Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Medicare Part D and the GOP Hypocrisy


mhd24

Recommended Posts

Excellent article in Forbes:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/trips_e/tripsfactsheet_pharma_2006_e.pdf

Also, from the Post:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/republicans_try_and_fail_to_ju.html#comments

"Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good"

Honestly, where was the outrage in 2003?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you need to understand is that the GOP then were a bunch of free spending Neo-cons, but over the last 5 years...well specifically since last November they became tight wallet Conservatives again, but then you and I both know where their outrage was then, it was stored in the filing cabinet right next to their blatant hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you need to understand is that the GOP then were a bunch of free spending Neo-cons, but over the last 5 years...well specifically since last November they became tight wallet Conservatives again, but then you and I both know where their outrage was then, it was stored in the filing cabinet right next to their blatant hypocrisy.

sadly, I find nothing in this excellent post to disagree with.:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try doing my job for one day. I have to go to the patients in the hospital including the elderly and ask them for $1,068 for their Medicare deductible if they don't have a secondary/supplemental insurance to pay the deductible. Next year it goes up to $1,100 for a hospital visit. And the Medicare HMO's are a scam. Some have co-pays of $195 per day for days 1-10, $950 co-pays etc for "Every" hospital visit. With Medicare part A & B at least when you meet your dedictible, it pays at 100% between hospital visits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a big difference in following through with a promise to Elderly people who need the coverage over taking money from the middle class and rich people in order to cover people who most likely could get coverage but choose not to.
...and that difference is spin.

By the way, the full quote from Churchill that you are using in your sig is:

A love of tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril; but the new view must come, the world must roll forward.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3220.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a big difference in following through with a promise to Elderly people who need the coverage over taking money from the middle class and rich people in order to cover people who most likely could get coverage but choose not to.

Again I want to live in your neighborhood since middle class is a $200,000 yearly individual salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It was of course said to be what 130 billion? by the CBO and is now 700billion- 1.2 Trillion. (note to those looking at CBO scores now)...

2. It was a horrible idea at the time, Unfunded was dreadful.

3. The debt ceiling in 2003 was 6trillion (its currently 12.3 and will soon be 15trillion?) in the next 60 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a big difference in following through with a promise to Elderly people who need the coverage over taking money from the middle class and rich people in order to cover people who most likely could get coverage but choose not to.

What a bunch of BS. What about following through on a promise to millions of uninsured.

You're either for or against government medical insurance, which is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medicare Part D. One of a myriad of reasons that the GOP is out of power

Although I'd expect our friends on the left to be big supporters of this particular expansion of government. Surprise that they are not

Yes they are, they just don't give Bush and the R's credit for it. Part D (the R and some D bill) is actually more liberal than the recent Senate bill.

1. Part D - federally administered, Senate bill state administered, the house is pushing for the Part D like version.

2. Part D - federal health insurance exchanges called regions, Senate has state health insurance exchanges. A better solution wouldn't limit things by state, I believe the house is pushing for this through a federally administered plan, but am not positive.

3. Part D - fall back "public" plan if no private competitors, Senate bill has no option for a public plan. We all know what the D's think of a public option of any kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP is definitely correct. Medicare Part D, and the republicans who supported it, are total crap. There certainly should have been more outrage when this was passed...although I think we saw a lot of that outrage come to fruition this last election.

Ehhhh...it's not free, that's for sure, but satisfaction in Part D is incredibly high and projected costs are actually lower than originally anticipated.

We have a budget problem which shouldn't be discounted, but Part D has done a lot of good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It was of course said to be what 130 billion? by the CBO and is now 700billion- 1.2 Trillion. (note to those looking at CBO scores now)...

I think you are getting the CBO mixed up with the Bush administration. After threatening to fire the Chief Actuary for Medicare if he revealed the true estimated costs to congress, Bush signed the law and then promtly upped his estimate by $100 billion a Month later. By 2005, the Bush administration had budgeted $1.2 trillion for the program over 10 years.

In November 2003, the CBO said Medicare Part D would cost $771 billion over 10 years and be partially offset by savings from other programs. A year later they upped their estimate by $41 billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bunch of BS. What about following through on a promise to millions of uninsured.

You're either for or against government medical insurance, which is it.

millions of elderly who have limited incomes, usually fixed, rely on that insurance. While I don't like govt run spending, in this case IMO you can't mess with this in good faith.

Again, IMO there is difference between the elderly on fixed incomes and people who probably could afford healthcare and choose not to pay for it.

Plus the govt made a promise to these people and they rely on it. you can't really pull the rug out from under them at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

millions of elderly who have limited incomes, usually fixed, rely on that insurance. While I don't like govt run spending, in this case IMO you can't mess with this in good faith.

Again, IMO there is difference between the elderly on fixed incomes and people who probably could afford healthcare and choose not to pay for it.

