| Author |
Message |
    
Cliff Harris
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 151
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 1:03 pm: | 
|
Democrats absolutely do not want to see any private health care plans compete against Medicare. Bear in mind, nobody will be required to participate in a private plan. The Democrats are afraid, though, that some seniors will.
If those seniors like their experience with a private plan, they may tell other seniors. Then other seniors will join the private plan, enjoy their experience, and tell even more seniors.
Democrats are scared to death that these private sector plans may do such a good job competing against the inefficiencies of our government that they will see more, then more and then more seniors bailing from Medicare to go to the private sector.
Democrats are opposed to this prescription drugs benefit program was because it would eventually cause the immense Medicare system to actually compete with private enterprise system for patients.
In every single one of the last major elections you have heard Democrats sound two very familiar themes. In the last days of each of those campaigns the Democrats always tell senior citizens that the evil Republicans have a secret plan (it's always a secret plan) to destroy Social Security and to destroy Medicare. This scares senior citizens and gets them to rush to the polls to vote for Democrats just to save their Social Security and their Medicare.
How will Democrats be able to frighten senior citizens with lies about secret plans if the seniors are relying on the private sector for their health insurance?
Democrats are the party of big government. Democrats will support any program that increases government power. Democrats can be relied on to oppose any proposal that would reduce the political power that comes with government control. They oppose competition for Social Security. They oppose competition with their precious government indoctrination centers that called schools, which employ hundreds of thousands of Teachers Union voting Democrats. They oppose any threat of competition with Medicare or interference with their plans for socialized medicine in the United States.
Do you need more proof of the Democrats love of government and their hatred of the private sector?
By the way, please pay close attention to Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean. This week he was calling for a massive re-regulation of American business.
What is wrong with this picture? The economy is growing, businesses are expanding, people are finding jobs and Howard Dean wants the government to step in and re-regulate American business.
Are these the clowns you're going to support in next year's election?
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1550
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 3:11 pm: |
|
What I don't understand is, if private plans are so great why aren't seniors flocking to them already? I also don't understand why, if private health care is so terrific, Medicare had to be created in the first place.
Cliff, tell me straight up, do you confirm or deny that there are powerful conservative politicians who want to end both Social Security and Medicare. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 3:13 pm: |
|
I've nothing against medicare competing against the private sector. But at least let medicare negotiate with drug companies, as do private sector companies, for perscription drug costs to their participants. |
Cliff Harris
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 152
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:15 am: |
|
tom, here is the answer you seek,
I am sure there are some who might favor total elimination of those two programs.
Now please answer this for me straight up.
Do you confirm or deny hating President Bush?
|
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:27 am: |
|
If the private sector can create a medical care system that provides what the people need at the cost people can afford, then that would be the best thing.
I favor free enterprise over governments. But only when it works.
I claim that our system is broken. Many Americans agree with me, because many are uninsured or underinsured. The rest are paying too much. Many get bad care.
If the private sector could provide good service at a good price, it would have done so already. Or are you saying something or someone is tying the industry's hands? If so, then what untying is needed?
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 483
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 11:54 am: |
|
Governments can negotiate prices by demanding and legislating and just declaring what prices will be. No business can to that.
And I'm sorry Cliff -- much as I agree with you most of the time, the republicans are the party of big govt. Can anyone guess how many people answer that affording perscription drugs is hard or impossible out of all the medicare patients? 4.2%!!!! (DC Post, Robert Samuelson today). THIS IS A BIG-GOVT RIP-OFF FOR ME, YOU AND YOUR KIDS!
This is NOT smaller govt, it's not more efficient govt, it's just bad govt. This is all done to increase the discretionary spending of the wealthiest population in the country -- greedy geezers -- and buy their votes! I'm not against helping those who truly cannot afford perscription drugs -- but that is hardly the size of the population that exists today.
The republicans are only less guilty than the democrats because the democrats want this program to be MORE generous. That the average senior can't come up with the average yearly drug costs of $2500 (Dem numbers, not repubs) to STAY ALIVE is absolutely ridiculous!
This will 'only cost $400B' over ten years. Anyone -- ANYONE -- that says Bush created these deficits while ignoring that the democrats would like to spend more on not only this but other entitlements is either blind or truly hypocritical. As Samuelson writes today -- there will have to be something along the lines of a 35% increase in tax revenue just to pay for this and social security as the elderly move into Medicare and suck the life out of the workers of this country.
And only republican suckers can support this, as they play your 'compassion' strings all the way to the bank.
I hope the dems can filibuster this....but it won't happen. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 91
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 11:59 am: |
|
Right on, cjc.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
Cliff Harris
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 153
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:17 pm: |
|
cjc, I agree that republicans too sometimes favor bigger government. I have been very disappointed with the farm subsidies that the Bush administration has sponsored and numerous other big government manuvers taken by politicians.
