The new Medicare numbers are in! Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » Soapbox: All Politics » Archive through August 12, 2006 » Archive through February 14, 2006 » The new Medicare numbers are in! « Previous Next »

  Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page          

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

themp
Supporter
Username: Themp

Post Number: 2507
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 3:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SMOKE AND MIRRORS AT HHS....Good news, campers! The Department of Health and Human Services says the Medicare prescription plan is coming in under budget!

When the program was being developed, before we had any actual experience with the cost of drug coverage, it was estimated that the Part D benefit would cost about $700 billion in its first ten years. But as plans compete for seniors’ business, they are driving the costs of prescriptions down. According to our latest estimates, the costs of the Medicare prescription drug benefit are significantly less than expected.

The federal government now projects the cost to be about 20 percent less per person in 2006. Over the next five years, payments are now projected to be more than 10 percent lower than first estimated. That is a significant savings for taxpayers.


Well. That is good news, isn't it? Competition is certainly a wonderful thing.

And yet....something is niggling at me. You see, back when the program was being developed, HHS actually estimated it would cost $400 billion, not $700 billion. As we later learned, this was just a flat out lie, designed to fool Congress into voting for it. Shortly after the bill passed, HHS admitted that its chief actuary had actually estimated a cost of $500-600 billion but had been forbidden from revealing this to anyone. Then, last year, they upped the estimate again to $720 billion. So assuming that the 10% "savings" applies to the entire 10-year budgeting period, it means HHS is now estimating a cost of $650 billion, which is actually far higher than either of the estimates from two years ago.

It's also worth noting that HHS has come up with this alleged 10% savings after a grand total of one month of experience with the program. In fact, it comes from a document called "The Secretary's One Month Progress Report on the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit." So take this news with a great big shaker of salt.

from www.washingtonmonthly.com

This is how they run our gove
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1453
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 4:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You know: you need to understand one thing about this administration: "a billion here, a billion there...It doesn't matter. It's not our money."

Add up the money that the president says he is returning to us in tax cuts with the money we're spending on this program, and on Iraq, and you probably arrive at the annual budget of a country like Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, or Finland.

Add up the money that the administration is really spending on hurricane Katrina remediation, real border security, education, and student loans, and you have the annual budget of, oh, Princeton, NJ.

I am being somewhat facetious, of course. But I am mighty tired of seeing this country be run by a bunch of amateurs, free spenders, un-planners, and liars. They should be held to the same standards of performance and productivity as any other senior executive team.

It's really time for a change.

The Bush Administration: all incompetence, all the time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso

Post Number: 67
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 5:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Isn't fiscal responsibility supposed to be important to conservative republicans? Didn't they promise balanced budgets in the Republican Contract with America starting back in 1994? I thought they were all for balanced budgets, fiscal restraint, and lower government spending. You know, everything they were handed back in January 2001. Real Republicans must be really pissed at this group and its non-adherence to basic conservative Republican principles.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 633
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 5:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Innisowen-

You will have your chance for change in 2008.

BettyD-

You got that right! I am annoyed! These latest Republicans are spendthrifts beyond belief and I know alot of conservatives who are pissed as well. God forbid, they are acting like, like Democrats for Christ sakes.... :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1454
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 7:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ah, Scrotey:

Where are all the revolutionaries of 1776 when we need them now?

Sometimes I long for the parliamentary form of government that allows calling for an election whenever the ruling party is really screwing up or out of favour.

The problem is of course that the party now not in power is worth a pitcher full of warm p--s.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration