Medicare drug benifit passes the senate!!!

[jonapete2001]

Finally after much debate for years seniors have will have some form of drug benifit(if they want it). A republican bill endorsed by AARP passed Congress this week. I think that is was one of the best things to come out of the congress in my recent mind. I am not trying to start a flame war. I just want honest insite from some of the more liberal minded people here on why the democrat leadership opposed this bill. Was thing not something they have been harping about for ages. Not that all democrats were in opposition, 15 or so democrats voted for it. I was just wondering if anyone thought they did not want it to pass because of the upcoming election. They may say they want it but maybe not bad enough to have the republicans claim the victory for themselves. I have not seen any thing posted here about this. That seems odd to me since it is the biggest expansion of medicare in some 30 years.

[zimv20]

any number of articles covering the story details democratic objections to it. are you only reading headlines? not understanding the articles? or just putting up flamebait?

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
any number of articles covering the story details democratic objections to it. are you only reading headlines? not understanding the articles? or just putting up flamebait?

why do you hate me so!

[Ugg]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Finally after much debate for years seniors have will have some form of drug benifit(if they want it). A republican bill endorsed by AARP passed Congress this week. I think that is was one of the best things to come out of the congress in my recent mind. I am not trying to start a flame war. I just want honest insite from some of the more liberal minded people here on why the democrat leadership opposed this bill. Was thing not something they have been harping about for ages. Not that all democrats were in opposition, 15 or so democrats voted for it. I was just wondering if anyone thought they did not want it to pass because of the upcoming election. They may say they want it but maybe not bad enough to have the republicans claim the victory for themselves. I have not seen any thing posted here about this. That seems odd to me since it is the biggest expansion of medicare in some 30 years.

WHere to start.....

It is very complicated to begin with, purchasing discount cards, asset limitations, covers first x amount of dollars to a certain number then skips upwards and then covers only a certain percentage, some people have to pay more, etc etc. It is without a doubt one of the most incredibly complicated pieces of social welfare legislation ever to come out of DC. It seems that many Medicare recipients are pretty dubious about the plan. One of the biggest drawbacks in my mind is that it doesn't allow medicare to negotiate volume discounts when it purchases drugs. In my mind that is just a big giveaway to the drug companies.

Walmart's success has been built upon squeezing every last penny from its suppliers but gw & co. have decided that that would unduly pressure the drug companies and so have NOT allowed Medicare to do so. In other words, it is a massive federal subsidy to the drug companies. Corporate welfare has come first in this legislation and medicare benificaries are left holding the remnants.

Then, there is something like $80 billion in subsidies to corporate America to continue to offer drug benefits to their retirees. the bush regime has come to be known as the largest supporter of corporate welfare in the history of this nation and this legislation only supports this.

The one bright spot is that there is about~$25 billion in support for rural hospitals.

Although it is being labeled as being only a $400 billion dollar increase in spending over 10 years, the reality is that it will be closer to 1 trillion.

WHile a drug benefit is imperative for today's retirees, this one places them last and big business first and is totally lacking in common business sense.

Why would anyone celebrate such a good intentioned yet incredibly lousy piece of legislation is beyond me.

Tell me what you like so much about it, and maybe we can discuss it further....

[jefhatfield]

hey ugg

thanks for the further insight

this country is not going to get over the health crisis it has unless something ibg is done about it like socialized medicine, which will leave out the few and serve many

but right now, with medical insurance, the type that actually does something, is so high that only the ones who could afford the best of the best insurance plans benefit, and that is very few, while the many either don't have insurance or have bad insurance, which is almost like having no insurance

[Ugg]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
this country is not going to get over the health crisis it has unless something ibg is done about it like socialized medicine, which will leave out the few and serve many

but right now, with medical insurance, the type that actually does something, is so high that only the ones who could afford the best of the best insurance plans benefit, and that is very few, while the many either don't have insurance or have bad insurance, which is almost like having no insurance

I don't think that socialized medicine needs to be the answer. I do think that a good solution would be to require everyone to have health insurance just like drivers are required to have liability insurance. This would do a couple of things immediately to reduce health care costs across the board.

