Tartarin
The question that comes to mind is :
Congress friend or foe.
Au -- I've felt for years now that Congress has needed a serious shake-out. I was very impressed (depressed) by the retirement comments of Alan Simpson and Bill Bradley and others about the state of affairs in the Senate -- rudeness, divisiveness, etc. -- by Jeffords statements, and by the spectacle of the House Republicans during and since the Reagan era. Was kind of hoping there would be more public criticism coming from within Congress itself. But if they're going to stick together, protect each other, we're really going to have to throw babies out with bathwater, IMO.
In answer to your question: clearly foe!
ROFLMAO!!! I love this! While I detest the notion that Republicans are pushing for increased spending on unconstitutional social programs, I can't help but relish the irony of Democrats and liberals fighting to deny old people a government giveaway for which they have been clamoring.
Dare I say that Democrats hate old people? (That's what Dems would say of Republicans fightin against legislation the AARP wants.)
Scrat
Governments give away or government screwing. This is more of our benevolent leaders sleight of hand. Feel how good it is as we slip it in.
au1929 wrote:Scrat
Governments give away or government screwing. This is more of our benevolent leaders sleight of hand. Feel how good it is as we slip it in.
Do you even know the specifics of the law? Why does the AARP endorse it if it is so bad for the elderly? (They are not known for blind allegiance to the Republicans.)
mber 21, 2003, 11:24 a.m.
A Senior Moment
The GOP goes for a poisoned pill.
Rep. Mike Pence, the second-term Indiana Republican who is heroically leading a group of conservatives in the House against the $400 billion Medicare prescription-drug bill, notes that it was exactly ten years ago this week that the Hillary health-care plan was revealed to the world in all its splendor and glory. When it was first unveiled, Hillarycare was widely hailed as the silver bullet to solve all our health-care-system woes. The plan was quickly endorsed by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
Six months later the Clinton health plan was the butt of jokes on late-night talk show as it lay in political tatters after being universally rejected by voters. Voters turned down the socialized-medicine scheme because of its complexity, high cost, and over-reliance on big government.
Now we have Republicans on the verge of repeating this fiasco, as they offer a prescription-drug-benefit plan that is complex, costly, reliant on big government, and enthusiastically supported by the AARP. What's wrong
with this picture?
The policy deficiencies of the prescription-drug bill are by now well documented. The plan will dump roughly $2 trillion in added unfunded entitlement liabilities into the laps of our children and grandchildren, on top of the $21 trillion in unfunded debt already baked in the cake. As Rep. Pence stated on the House floor a few days ago, "Our children will never forgive us for this act of financial malpractice."
The plan could cause as many as four million seniors to lose their private-employer drug coverage and be thrust unwillingly into a Medicare program that offers worse benefits than they already have. This, of course, is precisely why corporate America has so energetically embraced the plan and is spending millions of dollars in advertisements to sell the public on its virtues. This plan could erase billions of dollars in liabilities from the balance sheets of Fortune 500 companies and shift them onto the books of Uncle Sam. There are no real cost-containment features to the bill, and as Rep. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania says, "almost no one in Congress really believes this plan has any chance of holding costs to anywhere near $400 billion."
None of these fiscal realities seems to matter much to the White House or the congressional Republican leadership, which at this moment are dangling pork-barrel goodies in front of the noses of conservative health-care skeptics in the House in order to buy their acquiescence. Their reservations do not matter, because Republican political strategists are convinced that this bill will earn Bush the gratitude of senior-citizen voters, who will flock into the Republican column in November 2004.
This is a potentially tragic political miscalculation on the part of the GOP deep thinkers. In fact, the Medicare prescription-drug bill could have just the opposite electoral effect: It could easily antagonize enough seniors to bring an end to the Republican majority in 2004.
As evidence of the political unpopularity of the drug bill, consider the poll results released this week by the Club for Growth. The poll of 800 seniors finds that retirees' support for the bill transforms into hostility when those over the age of 65 are told the full details of what this bill would actually provide. For example, when seniors are told that as many as one in three of them "may lose" his private drug coverage, 71 percent say they disapprove of the bill. When seniors are told that they will have to pay premiums of roughly $500 to $600 a year, 72 percent say they oppose the bill.
As the researchers at Basswood Research, which conducted the poll, conclude: "The more seniors learn about the prescription drug bill, the less they like it." Only 19 percent of seniors support the bill when they are informed of the full costs and the full risks. Republicans are especially vulnerable to retribution by seniors if employers accelerate the trend, already in motion, of firms' discontinuing the prescription-drug packages in their health-care plans. As the poll finds that 81 percent of seniors with private coverage are satisfied with their current plan, these seniors could end up as livid as late arrivers at the weekly church bingo game who can't find a parking space.
