistance for medications. In April 2004 there is some assistance, allbeit with a price tag in the form of a premium and the inclusion of a gap. So the old addage says "something is better than nothing". I read it as a form of "less out of pocket expense".
And if it is a process of duplicity, whereby private industry duplicates the efforts of a government agency, is there grounds for a legal challenge? I realize that all legislation is a form of compromise, but is it in the best interest of the senior population or is it the most politically expedient? And if politically expedient, which party benefits the most?

[Spence]

Originally posted by NamVet4
And if politically expedient, which party benefits the most? Well, considering that Mr Bush wants it and the entire Republican leadership wants it, and the HMOs give about 85% of their political money to Republicans and five of Mr Bush's top ten campaign donors are from the healthcare industry...what do you think?

[Skinzaholic]

We are all still waiting to hear the Democrats solution on this one as well. How long must George Bush wait for the Democratic Party to get their heads out of their cans and actually make some suggestions?

I can already read what they want to do... increase the taxes of those who work hard for their money so that the government can afford to dish out free drugs to those living in the Welfare system.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
I can already read what they want to do... increase the taxes of those who work hard for their money so that the government can afford to dish out free drugs to those living in the Welfare system. My parents worked hard for fifty years until finally retiring at the end of 2001. Not once in all that time were either of them unemployed. Like almost everyone else their age, they depend on Medicare. Yet Republicans like you, Kevin, dismiss them as parasites suckling at the welfare teat. That is the intellectual and moral state of the Republican party.

[RedskinsDave]

Although I don't like this bill because I hate HMO's, the only time the democrats came up with an option was in the 11th hour, typical.

[Skinzaholic]

Tom, I have said this more times then seems fair for one forum... but to help you understand, I will say it very s l o w l y.

#1 - I am hardly a Republican. I really can't even be labeleed conservative... because I am not conservative in nature. BUT - I do have a brain and can see beyond my own stomach to understand that my actions today will affect my kids tomorrow. THAT is what most who vote liberally cannot seem to do. They argue and complain about meeting needs today, yet are totally oblivious to the fact that the methods they are utilizing today will affect tomorrow in a negative way. A Republican always votes with the party despite what they believe... I, in fact, will vote for a person with morals no matter what party they are in. (Sadly, I find so few of those types of people listed with the Democratic Party).

#2 - Now... regarding Medicare... my own grandmother has worked hard all her life and is also using the benefits of Medicare to help her medical expenses. I have no problem with that. The problem (which most Liberals cant see) is the millions of people who are using the welfare system to pay their bills, thus preventing them from having to work. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Big difference between good Americans who have worked hard for 50 years and now need so help due to their inability to make income... and the fat, lazy parasites who live on food stamps and government handouts so that they dont have to work for a living.

If left up to the Liberals... everyone would live on welfare... because we all know we aren't smart enough to save our own money... make a living... etc, etc.

Welcome to Russia.

[Spence]

Kevin, it is definitely true that you are not a conservative. I'm far more conservative than you are. I can also believe that you are not a Republican. My guess is that the GOP is not right wing enough for you. From what I can tell, your politics lie more along the lines of the various "Christian" millenarian militia groups. Is that correct?

Kevin, your ignorance about the welfare system in this country is absolutely breathtaking. Welfare accounts for about 3-4% of the budget.

Liberals are typically the most hard-working people in this country. A study of voting patterns, federal taxation, and federal spending from the 2000 election revealed that people who voted for Vice President Gore were net contributors to the public purse while those who voted for Governor Bush were net recipients. In other words, Gore voters gave more to the federal government in tax dollars than they received and Bush voters took more from the federal government than they received.

A lot of us liberal are sick of supporting a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothing, whiny, sissy right-wingers.

[RedskinsDave]

A liberal calling someone a whiny sissy, that's a hoot.

[Spence]

Liberals are the toughest people on Earth. Always have been, always will be.

Two Democratic candidates for president, Senator John Kerry and General Wesley Clark, are highly-decorated Vietnam War veterans. Both volunteered. Mr Bush, meanwhile, had his daddy get him a cushy position defending the skies of Texas from the Vietcong in the Texas Air National Guard. Even that duty was too much for poor George, and he had to go AWOL.

And as for that great, courageous patriot Dick Cheney, he couldn't go to Vietnam because, as he said, he had "other priorities" at the time. [Like saving his hypocritical ass, I suspect.] My favorite Republican tough guy, though, is Tom DeLay, Congressman from Texas. He said he couldn't go to Vietnam because black people took all the places. Yep, he actually said that.

And what about notorious right-wing tough guy/drug addict Rush Limbaugh? Well, he wanted to go to Vietnam. He really, really did. Unfortunately, he says he had anal cysts and couldn't go. [Boy, doesn't that explain a lot!]

Liberals are the toughest. The toughest.

[RedskinsDave]

Wow, a few names and you think liberals are tough. Also, Clark is certainly NOT a liberal.

All you libs do is whine about how bad things are and even louder when conservatives DO something about it. Why didn't your boy Clinton fix Medicare? Too busy boinking subordinates?

My grandfather received a silver star, three bronze stars and two purple hearts. He was at D-Day plus 4 and the Battle of the Bulge. Guess what, not a liberal.

