Republican Welfare System Keeps on Spending

[chomerics]

Even AFTER is has been found out that the Bush administration purposely misled the country about the cost of the prescription drug bill, the Republicans vote against giving the government power to negotiate a fair price for pills.

Yet more corporate welfare. Funny how you don't see George Will and Bob Novak writing about the problems in this vote huh. :doh:

Amends: S.1932

Sponsor: Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] (submitted 11/2/2005) (proposed 11/3/2005)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide the authority for negotiating fair prices for medicare prescription drugs.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S12270-12271

STATUS:

11/3/2005:

Amendment SA 2371 proposed by Senator Snowe. (consideration: CR S12323-12325; text: CR S12324)

11/3/2005:

Point of order raised in Senate with respect to amendment SA 2371.

11/3/2005:

Motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment SA 2371 rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 48. Record Vote Number: 302.

11/3/2005:

Amendment SA 2371 ruled out of order by the chair.

COSPONSORS(6):

Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 11/2/2005

Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 11/2/2005

Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 11/2/2005

Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 11/3/2005

Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 11/3/2005

Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 11/3/2005

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP02371:

Repubs who voted for it. . .

McCain

Snowe

Spector

Collins

Brownback

Dems who Opposed it

Nelson

Baucus (Min) - don't think they won't be notified about that one!!!

[Redskins Diehard]

If those 2 Dems hadn't opposed it, they would've won. Whats up with that? Enough Republicans broke ranks for this thing to win.

[Thiebear]

Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

S 239 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 239

To reduce the costs of prescription drugs for medicare beneficiaries, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 1, 2005

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. MCCAIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. FEINGOLD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To reduce the costs of prescription drugs for medicare beneficiaries, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. GAO STUDIES AND REPORTS ON PRICES OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

(a) Review and Reports on Retail Prices of Prescription Drugs-

(1) INITIAL REVIEW- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of the retail cost of prescription drugs in the United States during 2000 through 2003, with an emphasis on the prescription drugs most utilized for individuals age 65 or older.

(2) SUBSEQUENT REVIEW- After conducting the review under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall continuously review the retail cost of such drugs through April 1, 2006, to determine the changes in such costs.

(3) REPORTS-

(A) INITIAL REVIEW- Not later than September 1, 2005, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the initial review conducted under paragraph (1).

( SUBSEQUENT REVIEW- Not later than July 1, 2006, January 1, 2007, and July 1, 2007, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the subsequent review conducted under paragraph (2).

( Annual GAO Study and Report on Retail and Acquisition Prices of Certain Prescription Drugs-

(1) ONGOING STUDY- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an ongoing study that compares the average retail cost in the United States for each of the 20 most utilized prescription drugs for individuals age 65 or older with--

(A) the average price at which private health plans acquire each such drug;

( the average price at which the Department of Defense under the Defense Health Program acquires each such drug;

© the average price at which the Department of Veterans Affairs under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs acquires each such drug; and

(D) the average negotiated price for each such drug that eligible beneficiaries enrolled in a prescription drug plan under part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as added by section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), that provides only basic prescription drug coverage have access to under such plans.

(2) ANNUAL REPORT- Not later than December 1, 2007, and annually thereafter, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1), together with such recommendations as the Comptroller General determines appropriate.

SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF AVERAGE AGGREGATE BENEFICIARY COSTS AND SAVINGS IN COMPARATIVE INFORMATION FOR BASIC MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS.

Section 1860D-1©(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101©(3)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A)--

(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking `subparagraph (' and inserting `subparagraphs ( and ©'; and

( by adding at the end the following new clause:

`(vi) AVERAGE AGGREGATE BENEFICIARY COSTS AND SAVINGS- With respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2007, the average aggregate costs, including deductibles and other cost-sharing, that a beneficiary will incur for covered part D drugs in the year under the plan compared to the average aggregate costs that an eligible beneficiary with no prescription drug coverage will incur for covered part D drugs in the year.'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`© AVERAGE AGGREGATE BENEFICIARY COSTS AND SAVINGS INFORMATION ONLY FOR BASIC PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS- The Secretary shall not provide comparative information under subparagraph (A)(vi) with respect to--

`(i) a prescription drug plan that provides supplemental prescription drug coverage; or

`(ii) a Medicare Advantage plan.'.

SEC. 4. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

(a) In General- Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to noninterference) and by inserting the following:

`(i) Authority To Negotiate Prices With Manufacturers-

`(1) IN GENERAL- In order to ensure that beneficiaries enrolled under prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans pay the lowest possible price, the Secretary shall have authority similar to that of other Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D drugs, consistent with the requirements and in furtherance of the goals of providing quality care and containing costs under this part.