The prescription-drug bill is based on a faulty premise: that seniors want to swallow the pill that the Republicans are offering. That is perhaps the biggest myth in American politics today. It's a myth that could create a Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the House in 2004.
On the other hand, these poll results provide kernels of good news. If Republicans come to their senses and vote down this colossally expensive new entitlement program and replace it with a scaled-back plan that just gives benefits to low-income seniors without existing coverage, they will not only be saving their children a king's ransom, but saving their own political hides. And we know that this latter concern trumps every other consideration for our elected officials in Washington — or we wouldn't be having this debate at all.
AU - Any effort to add benefits to medicare without overhauling the way the system is funded will cause a bigger hole to be dug more quickly than not changing the system. This article complains of this as if anything the Dems have suggested would do otherwise.
Adding this benefit is a bad idea, but no worse simply because Republicans are leading the effort.
Scrat -- AARP is backing this because they get 150M a year from insurance companies with whom they are allied.
Tartarin wrote:Scrat -- AARP is backing this because they get 150M a year from insurance companies with whom they are allied.
I see. Assuming that is true, is that also the reason they backed every piece of Dem-sponsored legislation they've ever backed as well? Or do they only have nefarious reasons for backing Republican-led legislation?
Of course, your statement seems to suggest that AARP would back ANY health-care related legislation without consideration of its merits, simply because it is good for insurance companies. I don't buy that, and doubt many people would.
Republicans are arrogant con artists.
They truely believe that the Medicare and Engergy Bills can be passed and afterward they can crow about these scams. Maybe they will fool the people into believing how great these scams will be for the people. Perhaps these bills will pass because the majority of the Congress is corupt and the "people" are asleep or too uninvolved to know any better.
Scrat
The AARP has turned into a multi million dollar insurance CO. The are now up to their ass in the corporate world. What they were the appear to be no more.
The only reason Bush and company is pushing the prescription drug benefit is to fulfill a promise election season is fast approaching. The fact that it is less than worthless is to that man and his cohorts, meaningless. And yes if you read some of the articles written there is enough to see the basic ingredients. It should be done right or not at all. That is the problem congress passes legislation that mimics what it is. Half Ass. You will note that the AARP spokesman said something to the effect that it is better than nothing and we will fix it later. That is the tantamount to selling an auto with three wheels and telling the buyer it's better than nothing and we will fix it later.
Statement by Gail Shearer, Director of Health Policy Analysis of
Consumers Union Washington Office
Expressing Disappointment with the Medicare Prescription Drug Bills
That Passed in the House and Senate
“Congress has squandered an historic opportunity to provide seniors and the disabled with meaningful relief from the growing burden of prescription drug costs. Medicare beneficiaries will be disappointed when the reality of the meager benefit and unrestrained prices for their medicines continues to mean severe hardship. The bills passed early this morning are not the right prescription for providing the relief from high prescription drug bills. Seniors and the disabled are set up for disappointment.”
10 of the Reasons the House-passed bill is Bad for Consumers:
1. By allowing HMOs and PPOs to offer enriched benefits in 2006, the highly subsidized private Medicare providers will lure relatively healthy people into private coverage: taxpayer costs will go up, private insurance companies will get over-paid compared to their true costs, and millions of beneficiaries will lose choice of doctor.
2. In 2010 traditional fee-for-service Medicare will be forced into an unfair competition with private HMOs and PPOs, with an unlevel playing field: the traditional free-choice-of-doctor fee-for-service program will have higher costs and premiums (25 percent higher by government estimates) because it covers sicker people. Ultimately, traditional Medicare will be undermined and may even be forced out of existence.
3. The bill does not guarantee that seniors and people with disabilities will have access to an affordable prescription drug benefit, with a fixed premium and a generous benefit comparable to the drug benefit that Members of Congress get.
4. The bill relies on participation of a reluctant private insurance industry to provide drug coverage for those remaining in traditional Medicare: there is no assurance that they will want to participate, and no fallback for beneficiaries if they do not.
5. There will be total confusion: If private insurance companies do participate, they will be allowed to vary the benefits. This will make apples-to-apples comparisons by beneficiaries impossible and undermines the very notion of price-based competition.
6. The bill fails to take aggressive steps to rein in prescription drug expenditures, through aggressive discounts negotiated by the federal government and through greater use of comparative effectiveness data: prescription drug expenditures will continue to spiral upward.