There is much about this bill to not like. Yes, it is strictly aanother vote-buying grab by politicians.
The elderly want their prescription drugs paid for by somebody else, and the politicians know that the elderly vote. So, give the elderly what they want and maybe just maybe you will get their vote.
We're being told it will be $400 billion spent over the next ten years, but there is absolutely nothing in the bill that limits this spending to $400 billion. It will almost certainly be $600 billion and could easily approach twice the original estimates.
Let's address the Democrat's threatened filibuster. There is only one reason the Democrats want this bill to fail, and that is because it provides for private sector competition with Medicare; not now, but in about six years. Democrats absolutely hate the idea of private sector competition with any government program. In addition, Democrats want the votes that the elderly cast to be for them. Remember every year as the election approaches, Democrats focus upon scaring the elderly in an effort to get their important votes.
That is why Democrats have been working so hard. The two biggest vote-controlling programs out there are Social Security and Medicare. For every American that leaves the government operated Medicare program for a private sector option the Democrats see a vote lost.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 484
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:22 pm: |
|
I agree on the tactics. Those medical savings accounts miff them as well -- as it allows you to save, manage and shop (thereby applying sadly missing market pressures) on medical care.
This bill is so depressing. $400B? I think they missed the cost of Medicare when they set it up by a factor of 10. You can only say it will be much larger than that with any near-certainty.
Farmers, elderly -- two biggest mouths at the federal teat there are. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 92
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:41 pm: |
|
The country is not there yet, but my guess is the next viable 3rd. party will a mix of Libertarians and fiscally conservative republicans.
The platform will call for real cuts(not less than budgeted increases) in domestic spending, the removal of some departments, a simplified tax code, the elimination of some drug and moral laws, tort reform, allowing individuals to opt out of social security and medicare, along with little mention of religion. And add term limits to remove selfish motivations by politicians.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 485
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Well...the attempt at a dem filibuster on this Medicare pig just failed. It's over. This is so sad. Greedy geezers win once again. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 95
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:36 pm: |
|
I say we invade Sun City, Arizona first, making all the grandmas our house slaves and the grandpas our gardeners.
After a year of gaining strength and momentum, we then set our focus on Tampa. The invasion should start a couple hours after their dinner time, which still gives us 3 hours of sunlight.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1172
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:39 pm: |
|
I am under the impression that there are many poor old people. Am I wrong?
I agree that they are probably the most significant voting block.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3921
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Actually this was a brilliant political move by Bush the Younger. In one fell swoop he has managed to make inroads in the Democrat’s traditional political base among senior citizens, while, by refusing to allow the government to negotiate drug prices based on quantity purchases with the pharmaceutical industry, he has assured large campaign donations from a major industry.
Yah gotta hand to the guy!
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 489
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:57 pm: |
|
If this was Bush's only big accomplishment in his first term, conservatives would stay home and he'd lose his reelection bid. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 96
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 3:08 pm: |
|
All Bush needs to do is stay strong on the war and let the economy run. Any support he picks up on the left with government spending programs he will lose on the right.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3922
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Is the hardcore right going to stay home? Don't think so. |
Cliff Harris
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 154
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Yes, you can compliment Bush on this. Isn't this kind of like Clinton's ability to be credited with welfare reform? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1556
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Goal of private health care: making a profit
Goal of Medicare: help elderly people get care without bankrupting them
If you think of it in those terms, it's apples and oranges. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 9:53 pm: |
|
CJC,
Where have you read that medicare can negotiate drug pricing for it participants?
If the private sector and medicare are to compete, let it be by the same rules.
Perscription drug costs are what drain the elderly and disabled on medicare.
|
Cliff Harris
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 155
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 10:13 pm: |
|
tom, in all fairness, I answered your question, so I'd like to hear you answer mine.
Now please answer this for me straight up.
Do you confirm or deny hating President Bush?
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 304
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 10:13 pm: |
|
If the private sector "competes" with medicare, it won't be a real competition. Which plan do YOU think will be saddled with the high-risk, expensive patients, and which one will cherry-pick the healthiest, lowest risks who are ultimately cheaper to cover?
Do you really think the govt is going to mandate that private insurers take all comers?
Gee, this is a tough one, doncha think? |
luanda
Citizen
Username: Luanda
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Actually the "inroads" were with William Novelli. Novelli is the President of the AARP - and he also happens to be a founder of Porter Novelli. Porter Novelli is the PR/Advertising firm which conceived and ran the "Harry and Louise" ad campaign. That campaign, through innuendo and outright deception, managed to put the kibosh on any sort of reasonable nationalized health care. Who do you think Novelli owes his allegiance to? If you guess "The Insurance Industry" I don't think you'd be too far off the mark. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Deny. I hate what he's doing, though. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 856
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:31 am: |
|
If the changes to medicare are so good, why is the medication portion of the bill taking effect in 2006?
|
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5754
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 7:43 am: |
|
The only good thing about this bad plan is that it will guarantee a Democratic takeover of Congress. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 97
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 8:05 am: |
|
Dave, the turnover in congress will be minimal for years to come.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 490
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:11 am: |
|
Andrew -- I didn't say that Medicare could negotiate prices as a massive purchasing block. As for fairness -- let's let private plans mandate, regulate and pass laws the force private companies to do exactly what they want them to do like the govt can. Let's have private companies have the ability to place wage and price controls on the drug industry -- that would be fair. And I think you realize that would never be the case and that the govt has a bigger hammer in that regard and always would.