`(2) MANDATORY RESPONSIBILITIES- The Secretary shall be required to--

`(A) negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan under subsection (g); and

`( participate in negotiation of contracts of any covered part D drug upon request of an approved prescription drug plan or MA-PD plan.

`(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in paragraph (2) shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary under paragraph (1) to the mandatory responsibilities under paragraph (2).'.

( Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).

SEC. 5. NAIC REVIEW AND REPORT ON CHANGES IN MEDIGAP POLICIES THAT PROVIDE COVERAGE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS CONTAINED IN THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT, AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003.

(a) In General- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall request the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to conduct a review of the changes to the rules relating to medicare supplemental policies that provide prescription drug coverage contained in subsection (v) of section 1882 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss), as added by section 104(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).

( Impact on Medicare Beneficiaries- The review conducted pursuant to subsection (a) should focus on the impact the changes described in such subsection will have on medicare beneficiaries.

© Report- The Secretary shall request the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to submit to Congress, by not later than January 1, 2006, a report on the review conducted pursuant to subsection (a), together with such recommendations as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners determines appropriate.

From what i've read it basically states that some guy will keep track of the top 20-25 drugs to 65+ people and keep negotiating prices to keep them low in bulk?

1. Why is this not in the original bill, or is it a different person in the orignal bill?

2. Whats the big deal to this?

[Thiebear]

This explains it pretty good:

http://chi.org/home/files/oppose%20non-interference%20-%207%205%2005.pdf

[Duncan]

Even AFTER is has been found out that the Bush administration purposely misled the country about the cost of the prescription drug bill, the Republicans vote against giving the government power to negotiate a fair price for pills.

Yet more corporate welfare. Funny how you don't see George Will and Bob Novak writing about the problems in this vote huh. :doh:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP02371:

Repubs who voted for it. . .

McCain

Snowe

Spector

Collins

Brownback

Dems who Opposed it

Nelson

Baucus (Min) - don't think they won't be notified about that one!!!

The Republican's claim they are for the free market, which is a pathetic joke. They protect industries that feed their political coffers.

The federal government should not be involved at all in the healthcare industry.

I strongly recommend you read "Parliament of Whores" by P.J. O'Rourke. Just remember to take your blood pressure medicine beforehand.

[chomerics]

From what i've read it basically states that some guy will keep track of the top 20-25 drugs to 65+ people and keep negotiating prices to keep them low in bulk?

1. Why is this not in the original bill, or is it a different person in the orignal bill?

2. Whats the big deal to this?

The republicans would not allow the US government to negotiate a fair price for the drug companies. In other words, the government guarentees handing out pills, which the taxpayer will pay for, while not being able to purchase at a discounted rate. The drug companies can charge whatever they want, with no recourse for the US Government to pressure the drug companies to lower the price. This is a 1/2 TRILLION Dollars to the drug companies, do you understand how much money that is??? That is OUR tax money. There is nothing more liberal then this brand of conservatism, yet you hear absolutely nothing out of the mainstream media, and the right wing pundits in terms of how bad this is.

Is there a republican who has an argument for NOT giving the government the right to negotiate a fair price?

[chomerics]

The Republican's claim they are for the free market, which is a pathetic joke. They protect industries that feed their political coffers.

The federal government should not be involved at all in the healthcare industry.

I strongly recommend you read "Parliament of Whores" by P.J. O'Rourke. Just remember to take your blood pressure medicine beforehand.

I'll take you up on it. I'm reading a David Brock book now. The Republican Noise Machine, it is about the Republican media, and how they have come to dominate the airwaves, it's good reading for how the right came into power, and it is a pretty good analysis how they have changed peoples views in Middle America. He has his libral opinions, but it is pretty much a breakdown of the right wing party's rise to power and how they came about it.

[jbooma]

The Republican's claim they are for the free market, which is a pathetic joke. They protect industries that feed their political coffers.

The federal government should not be involved at all in the healthcare industry.

I strongly recommend you read "Parliament of Whores" by P.J. O'Rourke. Just remember to take your blood pressure medicine beforehand.

Government is needed in healthcare, and actually should have a stronger role. If we want to get to the e-medical record then there has to be some type of standard created. When you have multiple companies create there own there is mass confusion.

Currently the insurance companies and healthcare companies only care about their standards or process. We do need the government here just so we can have one set standard so all the information systems speak to one another.

The only way we are going to be able to use a card as a holder of our medical records is if we can agree on a standard, thats it.

I agree government doesn't need to be involved everywhere but there are areas where it is.

