1
   

A Long, Long Muddle

 
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:47 am
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 671 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 08:23 am
George Bush's vision of the nation's future will undoubtedly be one focus of the presidential campaign.

And if past behavior is any indicator of future behavior, then what we know about Bush's vision for America is:

1. debt

2. war

3. terrorism

4. unemployment

5. cronyism

6. divisiveness

America cannot afford four more years of George W. Bush.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 12:11 pm
Bumblebeeboogie writes:
Quote:


Why do you think Congress made the implimentation of this legislation to be so far in the future? So 1) they wouldn't be around when it went into effect or 2) they would at least have put some distance between themselves and their vote before it hits the fan.

The bill that was passed was virtually identical to one previously introduced by the Democrats and shot down by the Republicans because it 'was too expensive'. Hypocritical on both sides? You bet. I'm ashamed of the whole lot of them and was very angry at the president for signing the bill.

Will it be scaled back or rescinded before it takes effect? I believe it will be. I think given the way things are now, GWB would probably try to steer the issue in a different direction. Why did he do it at all? Because it was one of his campaign promises and he oddly is now taking those seriously.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 07:32 pm
Foxfyre
Foxfyre wrote: "The bill that was passed was virtually identical to one previously introduced by the Democrats and shot down by the Republicans because it 'was too expensive'."

Do we really have to dig up the old Democrat prescription drug bills to show you that they are not in the least similar or the same as the Republican's as you claim? They did not include payoffs to the drug industry. They did not prohibit the government from negotiating lower prices for drugs. They did not include provisions to weaken Medicare, etc., etc.

Please go back and do your research homework to avoid embarrassing yourself before the many knowledgeable A2Kers.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 08:35 pm
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Foxfyre wrote: "The bill that was passed was virtually identical to one previously introduced by the Democrats and shot down by the Republicans because it 'was too expensive'."

Do we really have to dig up the old Democrat prescription drug bills to show you that they are not in the least similar or the same as the Republican's as you claim? They did not include payoffs to the drug industry. They did not prohibit the government from negotiating lower prices for drugs. They did not include provisions to weaken Medicare, etc., etc.

Please go back and do your research homework to avoid embarrassing yourself before the many knowledgeable A2Kers.

BBB
Okay BBB, I will overlook the personal insult. I hate posting articles because anybody can write an article. But I will post the one below. Apologies will be accepted Smile

GOP Drives Medicare Prescription Drug Plan in House
By Christine Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 18, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - House Democrats and Republicans are locked in a partisan battle over whose prescription drug benefit plan will be added to Medicare -- and which party will control the House after this year's election.

On a 22-16 vote Tuesday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved the Republicans' $350 billion bill. Rep. Michael Collins (R-Ga.) was the only Republican to vote against the bill.

By comparison, alternative Democratic plans would cost taxpayers anywhere from $500 to $800 billion over the next decade.

"With House Republicans marking up their bill today, it's clear they are proposing a meaningless benefit that protects the pharmaceutical industry and ultimately leads to the privatization of Medicare," said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), speaking at a Capitol Hill press conference featuring liberal seniors' and women's groups.

"A retired federal employee wrote me [that] her prescription drug costs are so high that she has a very little to live on each month, so I had to move in with my son because I could not afford an apartment of my own," he said. "We need to pass a real Medicare prescription drug benefit for all seniors so that no one has to endure such hardships after a lifetime of hard work and service to their families and to our country."

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) praised the GOP plan.

"We strongly support this effort," said Neil Trautwein, NAM director of employment policy. "We are particularly pleased that the House GOP proposal relies on some of the same means employers use to manage their drug benefits.

"Medicare should more closely resemble the private sector, rather than the reverse," he said.

Aside from the cost to taxpayers, the main difference between the Republican and Democratic bills is the role of government. The GOP plan would allow seniors to buy the prescription drug insurance they want in the free market, whereas the Democrat plans would put the Medicare program in charge of access.

Liberal groups criticized the GOP plan for allowing seniors to rely on the marketplace for drug purchases. The groups also contend that the GOP plan doesn't spend enough.

"There is no guarantee that insurance companies will offer drug coverage in specific communities, and the Republican proposal allows insurance companies to define the coverage they offer in different locations," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

"As a result, seniors will have no certainty about the premiums they need to pay, the cost-sharing they will bear, the drugs that are covered, and under what conditions they can obtain those drugs," warned Pollack.

