Go Back   hailRedskins.com Fan Board > hR General Discussion Forums > Potomac hR Political Air Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Bush Admin Lies About Cost of Medicare Exposed
  #1  
Old 02-09-2005, 09:13 AM
Spence's Avatar
Spence Spence is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Posts: 23,823
Default Bush Admin Lies About Cost of Medicare Exposed

Quote:
The White House released budget figures yesterday indicating that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade, a much higher price tag than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003.

The projections represent the most complete picture to date of how much the program will cost after it begins next year. The expense of the new drug benefit has been a source of much controversy since the day Congress approved it, with Democrats and some Republicans complaining that the White House has consistently low-balled the expected cost to the government.
...
At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) taunted Treasury Secretary John W. Snow about the rhetorical discrepancies.

"If you're looking for a crisis, I would suggest you look at a crisis that was self-made in just last year, because the crisis exists in what's happened to Medicare by weighing it down," Emanuel said. "Those of us who told you it was going to cost twice as much were right."

At the recent confirmation hearing of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) pressed the administration to hold down the cost of the prescription drug program to the $400 billion that Bush had originally promised.
...
Beginning with his January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush pledged to keep the total cost of the drug benefit to $400 billion over 10 years. An estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was close to Bush's figure.

But shortly after Bush signed the program into law in December 2003, the White House revised its projection to $534 billion, but it never offered a detailed breakdown of that estimate.

Last March, Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary for nearly a decade, said administration officials threatened to fire him if he disclosed his belief in 2003 that the drug package would cost $500 billion to $600 billion. Lawmakers in both parties accused the administration of concealing important information that could have derailed passage of the bill.

Last night, in response to media inquiries, McClellan revised the numbers once more. The most significant change, he said, is that the new budget projections tally the cost of drug benefits for 10 years. Projections made in 2003 included the two transition years before the drug coverage is fully implemented in 2006.
...
Democrats pointed to the discrepancy in Medicare cost projections as further reason to distrust Bush's 2006 budget, which they said uses tricks and omissions to paint a rosier fiscal picture than the facts justify.
Source
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 02-09-2005, 11:39 AM
Jimreaper007's Avatar
Jimreaper007 Jimreaper007 is offline
Spirit
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A van down by the river
Posts: 9,680
Default

Bush Lying.......not possible
__________________
Paper checkers vs. real cops....hmmmmm?
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 02-09-2005, 12:04 PM
NamVet4's Avatar
NamVet4 NamVet4 is offline
Shaman
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Heartland of the Jersey Shore!
Posts: 6,148
Default

This information is nice, but what would really make this an item would be if every American saw a $3.27/ $1,000.00 reduction in their weekly pay on an immediate basis to start covering the cost for this! And if every senior citizen collecting SS noticed a monthly drop in pay immediately!
No one in America will react until it hits them directly in the pocket book NOW!
__________________
"If you aren't fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm." Vincent Thomas Lombardi (1913 - 1970)
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 02-09-2005, 02:16 PM
JoeDaSchmoe's Avatar
JoeDaSchmoe JoeDaSchmoe is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 10,421
Default

I believe this is the plan in which the government covers for Viagra as part of Medicare....
__________________
My PTI-style "boys:"

Santana Moss
Colt Brennan
Anthony Montgomery
Fred Smoot
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 02-09-2005, 05:35 PM
Axegrinder's Avatar
Axegrinder Axegrinder is offline
2006 and 2010 Fantasy NASCAR Champ!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Great Dismal Swamp of VA
Posts: 13,673
Default

What's with all these candy-asses afraid of being fired?Take one for the team[taxpayers].
Then write your book!
__________________
Reply With Quote

budgetary perfect storm
  #6  
Old 02-14-2005, 06:26 AM
tommahawk's Avatar
tommahawk tommahawk is offline
Code Talker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Hollow
Posts: 1,962
Default budgetary perfect storm

Quote:
The White House and Congress vowed last year to keep the 10-year cost of a prescription drug bill to $400 billion. But to do it, the 2004 law did not come fully into effect until 2006. Hence, legislation once priced below $400 billion over 10 years now will cost at least $724 billion over a decade, simply because the law would then be fully in effect.
Congress and the White House have become adept at passing legislation with hidden long-term price tags,

Quote:
Even if Bush succeeds in slashing the deficit in half in four years, as he has pledged, his major policy prescriptions would leave his successor with massive financial commitments that begin rising dramatically the year he relinquishes the White House, according to an analysis of new budget figures.

His plan to partially privatize Social Security, for instance, would cost a total of $79.5 billion in the last two budgets that Bush will propose as president and an additional $675 billion in the five years that follow. New Medicare figures likewise show the cost almost twice as high as originally estimated, largely because it mushrooms long after the Bush presidency.


"It's almost like you've got a budget, and you've got a shadow budget coming in behind that's a whole lot more expensive," said Philip G. Joyce, professor of public policy at George Washington University.

"Hopefully some very difficult decisions will be addressed between now and the time we have a new White House resident so that occupant isn't faced with some very expensive chickens coming home to roost," said John Weaver, a McCain adviser. "There are some things that we can do, but unfortunately in the political world kicking down the road is often seen as leadership."
We need McCain to start leading instead of following these soon to fail policies.


Quote:
Tax cuts approved in 2001 and 2003 were held to $1.7 trillion through an array of slow phase-ins, phase-outs and a Dec. 31, 2010, end date when all of the tax cuts would vanish. Now, Bush wants them made permanent, but according to White House numbers, a five-year extension beyond 2010 would cost nearly $1.1 trillion.

One tax proposal alone underscores the problem. A Bush plan to establish broad new tax-free savings accounts would actually raise $17 billion in the first five years, as savers cash out other tax-free accounts, pay taxes on their withdrawals and roll the money into the new accounts. But in the second five years, the proposal would cost $15 billion, according to Treasury figures. And the cost would rise sharply from there, as the accounts began shielding virtually all American savers from capital-gains, dividend and interest taxation.

Congress has long gamed the budget system to make its legislation look less expensive in the short run, Joyce said. But the scale of the drug benefit, the tax cuts, the new tax proposals and the Social Security plan are unprecedented.

Their coming convergence would be a "budgetary perfect storm," Joyce said. "You can't hide from it forever."
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 02-14-2005, 06:29 AM
Jimreaper007's Avatar
Jimreaper007 Jimreaper007 is offline
Spirit
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A van down by the river
Posts: 9,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeDaSchmoe
I believe this is the plan in which the government covers for Viagra as part of Medicare....

Viagra but not birth control....gotta love that equality of the sexes stuff.
__________________
Paper checkers vs. real cops....hmmmmm?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search | New Posts |