Tom.....I agree. The public sector is always magnanimous, has no profit in mind at any point, does not seek to expand it's ranks of employees like some people claim the county govt structure in NJ does (that county govt is in it for us, not the money), is always striving for maximum efficiency and using productivity to get rid of unnecessary employees, never seeks to create dependence by crowding out viable alternative services, never asks for more money regardless of need or a decreased client base (see: welfare reform).
I always believe someone who says "I have your best interests at heart" because he knows more and can do a better job at my interests than I ever could cuz I'm a worthless taxpaying peon with no will of my own.
AND PLEASE PEOPLE -- this isn't a gift to industry. This is a rip-off and money-grab by seniors - - the vast majority of which can bloody well afford to pay for what they use! Only 10% TOPS can't afford drugs, if that. So why mandate that everyone be in this mess. Just call it welfare and give those poor seniors the money -- cuz that's what it is.
Gutless chumps. They don't have the guts to go door to door, and tell a family of 4 making $65K year that they MUST give them their money so they can buy their drugs. Just vote for some pol to do it for them.
It's disgusting. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 99
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:30 am: |
|
Keep pumping money into your 401k and Ira.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 100
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:45 am: |
|
At least this dog is dead.......
Energy Bill Collapses, May Be Revived in 2004
Despite pressure from the White House, Republican leaders were unwilling to drop lawsuit protection for oil companies from a $31 billion energy bill and it faces an even tougher fight amid next year's political campaigning, lobbyists and legislative aides said.
The bill, which included lavish tax breaks, grants and funding for virtually every kind of energy production, was declared dead for this year by Senate Republicans.
Intensive lobbying by the Bush administration on Monday failed to persuade House leaders to delete a provision that would shield oil companies from lawsuits for water contamination by MTBE, a gasoline additive. More than 1,500 U.S. cities say they face costly clean ups.
Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans narrowly filibustered, or blocked, the energy bill on Friday because they opposed the MTBE lawsuit protection. They also criticized the more than $1 billion in funds earmarked to help MTBE makers switch to other businesses before the additive is banned.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 491
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:53 am: |
|
Finally....farmers take one in the shorts. Problem is, they've been double bailed out by two previous pieces of legislation. |
jur050
Citizen
Username: Jur050
Post Number: 406
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:33 pm: |
|
cjc, thank you. Your comments made me dig a little deeper into this Prescription Bill and here's something else I didn't know. Every single penny that is to be spent on the drug benefit package is going to have to be borrowed.
The country is running via deficit spending right now, so there is no surplus in the federal treasury with which to pay the tab. This means the money has to be borrowed. And just who will pay the money back? Three guesses.
I can tell you who won't pay the money back. Seniors who will benefit from this program over the next decade and the supporters and politicians who put it in place today that's who.
You are right on target cjc, the seniors will get taxpayer funded subsidies to buy their drugs.
Of course it does also mean that they will spend their money on other things, which may stimulate the economy futher, but remember the people who will benefit are the wealthiest segment of our society, and less than 5% of them have reported any serious difficulties in getting their prescription drugs.
The politicians, in this case Republicans mainly, will get the votes of the seniors in 2004. So I disagree with Dave's belief that it will benefit democrats. Senior's vote. That's what drove this whole bill in the first place vote buying. That's the way it goes, though. Seniors vote. Young people don't.
That's why young Americans and their children will be making the payments on this vote buying scheme for years to come.
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 858
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 5:28 am: |
|
That's why young Americans and their children will be making the payments on this vote buying scheme for years to come.-
But let's not forget that this IOU will be DWARFED by the debt created by this administrations long-term tax schemes... |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 811
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 9:50 am: |
|
Its not just seniors who are getting a windfall. This bill contains a huge subsidy for private insurers to get them into competition with medicare (so much for the free market) while barring medicare from using its negotiating clout to get lower prices from drug companies. Those to industries are also big winners. Non elderly tax payers are the big losers |
Cliff Harris
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 158
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 11:41 am: |
|
So who has a problem with the voters getting what they want?
If you don't vote, this should be sufficient reason for you to reconsider and start voting. |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 118
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Sorry - when did the big insurance and drug companies start voting? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Almost all of us have a shot at being one of the "lucky elderly" someday. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page