Pollack added that the GOP plan also "provides very meager coverage and forces seniors to pay the lion's share of drug costs.

"Too many seniors will remain unable to afford the medicines they need," he said.

During the Ways and Means hearing, small groups of protestors interrupted committee chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) three times with chants about the so-called "donuts," or gaps, in coverage under the Republican plan. The plan offers coverage up to $2,000 in drug costs but no coverage again until expenses top $4,900.

Tom Miller, health care analyst for the Cato Institute, says the reason for the donut was to gain the support of all seniors by offering first-dollar coverage, regardless of income.

"The donut first allows them to deliver benefits right away to most of the seniors," said Miller. "The fact is most of the seniors don't need [it] and shouldn't be getting them.

"But if you decide politically that's what you're going to do, ... it will make you seem like a wonderful person to folks who just want cheaper drugs and ... don't care how they get them and who pays," he said. "But in order to fit within the budget constraints...you've got to take it away at a point at which it will get even more expensive."

Spending on outpatient prescription drugs rose 17 percent in 2001 to $154.5 billion, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 08:51 pm
Foxfyre
CNS News service is a part of the Media Research Center.
http://www.cnsnews.com/corporate/history.asp

The Media Research Center
http://www.mediaresearch.org/

It's masthead reads: "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and
Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias."

I think we need a neutral, non-politically biased opinion about the medicare prescription drug bill.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 09:25 pm
How about this one? Source acceptable? Admittedly I am comparing the GOP vs Dem bills in the session that produced the bill. I am still looking for the language of the bill proposed during the Clinton administration which I know was similar to the one passed here; however I don't think it ever made it out of committee.

The point is, the Democrats proposed a much more ambitious bill than the one the GOP passed, but now the GOP is being criticized for passing the bill. Were the numbers skewed down to get it passed? That has been an accusation but the numbers are still being crunched.

The AARP by the way didn't think the GOP bill went far enough, but gave it their stamp of approval anyway.

Contact Information

Leslie Bonacum
847-267-7153
[email protected] Neil Allen
847-267-2179
[email protected]


House Passes Prescription Drug Benefits Bill: CCH Provides Analysis And Compares Gop And Democrat Approaches
How Medicare Recipients Fare Under Each, States May See Relief from Rising Medicaid Bills

(RIVERWOODS, ILL., June 28, 2002) - With the passage of the Medicare Modernization & Prescription Drug Act of 2002 (H.R. 4954) by the Republican-led House of Representatives early this morning, the pressure now is on the Democratic-led Senate to move on its own proposed bill. Ultimately, however, the true pressure is on both parties to eventually come to agreement on a final bill if there is to be any hope of enacting a law on prescription drug benefits this year, according to CCH INCORPORATED (CCH), a leading provider of healthcare law information and software (health.cch.com).

"Both the emerging Senate bill and the more conservative bill passed by the House are proposing the biggest changes to Medicare since the program's inception in 1965, with a massive change in prescription drug coverage for some 40 million elderly and disabled Americans covered under the program," said Edward Bryant, JD, healthcare analyst for CCH. "Passage of a Medicare-funded prescription drug benefit also could provide welcome relief to cash-strapped states currently picking up this tab for millions of low-income seniors under Medicaid."

However, the bills currently are miles apart, and significant compromise would be required for a final bill to pass. Below, CCH provides analysis of the bills and how seniors would benefit under each.

Apples and Oranges: Comparing the Bills

The House bill would cost $350 billion over 10 years, with $310 billion going to provide prescription drug benefits. Another $40 billion is earmarked for increasing payments to physicians, hospitals and other Medicare providers.

Under the House bill, private insurance companies are expected to administer the plan with the government subsidizing 67 percent of the plan's operation. Seniors would pay a monthly premium of $33, based on insurance company estimates, under the House bill, and the bill calls for a $250 annual deductible. The Medicare program would then pay 80 percent of the costs up to the first $1,000 spent on prescription drugs and 50 percent on the next $1,000. Seniors would be responsible for picking up costs after that up to $3,700 - the proposed cap on out-of-pocket costs. Medicare would pick up any amount a senior spent annually on prescription drugs beyond this cap.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats introduced their own proposal in mid-June and are expected to bring it to the Senate floor later this summer, assuming it can gain enough support.