Plus the govt made a promise to these people and they rely on it. you can't really pull the rug out from under them at this point.

By that same logic, those people should not be on a fixed income. It's their own fault they didn't save enough money to live comfortably in their old age. After all, they have had a lifetime to earn it, and have fewer excuses to why they now need so much assistance.

Now, I don't have health insurance, and haven't had it for most of the last 20 years. In my case, it's pretty damned expensive for a sole proprietor to buy himself even limited health insurance, and usually the choice comes down to paying for this health insurance or pay my mortgage, electric bill, groceries, etc.

In that time period I've worked for myself, and I've also worked for others. Sales jobs, commission only. The health plans I was offered would have taken most of the commissions I earned. Not surprising, since most of the sales jobs I had were working for people who would do everything they could to weasel out of as many dollars that they owed that they could.

Now, if I broke my ankle, I'd be up a **** creek. But having a roof is pretty important, too.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

millions of elderly who have limited incomes, usually fixed, rely on that insurance. While I don't like govt run spending, in this case IMO you can't mess with this in good faith.

Again, IMO there is difference between the elderly on fixed incomes and people who probably could afford healthcare and choose not to pay for it.

Plus the govt made a promise to these people and they rely on it. you can't really pull the rug out from under them at this point.

Was there such an outcry and a need before 2003? This was done to pander to a constiuency, nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Bush and the R's ****ed up royally on that one. I feel the same way about NCLB.

And since I didn't turn 18 and elligible to vote until '03, I can be as outraged as I want since I didn't vote for any of them (in fact, due to MD being slow on my registration since I was out of state in college at the time, I wasn't registered when '04 rolled around either, which does upset me still). :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

millions of elderly who have limited incomes, usually fixed, rely on that insurance. While I don't like govt run spending, in this case IMO you can't mess with this in good faith.

Again, IMO there is difference between the elderly on fixed incomes and people who probably could afford healthcare and choose not to pay for it.

Plus the govt made a promise to these people and they rely on it. you can't really pull the rug out from under them at this point.

The only difference is your personal preference. If you think those reasons are legit, and the reasons that people supported health care reform today and government option spending are not, then you are just ignorant of the problems the latter have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

millions of elderly who have limited incomes, usually fixed, rely on that insurance. While I don't like govt run spending, in this case IMO you can't mess with this in good faith.

Again, IMO there is difference between the elderly on fixed incomes and people who probably could afford healthcare and choose not to pay for it.

Plus the govt made a promise to these people and they rely on it. you can't really pull the rug out from under them at this point.

As I understand at least the Senate bill, premiums are subsidized relative to some basic risk consideration (e.g., age, health risk and income). One worthy reform to Part D would be to diminish the general subsidy for the more affluent.

This would basically create three premium categories (with complexities actually making more) to Low Income = ~$0, general public = current premium (approx $35/month) and say over 4x the poverty level = 50% higher than current premium (approx $55/month).

The government can and should help people who need it, but law should minimize the number of people who don't need a subsidy from receiving it. Unfortunately, Part D (which is a good program) doesn't do that effectively enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bunch of BS. What about following through on a promise to millions of uninsured.

You're either for or against government medical insurance, which is it.

Against it then, against it now will be against it in the future. Unfortunately I have zero power so we welcome the non-communist non-socialist "From those according to their ability; to those according to their needs" leaders.

So we go bankrupt a couple years sooner. Having the U.S. surrender it's position as the premier nation in the world isn't such a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that same logic, those people should not be on a fixed income. It's their own fault they didn't save enough money to live comfortably in their old age. After all, they have had a lifetime to earn it, and have fewer excuses to why they now need so much assistance.

Now, I don't have health insurance, and haven't had it for most of the last 20 years. In my case, it's pretty damned expensive for a sole proprietor to buy himself even limited health insurance, and usually the choice comes down to paying for this health insurance or pay my mortgage, electric bill, groceries, etc.

In that time period I've worked for myself, and I've also worked for others. Sales jobs, commission only. The health plans I was offered would have taken most of the commissions I earned. Not surprising, since most of the sales jobs I had were working for people who would do everything they could to weasel out of as many dollars that they owed that they could.

Now, if I broke my ankle, I'd be up a **** creek. But having a roof is pretty important, too.

~Bang

Life is a series of choices and you want others to pay for negative aspects of your choices while not reaping the positive aspects. You could have chosen a different career path, you could have studied a different line in school (I know nothing about you or what you studied in college or even if you went to college, but I use you in my example to make a point not to judge you personally)

It is nobodies fault but yours that you chose a job where you do not have health insurance and it is nobodies fault but yours that you choose to not purchase health insurance. You are free to make good decisions, you are free to make bad decisions. You should not have the negative consequences removed from your own actions just because you want others to pay for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...