7. Many beneficiaries who lack prescription drug coverage today will face higher out-of-pocket costs in 2007, even though they have coverage, because of the premiums, the uncovered costs and cost-sharing, and the anticipated increase in prescription drug expenditures.
8. There will be additional confusion caused by the introduction of means-testing into the program – the catastrophic benefit is limited for those beneficiaries with high income. This provision not only undermines Medicare as a universal program, but introduces tremendous administrative complexity: will private insurers vary the premium based on enrollees’ income?
9. The skimpy coverage shuts down benefits altogether when drug expenditures reach $2,000 and the gap lasts until expenditures reach $4,900.
10. The bill assures that special interest insurance companies will come to the government requesting larger subsidies (some would say bribes) to participate. This means higher costs for taxpayers and less money used to provide benefits.
10 of the Worst Things about the Senate Medicare Prescription Drug Bill
1. The bill does not guarantee that prescription drug coverage will be affordable and comprehensive; the premium for private coverage is uncertain and could be considerably higher than the $35/month estimate.
2. The bill lacks a Medicare option for all beneficiaries: they are at the mercy of a reluctant private insurance industry.
3. Taxpayers will end up paying more (and getting less) because of deep subsidies to lure participation of private carriers.
4. Benefits will vary: there is no standard benefit package, ruling out healthy competition in the marketplace.
5. Beneficiaries are prohibited from buying additional medigap coverage to lower their 50% coinsurance or provide benefits after the benefit shutdown.
6. There will be total confusion: benefits will vary, private coverage will be unstable, and beneficiaries will be forced to make complicated decisions without the ability to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
7. Employers are likely to CUT retiree benefits: millions will have LESS coverage than they have today. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 37 percent of beneficiaries with employer prescription drug coverage will lose it under the bill.
8. The bill lacks adequate cost containment: the federal government can not negotiate deep discounts.
9. Due to unchecked expenditures and skimpy benefits, many will face higher out-of-pocket costs when this is implemented than they do today.
10. The bill denies those who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare the ability to receive their prescription drug benefits through Medicare, undermining the universal nature of the Medicare program.
House OKs GOP Medicare bill in surprise upset
Bill now goes to the Senate
From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau
Saturday, November 22, 2003 Posted: 10:48 AM EST (1548 GMT)
The House of Representatives met to vote on the Medicare bill late Friday.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a dramatic vote that took almost three hours to complete, the House narrowly passed a Medicare and prescription drug bill and sent it to the Senate for final consideration.
Democrats held a slight lead in the vote count, 218 to 216, for most of the session. But the Republicans who control the chamber refused to close the scheduled 15-minute vote, allowing GOP leaders and President Bush -- who made several middle-of-the-night phone calls to wavering members -- to scour the floor for votes.
In the end, at about 6 a.m., they persuaded two junior members, Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter, R-Idaho, and Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, to vote yes, tipping the scale in favor of the GOP-written bill.
"The president and I had a conversation and I did what I think was the right thing for the country," a visibly distressed Franks told a reporter while leaving the Capitol. "I don't have any other comment."
In his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush urged Senate passage of the bill and credited the House victory on "bipartisan leadership, and because of the support of many advocates for seniors, including the AARP," the American Association of Retired Persons.
"I urge all members of Congress to remember what is at stake, and to remember the promise we have made to America's seniors," Bush said. "The quality of their health care, and the future strength of Medicare depends on the passage of this much needed legislation."
Two things drew my attention in this article.
1."The president and I had a conversation and I did what I think was the right thing for the country," a visibly distressed Franks told a reporter while leaving the Capitol. "I don't have any other comment.
One can only wonder what threats Rep. Franks was subjected to make him change his vote.
2 "I urge all members of Congress to remember what is at stake, and to remember the promise we have made to America's seniors," Bush said.
Yes, I remember. The promise was to help not screw them. Hopefully the seniors will remember that come election time.
House Passes Medicare Bill
House Passes Medicare Bill
By Amy Goldstein, Helen Dewar and David Broder
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 23, 2003; 10:51 AM
A divided House, in a dramatic vote before dawn, approved the most fundamental transformation of Medicare in the program's history, adopting legislation that would add a prescription drug benefit and create a large new role for private health plans in caring for the nation's elderly.
The measure had appeared destined for defeat, but passed on a vote of 220 to 215 after the House's GOP leaders kept the roll call open for nearly three hours until shortly before 6 a.m. as they scoured for extra votes. Knots of senior House Republicans and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson huddled repeatedly around several of the two dozen skeptical members who had initially voted against the bill -- with little apparent effect -- while their colleagues milled the floor and a few napped.