With an expected cost of $700 to $800 billion over 10 years, the Democrats' Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act focuses exclusively on prescription drug benefits with no Medicare reform component.

Under the Senate bill, seniors would pay a fixed $25 monthly premium with a $100 deductible. After that, Medicare would pay 80 percent of the cost. The annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses under the Democrats' bill would be $2,000. Under an earlier version of the Senate bill, Medicare would have picked up all the costs after the $100 deductible, except for a $40 co-pay for each brand name prescription and a $10 co-pay for each generic one.

"Essentially, the Senate bill proposes to spend more than double the amount outlined by the House. Most seniors obviously would benefit by this added spending, but how much depends on the individual's particular circumstances and how much they spend on prescription drugs," said Bryant.

Determining How Much Seniors Benefit

According to figures from the Congressional Budget Office, the average senior will spend $3,059 on prescription drugs in 2005. Using the $3,059 average senior prescription drug spending amount, following is a comparison of how seniors would benefit under the Republican and the Democratic plans.

Republican Plan


$33 monthly premium over 12 months
$ 396

Annual deductible
250

20% co-payment for first $251 to 1,000
150

50% co-payment from $1,001 to $2,000
500

100% payment from $2,001 to 3,059
1,059

Total recipient expense
$2,355


Total prescription drug cost
$3,059

Less recipient expense
2,355

Amount recipient saves or Medicare funds
$704


Democratic Plan


$25 monthly premium over 12 months
$300

Annual deductible
100

20% co-payment for $101 to $3,059
592

Total recipient expense
$992


Total prescription drug cost
$3,059

Less recipient expense
992

Amount recipient saves or Medicare funds
$2,067


The $3,059 annual drug cost puts the average senior in what opponents are calling the "gap" in the Republican plan: Specifically, the $2,001 to $3,700 range where the House bill calls for seniors to pick up 100 percent of the costs for their prescription drugs.

"The gap is one of the most controversial areas of the House bill. From a federal funding perspective, it significantly lowers government costs. But Democrats and seniors organizations argue a prescription drug benefit with this gap isn't much of a benefit, as most seniors will still have to shoulder the majority of the costs," said Bryant.

Helping Low-Income Seniors

Both the House Republican bill and Senate Democratic bill propose additional assistance to help low-income beneficiaries at or near the federal poverty line.

Under the Republican bill, those with incomes of up to 150 percent of the federal poverty line would not be required to pay a deductible, but would be required to contribute $2 to $5 per medication. Those individuals with incomes from 150 percent to 175 percent of the poverty line would be required to pay based on a sliding scale.

In the Democrats' plan, recipients with incomes of up to 150 percent of the poverty line would pay no premium or co-insurance. As with the Republican plan, those with incomes from 150 percent to 175 percent of the poverty line would be required to contribute based on a sliding scale.

Using the 2002 poverty line of $8,860, which will increase by 2005 when the prescription drug program is to take effect, the difference in costs for a senior with an annual income below 150 percent of the poverty line ($13,290) and having an average of $3,059 in prescription drug expenses would be:

Republican Plan


Monthly premium
$ 0

Annual deductible
0

Co-payment for first $2,000
0

100% payment from $2,001 to 3,059
1,059

Total not covered by Medicare
$1,059


Total prescription drug cost
$3,059

Less not covered by Medicare*
1,059

Amount Medicare funds
$2,000


* Low-income seniors also would be required to pay $2 to $5 per medication, not factored into above example.

Democratic Plan


Monthly premium
$ 0

Annual deductible
100

Co-payment
0

Total not covered by Medicare
$100


Total prescription drug cost
$3,059

Less not covered by Medicare
100

Amount Medicare funds
$2,959



State Relief In Sight?

Under the current system, the federal government fully funds Medicare for the elderly and disabled. However, it only funds about one-half of the Medicaid program for the poor. The rest of Medicaid costs are borne by the states and counties, and funding prescription drugs for seniors is one of the growing areas of Medicaid costs. In fact, according to a study by Families USA, a consumer advocacy group, the cost of the 50 prescription drugs most frequently used by seniors rose nearly three times the rate of inflation last year.

