Robert Samuelson on the Medicare prescription drug benefit:
The test of any replacement is whether it improves upon the status quo for the whole nation, not just retirees. By that test, Congress's drug benefit fails.
It would actually make a major national problem -- paying the baby boom's retirement benefits -- worse. In its first decade, costs are estimated at about $400 billion, which isn't so much compared with projected total federal spending of $28 trillion. But if a new "blockbuster" drug appears, forget the $400 billion estimate. Spending will explode anyway as baby boomers retire and drug use rises. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office, puts the second decade's costs between $1.3 trillion and $2 trillion.
Even this may be too low, considering inevitable pressures to expand coverage.
Without getting into too many tricky statistics, here's how government program spending breaks down:
How much they say it's gonna cost: LESS.
How much it will really cost: MORE.
That's hard data, kids, and you can look it up in any GAO report. It also goes by another name -- "buying votes."
Another, somewhat less cynical way of putting it: "Keeping a promise."
Bush came into office promising a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. So did a whole lot of those running for Congress and Senate in 2000 and 2004.
They need to deliver something if they're going to keep their word, and there's much to be said for the argument that if this bill doesn't pass, something much worse will pass next year.
Frankly, I think the whole thing is quite stupid, given that the vast majority of seniors have no problem affording their medical care.
What they need to include in the bill is some sort of standard that a person has to meet to qualify for the prescription coverage. Just being old should not be reason enough.
> What they need to include in the bill is some sort of standard that a person has to meet to qualify for the prescription coverage. Just being old should not be reason enough.
There are few things that Teddy and Co oppose more than making SS and Medicare into yet another welfare program.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Buying Votes
"That's hard data, kids, and you can look it up in any GAO report. It also goes by another name -- "buying votes."" -- Stephen Green
Looks like Congress has learned how to destroy the republic, en massé. The challenge is can the public resist their effort?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money. -- d’Tocqueville]
There are few things that Teddy and Co oppose more than making SS and Medicare into yet another welfare program.
I can't imagine that a prescription drug program that benefits a large number of people who don't actually need it isn't a lot worse than straightup welfare.
Rush actually brought up a good point. Under the bill as written, he'd get prescription drug benefits (I only know this because my wife told me; she doesn't let me listen to Rush :]). Does he need them? I laugh.
So, the basic question is this: if people can afford drugs for themselves, why get the government involved? Imagine, you're barely scraping by, supporting your family and home, and the government decided to take part of your tax proceeds and pay it out to seniors irrespective of need. I can't support this, and I haven't heard any arguments that are anywhere in the neighborhood of convincing.
I hope it dies a terrible death. Better a slightly expanded welfare package than this monstrosity.