Through most of that time, the red lights on the voting board in the House chamber showed the tally at 216 for the measure and 218 against it. Finally, moments before 6 a.m., two Republican members, Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (Idaho) and Rep.Trent Franks (Ariz.) changed their minds, then another few colleagues followed suit.
Several longtime lawmakers said the roll call was the longest in their memory. The cliff-hanger vote, and the arduous efforts to pry a victory from an apparent defeat, reflected the enormous political significance of the Medicare issue and the philosophical differences -- between the political parties and among factions of Republicans who hold the majority in both houses of Congress -- over the changes the legislation would bring to the program.
The bill's passage, rocky as it was, vastly increases the chances that, after years of legislative struggle, the federal government will begin to offer the help in paying for medicine that has been a rallying cry among older Americans. It handed a substantial victory to the White House, which has sought to champion Medicare changes as a major domestic accomplishment for President Bush in his reelection campaign next year.
Later this morning, in his weekly radio address to the nation, Bush praised the House for it's "historic" action and despite the partisan rancor of the debate, he applauded what he called a bipartisan effort to pass the bill. He urged the Senate to do the same.
"This legislation, if also passed by the Senate, would represent the greatest improvement in senior health care since Medicare was enacted in 1965. When these reforms take full effect, our seniors would see real savings in their health care costs . . . ," the president said.
"We're on the verge of success because of bipartisan leadership, and because of the support of many advocates for seniors, including the AARP. Throughout many months of discussion and debate, we've remained focused on the clear objective -- to modernize and strengthen the Medicare system. And by working together, we're close to meeting that goal."
Congressional Republicans and Democrats, however, were deeply divided over whether the legislation would prove helpful to the 40 million older and disabled Americans who get health insurance through the program.
The slender margin resembled another cliff-hanger vote when the House passed a more conservative version of the Medicare legislation by a one-vote margin in June, following similar pressure by GOP leaders to win over skeptics. In that earlier vote, the GOP leadership extended the roll call by more than an hour to secure the final "yes" vote. Throughout Friday and until voting began at 3 a.m., Republicans leaders scurried to overcome resistance from Democrats and some GOP conservatives who objected to elements of the biggest proposed change to the program since it began in 1965.
The House took up the legislation one day after congressional negotiators completed work on a hard-fought compromise, produced largely by Republicans, that would inject heavy new market competition into the government health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. The compromise emerged from four months of negotiations over separate Medicare bills that the two chambers had passed.
Many Republicans called the bill an unprecedented opportunity to help older Americans with drug costs. "This is one of those times for great change," said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)
Most Democrats condemned it as a handout to pharmaceutical and insurance companies and a threat to the program's existence. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the bill would offer too little help with drug costs and lead to "the end of Medicare as we know it."
In the end, just 16 Democrats joined with the Republican majority to pass the bill. Twenty-five Republicans and one Independent voted with the rest of the Democrats against the measure.
The conservative Republicans who switched their votes at the end said they did so because they were told that if this bill failed, Democrats planned to bring up an earlier, more liberal Senate version.
Otter said he and Franks were among a group of seven conservatives who met with party leaders off the House floor. About an hour before the switch they were told the House Democrats were planning to introduce the Senate version of the Medicare prescription drug bill and bring it to the floor through a seldom used discharge petition that requires the signature of a majority of the members. The Senate bill was far more expensive and contained fewer reform elements, so Otter said he and Franks decided to change their votes.
Otter said he received a call from Bush earlier urging him to vote for the bill but he told the president "I can't help you" because the bill would increase the national debt.
After the vote, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) blasted the GOP for forcing a rejection into a win. "Arms have been twisted and votes have been changed," said Hoyer, who said the process had been anti-democratic.
The House vote is to be followed by action in the Senate, which planned to debate the legislation today and Sunday, with a vote possible by Monday. Yesterday, the bill continued to pick up support from senators of both parties. Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), who has sharply criticized the bill, said he would not support a filibuster to block its passage because Democrats are split on the issue.
Starting in 2006, the bill would allow everyone in Medicare to obtain federally subsidized drug coverage by buying a separate insurance policy or by joining a private health plan that also provided the rest of their care. Before those subsidies began, the government would, starting next spring, organize a network of drug discount cards sold by private companies that proponents predict could shave about 15 percent from the price of pharmaceuticals.
The drug assistance, the most widely publicized part of the 678-page legislation, is less controversial than several other provisions. Some of those would try to nudge Medicare patients to join preferred provider organizations (PPOs), HMOs, and other private health plans. Nearly nine in 10 people on Medicare belong to the original "fee-for-service" version in which patients choose their doctors and essentially can get the care they request.