"By creating a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, some of the drug costs for as many as 10 million seniors and disabled now covered under the state Medicaid programs could be shifted to Medicare, significantly alleviating budget pressures at the state level," said Bryant.

However, states would need to be patient. For example, under the House bill, Medicare would become the primary program for prescription drugs for low-income seniors and the disabled. But Medicare's primary status phases in, not becoming fully in effect until 2014.

About CCH INCORPORATED

For more than 50 years, CCH INCORPORATED has regularly tracked, reported, explained and analyzed health and entitlement law for healthcare providers, insurers, attorneys and consumers. CCH is the premier provider of Medicare and Medicaid information. CCH is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer North America. The CCH Health group site can be accessed at health.cch.com.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 10:03 am
Foxfyre
Foxfyre, Ralph Nader's Citizen Org site has an established reputation for honesty and integrity in its research. I commend it to you and to everyone regardless of their political affiliations.

This URL applies to the site's information and research on the Medicare Prescription Drug plans.---BBB


http://www.citizen.org/search/index.cfm?RequestTimeout=180

Public Citizen Calls for Investigation of Former Medicare Chief's Ethics Waiver
Public Citizen today issued a letter of complaint to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Servi...more
[created 12/22/2003]

A Chart by Rep Pete Stark (D-Calif) showing how the Medicare bill falls short of AARP's previous demands
A Chart by Rep Pete Stark (D-Calif) showing how the Medicare bill falls short of AARP's previous demands AARP medicare stark 2003-11-21 00:...more
[created 11/21/2003]

House Medicare Bill Would Begin to Dismantle the Medicare Program
Legislation being debated in the U.S. House of Representatives would radically transform the way Medicare operates to the detriment of seni...more
[created 6/18/2003]

AARP Has Financial Conflict of Interest in Medicare Drug Bill
An analysis by the national consumer group Public Citizen suggests that there were strong financial incentives for AARP to support the Repu...more
[created 11/21/2003]

Bush Heads for Bright Lights and Big Dollars in Vegas, Promoting Special-Interest Backed Medicare and Medical Malpractice Bills
President Bush travels to Las Vegas and Phoenix today to collect at least $2 million from donors at two private fundraisers - and to give s...more
[created 11/25/2003]

Prescription Drug Benefits & Price Legislation
Index of the rx_benefits section Prescription Drug Benefits & Price Legislation • Read Public Citizen's Critique of the House and...more
[created 8/29/2001]

AARP's Conflicts of Interest
AARP's Conflicts of Interest The AARP's Washington headquarters, in a stunning reversal, has endorsed the current Medicare prescription dru...more
[created 3/10/2004]

Bush Plan to Privatize Medicare: Limiting Patient Choice of Doctors in Five States
Bush Plan to Privatize Medicare: Limiting Patient Choice of Doctors in Five States Bush Plan to Privatize Medicare: Limiting Patient Choice...more
[created 6/5/2003]

Nov. 21 - AARP stands to make tens of millions of dollars if the disastrous Medicare bill passes
An analysis by the national consumer group Public Citizen suggests that there were strong financial incentives for AARP to support the Repu...more
[created 11/21/2003]

Drug Industry Employs 675 Washington Lobbyists, Many with Revolving-Door Connections, New Report Finds
The drug industry spares no effort to ensure that Congress does not encroach on its hefty profits and the high prescription prices that sup...more
[created 6/23/2003]

etc., etc., etc.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 10:35 am
BBB writes:
Quote:
"Foxfyre, Ralph Nader's Citizen Org site has an established reputation for honesty and integrity in its research. I commend it to you and to everyone regardless of their political affiliations.

This URL applies to the site's information and research on the Medicare Prescription Drug plans.---BBB"


Um you were not willing to consider stats from a 'conservative' publication so I found you a credible nonpartisan one. I tend to look askance at any source or opinion, leftwing or rightwing, that can find nothing of virtue in the opposition but who's sole purpose for existence seems to desire to destroy or tear down.

Ralph Nader and his organization are avowed 'anybody but Bush' people and to the best of my knowledge, they have not affirmed or approved ANYTHING proposed or accomplished by the current administration. Also, I have found Ralph Nader's research to be flawed on more than one issue. You can understand how I would view the presentation of statistics or opinions from a Nader website as prejudicial.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A Long, Long Muddle
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 07:54:14