1. One of the largest costs today is people who are uninsured using the emergency room for health care. The govt. requires hospitals to do so and the costs are crippling.

2. It would reduce the average premium by about 30% making insurance affordable for everyone. Right now since companies like walmart offer high cost, low benefit insurance, companies like apple are in effect subsidizing those that don't offer comprehensive health care.

Insurance companies could continue to profit in a manner similar to public utilities. I believe everyone would benefit from such a move instead of what is increasingly a very select few in this country.

Why is it that Detroit is moving more of its manufacturing north to Canada? They have lower overall health costs. Is Canada's system perfect, no, but it works and everyone is covered. Certainly in a country like the US where we continually tout our can do attitude we could improve on the social welfare systems of France (the country with the most highly regarded health system in the world) or Canada without creating a massive entitlement program.

One of the biggest problems about managed care, ie HMOs, is that there is no money nor incentive for preventative care. The insurance companies and or US govt. only pay if someone is sick not if someone MIGHT get sick. Preventative care is a cornerstone of all socialized health systems and it works.

The drug companies routinely spend more on marketing than they do on research. Much of the research is federally subsidized anyway. Add that to artificially high prices paid by medicare and you have another massive corporate subsidy at the expense of the consumer.

gw doesn't care about the consumer or medicare recipient, he does care about corporate profit above all. This is not a recipe for a healthy America.

[IJ Reilly]

Even one of the drug company flacks managed to put their finger on possibly the biggest flaw in this scheme -- it allows the healthy to opt out, thus back-loading the least-healthy seniors onto the new plan. I'd think we'd have learned at least one lesson of health care by now -- that unless everyone (healthy and unhealthy) participates, the cost of providing the service quickly spins out of control.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ugg
I don't think that socialized medicine needs to be the answer. I do think that a good solution would be to require everyone to have health insurance just like drivers are required to have liability insurance. This would do a couple of things immediately to reduce health care costs across the board.

1. One of the largest costs today is people who are uninsured using the emergency room for health care. The govt. requires hospitals to do so and the costs are crippling.

2. It would reduce the average premium by about 30% making insurance affordable for everyone. Right now since companies like walmart offer high cost, low benefit insurance, companies like apple are in effect subsidizing those that don't offer comprehensive health care.

Insurance companies could continue to profit in a manner similar to public utilities. I believe everyone would benefit from such a move instead of what is increasingly a very select few in this country.

Why is it that Detroit is moving more of its manufacturing north to Canada? They have lower overall health costs. Is Canada's system perfect, no, but it works and everyone is covered. Certainly in a country like the US where we continually tout our can do attitude we could improve on the social welfare systems of France (the country with the most highly regarded health system in the world) or Canada without creating a massive entitlement program.

One of the biggest problems about managed care, ie HMOs, is that there is no money nor incentive for preventative care. The insurance companies and or US govt. only pay if someone is sick not if someone MIGHT get sick. Preventative care is a cornerstone of all socialized health systems and it works.

The drug companies routinely spend more on marketing than they do on research. Much of the research is federally subsidized anyway. Add that to artificially high prices paid by medicare and you have another massive corporate subsidy at the expense of the consumer.

gw doesn't care about the consumer or medicare recipient, he does care about corporate profit above all. This is not a recipe for a healthy America.

where i live on the west coast, we have a two edged sword...illegal immigrants force up the premiums and then lower and middle income citizens then have to go to er for simple things (and not so simple) and that ups the premiums, too...but our region depends on the cheaper labor just to survive...and to be honest a lot of it is illegal...and for the citizens to have jobs, the businesses need to survive...our standard of living is high and the local work force has become physically/mentally unable, or unwilling to do a lot of the service industry and agricultural jobs which are the backbone of the economy so the illegal immigrants are a solution a lot of companies in the red, or near the red turn to

hollywood has ported jobs to canada...very quietly and without fuss but jobs have been lost...and for a long time, there has been a lot of talent just across the border for the making of movies

PC companies have moved jobs and businesses up to canada due to lower costs (including medical) and being a PC and microsoft tech, i have considered moving to canada where a lot of microsoft/microsoft related and PC workers are increasingly moving to...it is not only a threat that uncle bill g has given to the usa and their anti trust lawsuit, but a serious consideration of migrating up north just up the sound to vancouver or nearby somewhere and he could do this slowly like hollywood

i am a proud californian but i cannot hang onto a dream and think we are the los angeles of the 50s with fast uncongested highways, low crime, and ultra cheap housing...and a booming monopoly callled hollywood and unregulated defense industry with too many high paying jobs

:p

[Taft]

Originally posted by Ugg
...