Under a central compromise reached a week ago, the program would begin an experiment in which the traditional program would have to enter direct price competition for patients against private health plans. That six-year experiment in several metropolitan areas, to start in 2010, has drawn fire both from Democrats, who say it would begin to undermine Medicare, and from conservatives, who favor such competition permanently and nationwide.
For the first time, the plan calls for wealthier Medicare patients to pay more for doctors visits and other outpatient care. It provides for extra drug subsidies to low-income beneficiaries, although not to as many as many Democrats would like.
To get the drug benefit, patients would pay an average premium of $35 a month and a $250 annual deductible. After that, the government would pick up 75 percent of their drug expenses up to $2,250 a year. At that point, coverage would stop, except for a small number of patients with extremely large pharmaceutical expenses who incur $3,600 in out-of-pocket costs. At that point, the government would pay 95 percent of the rest.
Before last night's debate began, GOP House leaders spent the day racing to cajole a skeptical core of conservatives and other party members who reluctantly supported the original Medicare legislation that passed the chamber. The White House, hoping to tout a new Medicare law in President Bush's campaign next year, applied similar pressure. Bush telephoned "more than a handful" of House members from Air Force One as he returned from Britain, a White House spokesman said. And Friday night, Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson came to the Capitol to lobby in person for the measure's passage.
The House debate's intensely partisan tone, escalating all week, was vivid. Early in the day, Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a rare appearance at the Rules Committee and complained that the bill was being brought to the floor without a standard three-day waiting period for such agreements between the House and Senate. Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) called the measure "an unfair improper dangerous piece of legislation, conceived in darkness and . . . slipped through over the heads of our senior citizens." In a frequent theme, one Democrat denounced it as "a GOP drug company bonanza." And Many Democrats criticized the AARP, the nation's largest organization of older Americans, for endorsing the plan.
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss), said: "This is nothing but an auction to the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies in this nation for campaign contributions to the Republican Party."
Republicans, trying to court skeptics in their own party, emphasized parts of the bill that embrace conservative goals. They include the expanded market competition in Medicare, steps toward limiting overall spending on the program, and new tax breaks for Americans of all ages who open special savings accounts for medical expenses.
"This bill is really all about a fair deal," said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), one of its main architects. "Modernize Medicare with prescription drugs, but put Medicare back on a sound financial basis, as well."
Thomas also countered Democratic efforts to demonize the AARP for its surprise decision to side with the GOP in support of the bill. "The AARP has not abandoned you. You've abandoned seniors," he told the Democrats.
In the 100-member Senate, Democratic foes of the Medicare bill may use parliamentary maneuvers to force Republicans to muster 60 votes to block a filibuster. But after a 90-minute Democratic caucus on the issue, Daschle said party members were "passionately" divided over the filibuster strategy.
"I don't believe a filibuster reflects the consensus of our caucus," he said, adding that he would vote against such a delaying tactic.
Despite some defections from their ranks, Senate Republicans said they believed they had enough votes for passage, even if they have to clear a 60-vote hurdle. During the past few days, wavering Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) said they would vote for the bill, as did a Republican skeptic, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine). Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who voted against an earlier Senate version of the legislation in June, said he supports the new version.
Betrayal.
A majority of the Repubs. have betrayed seniors.
Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) said they would vote for the bill.
These reps. and a few others have betrayed the seniors.
To all who feel this is a ripoff write,phone and e-mail your senators. Particularly those who would vote in favor of the legislation.
Indeed, AU1929. Yesterday I cut my AARP membership card in half and included it in a scathing letter to AARP. Have also contacted both senators, who happen to be Dems, requesting that they actively support a fillibuster. I am outraged by this farce.
You know, the Senate leadership is holding the big spending bill for last for use to threaten or cajole recalcitant members of the the Medicare and Energy bills.
Medicare Debate Turns to Pricing of Drug Benefits
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 24, 2003
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — With Congress poised for final action on a major Medicare bill this week, some of the fiercest debate is focused on a section of the bill that prohibits the government from negotiating lower drug prices for the 40 million people on Medicare.
That provision epitomizes much of the bill, which relies on insurance companies and private health plans to manage the new drug benefit. They could negotiate with drug companies, but the government, with much greater purchasing power, would be forbidden to do so.
Supporters of the provision say it is necessary to prevent the government from imposing price controls that could stifle innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Critics say the restriction would force the government and Medicare beneficiaries to spend much more for drugs than they should.
Can anyone possibly believe this bill was designed for the purpose of affording the elderly a benefit?
IMO it should be called an industry protection bill.
AU - If the government were able to force pricing on the drug companies, wouldn't that effectively put government in control of drug prices?