"Liberals are the toughest. The toughest." I can picture you saying this as only Kenny Banya would.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Wow, a few names and you think liberals are tough. Also, Clark is certainly NOT a liberal.

All you libs do is whine about how bad things are and even louder when conservatives DO something about it. Why didn't your boy Clinton fix Medicare? Too busy boinking subordinates?
Clark says he is a liberal. I'll take his word for it. His policies are certainly liberal. I'll judge him by what he says he wants to do, not by what you say he is.

Clinton did not fix Medicare for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that a Republican Congress would have blocked anything he proposed. In fact, they did. But what are you comparing him to? Surely you do not think Medicare has been fixed now, do you? Hey, don't take my word for it--or the word of any liberal. Ask the right wing Cato Institute or the right wing Club for Growth what they think of the new Medicare act. I think you'll find the adjectives they use to describe it are even more harsh than mine. Check out their websites. You might find it illuminating.

[RedskinsDave]

Have you ever seen me saying it was fixed or that I like the plan? Nope. They tried which is more than I can say for the stand-and-wait-to-whine Democrats.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Have you ever seen me saying it was fixed or that I like the plan? Nope. They tried which is more than I can say for the stand-and-wait-to-whine Democrats. That's not fair, Dave. Clinton proposed a number of reforms for Medicare, but none of them were to the liking of the pharmaceutical lobby and the big HMOs. They give enormous sums of money to the Republicans and the Republicans controlled Congress during six of Clinton's eight years in the White House.

I guess I disagree with your contention that the Republicans have "tried" to fix Medicare. They have not. The Medicare act is a gigantic giveaway of tax dollars to large, politically-connected pharmaceutical and HMO companies [which is why Cato, Club for Growth, and other right-wing groups opposed it] and provides very little additional coverage for seniors [which is why Democrats opposed it]. I oppose it for both reasons. If we're going to give away gigantic sums of taxpayer money we should at least give it to the people who need it, not large medical companies that are already hugely rich. The Act manages to fail both liberal and conservative tests. Unfortunately, liberals and conservatives have no power in this Congress or this White House.

[RedskinsDave]

I don't like it for the same reason Cato doesn't. Although I am not blind to the ledger padding for the HMO and pharm world, I do see it as a step in the right direction as far as privatization. There aren't enough regulations to keep those industries from colluding against the system is my problem.

You have to admit though, as far as a political move, it was pretty shrewd to steal one of the democrats babies.

I know Clinton wanted to fix it but what fun would it be if I couldn't take a shot at him anyways?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I don't like it for the same reason Cato doesn't. Although I am not blind to the ledger padding for the HMO and pharm world, I do see it as a step in the right direction as far as privatization. There aren't enough regulations to keep those industries from colluding against the system is my problem.

You have to admit though, as far as a political move, it was pretty shrewd to steal one of the democrats babies.

I know Clinton wanted to fix it but what fun would it be if I couldn't take a shot at him anyways?

Privatization, what a great idea. Why isn't the TSA a privatized agency? Because there are some jobs too important to leave to profit seekers. Clinton tried to undertake a massive overhaul of the healthcare system, both private and public, but it was clear from the outset that anything that smacked of "socialized" medicine, or more simply put, less profit for private concerns, would be killed by, primarily Republican congressmen (although there are plenty of Dems in the pockets of healthcare as well).

[RedskinsDave]

The plan that Clinton was putting out on his campaign and first term was way too socialized for anyone's good.

The TSA should not be privatized. Protecting air travel isn't on par with prescription medicine in my opinion.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Wow, a few names and you think liberals are tough. Also, Clark is certainly NOT a liberal.

Yea, and I bet Spence thinks Senator McCain cried like a sissy when he was being tortured didn't he? Oh yea and we also forget about Mr. Clinton when we start talking about Bush going AWOL. Hey, read the facts on Mr. Clinton.


Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 8, 1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective Service Number 3 26 46 228.

Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the military
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Colonel E. Holmes.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction"
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction, is INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive from justice
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977 from Carter
Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as President

All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton.

Oh put Clinton is hard as nails. Liberals all are. Please quit trying to feed us loads of bull Spence. Open your eyes, democrats are no better at anything then anyone else.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
The plan that Clinton was putting out on his campaign and first term was way too socialized for anyone's good.

The TSA should not be privatized. Protecting air travel isn't on par with prescription medicine in my opinion.

Except that Medicare is not only about prescription drugs. Are you agreeing that really important "protections" (for lack of a better word) should not be privatized?

[circumstance]

Posted by Skinzaholic:
BUT - I do have a brain and can see beyond my own stomach to understand that my actions today will affect my kids tomorrow. THAT is what most who vote liberally cannot seem to do. They argue and complain about meeting needs today, yet are totally oblivious to the fact that the methods they are utilizing today will affect tomorrow in a negative way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd really like to know how you can rationalize this claim, especially with Bush's record on the environment. I consider myself a liberal and before I cause anymore detriment to my potential offspring, I'd very much enjoy an assessment on how my views are completely absent of regard for future generations. If it hasn't come across yet, I consider this claim exceptionally insulting, not only for me and those like me, but for you as well since it is the product of ridiculously short-sighted, lazy thinking.

[NamVet4]

Wow, we really strayed all over on this topic !!!!!

:D