Medicare and Medicaid actually isn't that bad, as long as you understand all that it provides, you might be surprised.

Lets face it over the next 25+ years no matter what we do the healthcare costs are going to rise, a huge part of our population will be dying we are an aging country and it is going to get worse.

[rictus58]

I'll take you up on it. I'm reading a David Brock book now. The Republican Noise Machine, it is about the Republican media, and how they have come to dominate the airwaves...

You're kidding right? How does the "republican media" control the airwaves? I see FAR more liberal news programming than Conservative.

[chomerics]

You're kidding right? How does the "republican media" control the airwaves? I see FAR more liberal news programming than Conservative.

Do me a favor, and turn on the radio. There is not a place in the country where there is more liberal news on then conservative. Hell, I live in the most liberal state, and I work in the most liberal town in that state, and even here WE have more conservative pundits then liberal pundits. We have one liberal station and three conservative ones. This is in Cambridge Massachusetts to boot. . . :doh:

[jbooma]

Do me a favor, and turn on the radio. There is not a place in the country where there is more liberal news on then conservative. Hell, I live in the most liberal state, and I work in the most liberal town in that state, and even here WE have more conservative pundits then liberal pundits. We have one liberal station and three conservative ones. This is in Cambridge Massachusetts to boot. . . :doh:

chom the airwaves on the radio do not compare at all to the ones on TV, where it is dominated by the left

[rictus58]

Do me a favor, and turn on the radio. There is not a place in the country where there is more liberal news on then conservative. Hell, I live in the most liberal state, and I work in the most liberal town in that state, and even here WE have more conservative pundits then liberal pundits. We have one liberal station and three conservative ones. This is in Cambridge Massachusetts to boot. . . :doh:

On the radio you may have a point. But, do me a favor and turn on the TV. Where do more people get their news from: Radio, newspapers or TV? I'd wager its from TV, which clearly has a liberal bias. I can name the people I know who listen to talk radio on 1 hand, and that includes me.

[The Evil Genius]

Most people get their news from FOXnews - which is a markedly conservative biased news source.

[jbooma]

Most people get their news from FOXnews - which is a markedly conservative biased news source.

is that a fact??

do they have over 50% of the viewers watching, then that would be considered a majority

[Duncan]

I'll take you up on it. I'm reading a David Brock book now. The Republican Noise Machine, it is about the Republican media, and how they have come to dominate the airwaves, it's good reading for how the right came into power, and it is a pretty good analysis how they have changed peoples views in Middle America. He has his libral opinions, but it is pretty much a breakdown of the right wing party's rise to power and how they came about it.

I don't know about the Brock book. The guy was a right wing hack turned left wing hack. Seems to me his loyalties begin and end with his bank accounts.

O'Rourke rips everyone and does it with humor.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." — P.J. O'Rourke

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

P. J. O'Rourke

"One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license."

P. J. O'Rourke

[rictus58]

Most people get their news from FOXnews - which is a markedly conservative biased news source.

Thats funny, when I watch CBS news, they tell me more people get their news from CBS than any other source.

[chomerics]

I don't know about the Brock book. The guy was a right wing hack turned left wing hack. Seems to me his loyalties begin and end with his bank accounts.

According to him, it was his concience, not his bank account. . . but then again that was the same argument the neocons had to begin with. Remember the old "a necon is a liberal who was robbed' analogy :laugh: :whoknows:

O'Rourke rips everyone and does it with humor.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." — P.J. O'Rourke

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

P. J. O'Rourke

"One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license."

P. J. O'Rourke

Sounds like somebody I'd like :laugh: I'll pick up the book tomorrow at lunch.

[Thiebear]

If this is not true you have a point:

In a January 23, 2004 statement, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examined the effect of

striking the non-interference provision and stated: “We estimate that striking that provision would

have negligible effect on federal spending because CBO estimates that substantial savings will be

obtained by the private plans and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further

reduce federal spending to a significant degree. Because they will be at substantial financial risk,

private plans will have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts, both to control their own costs

in providing the drug benefit and to attract enrollees with low premiums and cost-sharing

requirements.” In a similar statement made in February 2004, CMS Chief Actuary Rick Foster

concluded that “direct price negotiation by the HHS Secretary would be unlikely to achieve

prescription drug discounts of greater magnitude than those negotiated by Medicare prescription

drug plans responding to competitive forces.”