Why would anyone celebrate such a good intentioned yet incredibly lousy piece of legislation is beyond me.

...

Towing the party line...

Taft

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
why do you hate me so!

dude, i don't hate you.

but i'll tell ya what's irritating: you spout the GOP-party line as dogma, then reveal your complete ignorance as to the democratic party's positions. you want to know what the democratic party thinks? find out the same way i do -- read the paper.

if you want to know what people on this board think, fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking that i or others toe the democratic party line.

we care enough about this country to be informed on both or more sides of an issue. until you can develop a sense of understanding of complex issues, instead of accusing anyone who doesn't agree w/ you of simply hating bush and/or loving terrorists, then you'll understand why i don't take you seriously.

the country is full of uninformed people who react only to the surface element of a story. this WH is particularly good at peddling such crap ("it's good for seniors", "no child left behind"). don't add to the collective ignorance.

[jefhatfield]

when i t was obvious that the democratic party relied on emotions more than fact and had a large constituency of ignorant people, i was a republican and proudly so

but when the high level of ignorance and infighting that the dems had got surpassed by the gop since reagan, i could not belong to a party that relied on being totally open to propaganda and ignorance

...that is why i am a democrat today and while the dems are not perfect and still have some of the bad habits i hated when i was a republican, they have a far more focused vision for america and the coexistence of big business and the citizenry, domestic and foreign policy, rich and poor, etc... of and for our country

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Taft
Towing the party line...

Taft


New Medicare Bill

UCA Analysis = OK for Seniors – Great for Drug Companies – Bad for Taxpayers.

This is the biggest expansion of a government program, and very much needed, but it favors more the Drug Maker and politician than the people who need it.

For the majority of seniors it is an OK deal, but not a great one. The new drug benefit does not take effect until 2006. It only covers about a quarter of the average seniors’ total spending. If you already get good coverage through employer plans, or through a generous state Medicaid plan, it could turn out to be a bad deal.

This deal was a sell-out to the pharmaceutical industry. The deal prohibits the government from negotiating directly with drug companies. This bill could have done more to control drug prices. It could have called for new efforts to dismantle price controls overseas, or for new spending on research into the cost effectiveness of drugs, and deeper research into drug side affects. Many drugs such as SSI’s, have severe side effects that are dangerous to individuals and society.

This was not a good deal for taxpayers. It will cost $400 billion over ten years, and nobody knows where that money is going to come from. Nevertheless, politicians from both parties had promised a prescription drug benefit, and to garner the all-powerful senior vote and still keep the drug company campaign contributions flowing, this was as far as they were willing to go. The question is – can this system be “reformed” before the vast majority of baby boomers retire. If not, then this system will crush the American workers who will have to support them and it, with more and more taxes.

FACT:
"45-50 Million boomers will be heading into retirement in the next 15-20 years. They will be demanding all of their government benefits - SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Who is going to pay for all of this? Certainly not them - it will be the under 25 group. Prepare for your taxes to skyrocket to the moon.

[jonapete2001]

I think the fact of the matter is that once the baby boomers retire social security will go bust. Due to the lack of people alive today(younger than boomers) we will not be able to afford such a program. If america is talking about dificulty in funding that program now, like rebel i think was pointing out, just imagine what will happen in the future.
I think that a perscription drug benefit was needed for the current medicare recepiants, but will america be able to afford it when the senior population effectively doubles. The problem is there were 5-6 baby boomers to pay for 1-2 seniors, when the boomers retire it will be more like 2-3 people paying for 1-2 seniors. Either a huge cut in benefits or a huge increase in taxes. I dont think the country can afford either.

I dont want a cut, I just want the system to make sense. I think this new drug benefit is only possible plan that could have passed, and for all the nay sayers out their this drug plan is better than none.

Also, the trial privitization built into this plan(in think in 6 cities) may be a good idea to see how privitization would work on a large scale. This may be the only thing that may save medicare for my generation. I know many oppose privatization, but I am glad they are not jumping into it but just giviing it a trial shot.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I think the fact of the matter is that once the baby boomers retire social security will go bust. Due to the lack of people alive today(younger than boomers) we will not be able to afford such a program. If america is talking about dificulty in funding that program now, like rebel i think was pointing out, just imagine what will happen in the future.
I think that a perscription drug benefit was needed for the current medicare recepiants, but will america be able to afford it when the senior population effectively doubles. The problem is there were 5-6 baby boomers to pay for 1-2 seniors, when the boomers retire it will be more like 2-3 people paying for 1-2 seniors. Either a huge cut in benefits or a huge increase in taxes. I dont think the country can afford either.

I dont want a cut, I just want the system to make sense. I think this new drug benefit is only possible plan that could have passed, and for all the nay sayers out their this drug plan is better than none.

Also, the trial privitization built into this plan(in think in 6 cities) may be a good idea to see how privitization would work on a large scale. This may be the only thing that may save medicare for my generation. I know many oppose privatization, but I am glad they are not jumping into it but just giviing it a trial shot.

both parties have different ways of dealing with the huge amount of boomers, like me, who will reach retirement age or already have

one factor which is amazing is that when the boomer generation started, medicine and nutrition were different and due to bad habits in health not thought of as bad habits, many boomers will not live long compared to later generations which ate healthier and had better access to medical care...damage done early, even at the prenatal stage can have tremendous consequences in later life

so either the boomers will be very sick now and in the near future (look at how obese we are, and the lack of education regarding alcohol and drugs, red meat, etc) and that could stress the social security system or they will die early which will relieve the generations Xers who will not have to worry about so many boomers hanging around

who knows how all this will play out?

when i was born the life expectancy for a male was nearly 67 years, now it is over 70 years old, and in the future, it will approach 75 years...women already have a life expectancy floating around 78 years and they will hit the 80 year mark soon...and we are talking average life expectancy here, so any girl born today, with access to information on nutrition, medicine, etc will be in a generation where nearly half of them will make it into their 80s

and yes, due to that fact, sex symbols will continually be allowed to get older and older and still steal the limelight...i thought i would throw that one in ;) hey, look at demi and ashton!

[Rebel]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
both parties have different ways of dealing with the huge amount of boomers, like me, who will reach retirement age or already have

who knows how all this will play out?

when i was born the life expectancy for a male was nearly 67 years, now it is over 70 years old, and in the future, it will approach 75 years...women already have a life expectancy floating around 78 years and they will hit the 80 year mark soon...and we are talking average life expectancy here, so any girl born today, with access to information on nutrition, medicine, etc will be in a generation where nearly half of them will make it into their 80s

Demi is hot!

The difference between the past and present is that the seniors today had a vibrant pool of up and coming baby boomers. The baby boomers (myself included), have a pool of poverty stricken children that will continue to degrade as our government continues it's abusive practices. Our future is very bleak.

Total American children living in poverty is over 16 million today. The number of children living in extreme poverty has risen sharply in recent years, an advocacy group said in a recently released report. Following is their breakout:

Approx. 932,000 Black children

Approx. 733,00 Hispanic children

Approx. 1.8 million White children

Following is one example of what is happening to seniors today. What will our future be like? Gay Lee Andrews. A 74-year-old Elk Grove Village woman and her husband, Ray, pay more than $10,000 a year for prescription drugs. "I never thought I'd see the day when we'd have to scrimp and save to buy groceries," said Andrews.”

The seniors retired, only to each return to two jobs because of rising drug costs. Andrews said she and her husband would have to continue to work because the proposed plan leaves a 100 percent gap for prescriptions between $3,450 and $5,300.

At 74 years of age, people should be relaxing and enjoying what time they have left on this planet. Not working two jobs just to get medicine.

who knows how all this will play out? I can promise you that it will play-out very badly for us boomers. We are in big trouble and unless we have a fortune to draw upon for retirement, we will be working well into our 80's.