[nelms]

Do me a favor, and turn on the radio. There is not a place in the country where there is more liberal news on then conservative. Hell, I live in the most liberal state, and I work in the most liberal town in that state, and even here WE have more conservative pundits then liberal pundits. We have one liberal station and three conservative ones. This is in Cambridge Massachusetts to boot. . . :doh:

RADIO, RADIO, RADIO, RADIO, RADIO, RADIO, RADIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You do realize, chom, that no medium other than radio is directly tied to audience share. If you don't get the ratings in radio, you don't stay on the air very long. Radio gives the people what they want. That's why Stuart Smalley and his Air America crew are an abysmal failure. The audience doesn't want to listen to his left wing wacko crap.

[Larry]

From what i've read it basically states that some guy will keep track of the top 20-25 drugs to 65+ people and keep negotiating prices to keep them low in bulk?

1. Why is this not in the original bill, or is it a different person in the orignal bill?

2. Whats the big deal to this?

There are lots of possible answers to 1)

The Official Liberal Position is that Bush wanted the government to pay full retail price to the drug companies, because their profit margins have been under pressure due to insurance companies (and foreign countries) demanding lower prices because they're big customers.

The Official Conservative Position is that if the government says "I'm a big buyer, can I get this at wholesale?", then it's "Government price controlls". (Although, I notice that, say, when a big business wants to buy everything they buy at half price, and they want to be exempt from local taxes, and they want the taxpayers to buy the land that they're thinking about building on, and giving the land to them, simply because they're big business, then that's "just business".)

Me, personally: I've got a theory that one of the reasons the GOP is inststing on this is because The Plan is that, 10 years from now, when it turns out that gee, this thing is costing a bunch of money, then a) the GOP will be "shocked" that it's costing so much. they'll "investigate", and they'll "discover" that private insurance costs less than government (since the government has been subsidising the private insurance, and because the government hasn't been "competing" on the same playing field. and c) The obvious solution will be to eliminate medicare and "tell people to get private insurance". (Meaning: throw trillions at big businesses, and "let them eat cake".)

In short, they (the evil, GOP "they") are intentionally creating a rotten, overpriced system (which will produce trillions for their big campaign contributors), so that they can "discover" the problem down the road, and "fix" it (by throwing trillions at their big contributors).

[NoCalMike]

Bush has borrowed more money and funds from international banks then every single previous President combined. This is what happens when you are giving the wealthy tax cuts all over the place, while in a time of war and natural disaster, and then at the same time you go and start cutting funding for food stamps and foster care services for the most needy in this country.

[aCalBearSkin]

RADIO, RADIO, RADIO, RADIO, RADIO, RADIO, RADIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You do realize, chom, that no medium other than radio is directly tied to audience share. If you don't get the ratings in radio, you don't stay on the air very long. Radio gives the people what they want. That's why Stuart Smalley and his Air America crew are an abysmal failure. The audience doesn't want to listen to his left wing wacko crap.

:laugh: Yea, I'd much rather watch those cooks on FOX, who claim to offer NEWS, haha. Remember the PIPA report put out by U. of MD? It showed that those who got the majority of their news from FOX were far more likely to be misinformed about pre-war intelligence--WMD, Iraq's link to 9/11, etc. Yea, a stellar news source. Or, let's listen to Rush! A pillar of the radio community...when he's not high as a bat.

[chomerics]

chom the airwaves on the radio do not compare at all to the ones on TV, where it is dominated by the left

I don't think the news on TV is decidedly left either. I think they are all pretty much centrist, other then Fox. Look at who owns the stations, who is in charge of programming and so forth, it isn't democrats that's for sure.

You also have a pretty centrist CNN, but you have an extreme conservative news station in Fox. Fox News is a direct propaganda channel for the white house and the RNC, you know it just as much as I do. CNN is nothing even remotely like Fox. You also have newspapers which are "supposedly" liberal, but the "libralness" is considered anything which is to the left of fascism. In other words, John McCain is a liberal, as people here have said.

This thread wasn't supposed to be about the republican media though, it was supposed to be about the welfare state run by our government, for big business, and the rampant corporatism.

Bear, do you honestly believe the CBO when they say negotiation power will NOT change the price of drugs? That was written by a person in the Bush camp, nominated by Bush trying to spin governmental policy for Bush. You know this as much as I do, and when you look at their comments on face value, it's really laughable.

[Thiebear]

Bear, do you honestly believe the CBO when they say negotiation power will NOT change the price of drugs? That was written by a person in the Bush camp, nominated by Bush trying to spin governmental policy for Bush. You know this as much as I do, and when you look at their comments on face value, it's really laughable.

I was just trying to post the bill in its full form and other related material that showed up under Google to get a larger picture than:

Bush Sucks....

I kinda agree with, negotiations couldnt hurt... but I don't know anything about it.

But lets not put out 1/4 of the information and call it a day either: That is what the Washington Post is for.