[jefhatfield]

america is the ultimate paradox

you can say almost anything you want short of "fire" in a crowded theater
you can own a firearm legally
you don't get thrown in debtors jail
the water, for the most part, is safe to drink
we have a military that is subservient to civilians and not the other way around

yet>

we have the medical issues you mentioned
america is very dangerous on our urban streets with guns, gangs, and drugs
vast homelessness in our country which is the richest country
marijauna is illegal yet cigatettes and alcohol kill millions and nobody sees it
we have a military that has become the police force of the world and are hated

and in my home state of california, once thought of as the perfect state by many californians, we have had record numbers of native californians leave the state due to issues like high medical costs, overcrowding, urban violence...etc...and they are leaving the state their families came to orginally to escape from the above problems mentioned

he he...but my wife's family, originally from harlem, still see los angeles where they moved to, as wide open, clean air, safe streets, etc and they laugh at anything that we californians would call crime, bad air, congestion, road rage, etc:p

[manitoubalck]

Has anyone seen the movie "John Q" I think that sums up alot of what is being said here.

In Australia we use to and sitll do have an extremley good public healthcare system. While not as good as Canada's or France's, Everyone is still covered, and can still visit a GP with no out of pocket expence. However since the Rightwing Liberal Party gained power and events such as the terror attacks on the WTC 11/9/01, Bali 12/10/02 (Australian date format) and the two subsequent wars the cost of Public liablity insurence has risen exponentially. This along with an increase in negligence claims has lead to an increase in doctors fees.

I hope beyond all else that our medical system doesn't crash and burn like the US system has, and that our children, and our children's children have acces to a free health care.

[Rebel]

Here is a question for you

What could $87 billion buy?

It would solve all the budget crises for every school district in the entire country.

It would buy health insurance for 15 years for every American child.

It would feed 6 million children who died from hunger in the world for the next seven years.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by Rebel
Here is a question for you

What could $87 billion buy?

It would solve all the budget crises for every school district in the entire country.

It would buy health insurance for 15 years for every American child.

It would feed 6 million children who died from hunger in the world for the next seven years.

It could also save the lives of countless incocent iraqis.

[manitoubalck]

Or 43, B2 bommers, I wonder what Bush will buy, or has already bought?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rebel
Here is a question for you

What could $87 billion buy?


26.7 million additional children could be given health care for a year

1.2 million additional teachers could be hired for a year

1.6 milion additional 4-year college scholarships

source (http://www.costofwar.com/)

[jefhatfield]

like it or not, we are the policemen of the world and if there is a major country in need with a bad human rights record and that country gets into our media a lot and affects polls, we will go in and spend money there first before we spend anything on america or her children in need right here

when clinton was policeman of the world, the gop guys on crossfire were screaming bloody murder

not that bush jr is policeman of the world, the democratic guys on crossfire are screaming bloody murder

i see a trend here and this is out lot for now and it's very sad

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
like it or not, we are the policemen of the world and if there is a major country in need with a bad human rights record and that country gets into our media a lot and affects polls

As far as Human Rights records go how long has the US help Prisoners in Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta in Cuba?
With out Trial,
With out access to legal aid,
without access to family or friends,
or Without who knows what else.

I ask you maybe the US should look closer to home when it comes to Human Rights, or don't these people fall under the Bill or Rights?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
It could also save the lives of countless incocent iraqis.

Now you are arguing that Iraqi lives are more important than American ones? I thought conservatives were an America-first kind of crowd! When did you get so touchy-feely about the innocents of other countries when compared to the innocents in our own land?

And when will you expand that compassion to areas of the world not known for their rich oil and gas reserves?

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by mactastic
Now you are arguing that Iraqi lives are more important than American ones? I thought conservatives were an America-first kind of crowd! When did you get so touchy-feely about the innocents of other countries when compared to the innocents in our own land?

And when will you expand that compassion to areas of the world not known for their rich oil and gas reserves?


Why must one pin me down. try to be compassionate and you criticised. Be cold hearted and you are criticised. I am for extending humanitarian aid to places that will benefit from it. The only place I would be hesitant about sending masses of money to would be africa(that place for the most part seems to be a sink hole). I gain no personal benefit from going to Iraq ro Afganistan. The only thing I gain is personal pride about the US taking out nasty governments. If we could take them all out I would be for it. My best friend is in Iraq right now and so are 2 of my other good friends. I also have a friend in Afganistan. I want nothing more for them to come home, but things need to be done.

But getting back to Medicare, this bill will due alot of good, and it is better than nothing. I find it odd that some would rather have nothing than something at all.

edited:replaced letter t win n.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Why must one pin me down. try to be compassionate and you criticised. Be cold hearted and you are criticised. I am for extending humanitarian aid to places that will benefit from it. The only place I would be hesitant about sending masses of money to would be africa(that place for the most part seems to be a sink hole). I gain to personal benefit from going to Iraq ro Afganistan. The only thing I gain is personal pride about the US taking out nasty governments. If we could take them all out I would be for it. My best friend is in Iraq right now and so are 2 of my other good friends. I also have a friend in Afganistan. I want nothing more for them to come home, but things need to be done.



i am with you only halfway on this one

we should still stay in afganistan with our troops and CIA/FBI/or whoever, until we kill or capture bin laden and make sure all of al qaeda is rooted out and other groups allied to them are brought to justice

but since bush and company made such a big deal of WMDs in iraq as their MAIN purpose for going in, and then didn't find any, then the us troops should basically clean up within a few months and come back home

it is up to iraq to restabilize their goverment and if we need to send aid their way from time to time, then that is fine...but we shouldn't have all those american troops there

and it is up to us to make america climb out of the recession with a string of successful financial quarters...one good quarter is not enough to turn things around and a pricey occupation in iraq, especially since it was not justified in the first place, is not what we need for our economic recovery

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am with you only halfway on this one

we should still stay in afganistan with our troops and CIA/FBI/or whoever, until we kill or capture bin laden and make sure all of al qaeda is rooted out and other groups allied to them are brought to justice

but since bush and company made such a big deal of WMDs in iraq as their MAIN purpose for going in, and then didn't find any, then the us troops should basically clean up within a few months and come back home

it is up to iraq to restabilize their goverment and if we need to send aid their way from time to time, then that is fine...but we shouldn't have all those american troops there

and it is up to us to make america climb out of the recession with a string of successful financial quarters...one good quarter is not enough to turn things around and a pricey occupation in iraq, especially since it was not justified in the first place, is not what we need for our economic recovery

I would just like to point out that in the post above i was qouted and I had a typo that changes the message of my post. The word to is now changed to [bold] no.\

ABout staying in Iraq and Afganistan. We have to stay the corse. If we leave in a few months Iran and syria and others will essentially take over were we left off. We need to leave behind strong governments with enough military muscle to defend their new democracy. It is up to the US(who invaded and destroyed their stability) to rebuild and create their democracy(with their help and input of corse).

[IJ Reilly]

IOW, "we broke it, we bought it." Sounds like a pretty lousy way to run a foreign policy.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand:

A basic lesson from Econ 101 was "guns and butter." Cutting to the point, you can't have unlimited supplies both. For decades liberals advanced the case that any problem can be fixed by rubbing enough money on it, and no hard choices really needed to be made between one thing or another. Just print more money. Now conservatives make the identical argument, but for causes of their own.

Live long enough and you might appreciate the irony.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I would just like to point out that in the post above i was qouted and I had a typo that changes the message of my post. The word to is now changed to [bold] no.\

ABout staying in Iraq and Afganistan. We have to stay the corse. If we leave in a few months Iran and syria and others will essentially take over were we left off. We need to leave behind strong governments with enough military muscle to defend their new democracy. It is up to the US(who invaded and destroyed their stability) to rebuild and create their democracy(with their help and input of corse).

Just as long as we rebuild their freaking country with their own freaking oil and stop over taxing American citizens. And get our ground troops modern defense gear. They are still wearing Vietnam jackets and getting torn to pieces. You don't hear about all our trrops recovering with no arms, legs, eyes, etc.. There are thousands. It is being swept under the carpet, just like Nam. Yes we need to stay, but our politicians need to stop dickin around playing politics, and get the damn job done.