Bush Medicare Rx plan gets AARP backing - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

onetime2 · 11-18-2003, 04:57 AM

Like him or hate him, it's an impressive endorsement...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ess/index.html

For those not into links...

AARP endorses Medicare Rx drug bill
Democratic opponents say it will dismantle Medicare
From Steve Turnham
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, November 17, 2003 Posted: 5:16 PM EST (2216 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and congressional Republicans kicked off a major lobbying blitz for the $400 billion Medicare-prescription drug bill Monday, buoyed by the endorsement of the nation's largest seniors group.

Democratic opponents attacked the measure as a "Trojan horse" that will serve to dismantle Medicare, while some conservative Republicans lashed out at the "enormous cost" of the proposal, suggesting it could exceed the current price tag.

The key Medicare negotiators, including Democratic Senators John Breaux of Louisiana and Max Baucus of Montana, met at the White House for a photo opportunity with Bush as the president begins a major effort to get the bill through before Congress adjourns. Bush is slated to leave the country Tuesday morning for a state visit to Britain.

The endorsement from AARP, which represents 35 million Americans aged 50 and over and is a muscular lobbying force on Capitol Hill, couldn't have come at a better time for Bush and congressional GOP supporters. The group had initially opposed key provisions of the bill.

"AARP believes the millions of older Americans and their families will be helped by this legislation," Bill Novelli, chief executive of the group, said in a statement that acknowledged the legislation is "far from perfect."

"It will provide substantial relief for those with very high drug costs and will provide modest relief for millions more."

AARP -- now known only by the acronym for the name it scrapped to reach out for members beyond retirees -- plans to lend its considerable weight to push the package through with a three-day ad campaign starting Tuesday on cable television.

Wavering lawmakers also will feel the heat from the White House directly, colleagues who are backing the measure and from other lobbyists.

"It's a tsunami," said one GOP aide of the lobbying effort. "They're pulling out all the stops to get this over the finish line."

Spearheading the Democratic opposition to the bill is the party's leading health care advocate, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was a key supporter of the initial proposal.

He spoke out against the bill in its current form Monday, saying the drug benefit is nothing but bait to get lawmakers to accept other elements of the bill that would force Medicare into competition with private plans, force premiums up and spell the end of Medicare in its current form.

He said the bill sets up a "$12 billion slush fund" to subsidize HMOs wishing to offer a private alternative, and that private firms would cherry pick the healthiest seniors, leaving Medicare saddled with the bill for caring for the sickest.

"If they are so efficient, why do they need a handout?" asked Kennedy, his voice rising in anger. "Talk about a fair playing field between the Medicare and the private sector. That's hogwash, that's hogwash."

Dean, Clark oppose
Two of the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Dr. Howard Dean and Wesley Clark -- also issued statements opposing the revised legislation that is slated for a conference committee vote Tuesday, with Dean calling it a "special interest boondoggle."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, attacked AARP for allowing itself to be "co-opted by Republicans" whose real intent is to kill Medicare.

"The country cannot afford a Trojan horse deal which purports to help America's seniors, but is really a cruel hoax that dismantles Medicare and does not provide seniors an affordable, defined, guaranteed Medicare prescription drug benefit," she said.

The AARP endorsement came as Democrats weigh whether to try to block the bill when it comes to the Senate floor as early as this week. They would need just 41 votes to block the legislation under Senate rules, but it is far from clear whether they have the political will to mount a filibuster against a measure whose central provision, a huge prescription drug benefit, is widely popular.

The Congressional Budget Office must still certify that the bill doesn't blow it's budget of $400 billion. Otherwise, negotiators will have to go back and alter its delicately balanced provisions to meet the cap. But lawmakers have been working with CBO all along to make sure the bill stays on budget.

Some conservatives remained wary, however.

"The enormous cost of this proposal will only hasten Medicare's insolvency, and we'll have to rely on future Congresses to have the political courage that this Congress lacks," said Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake.

"In the end, I think this looks like nothing more than an extremely expensive way to buy votes."

<B>I'm happy to see there's a good chance for passing this. Prescription benefits are too important to seniors. </B>

Peetster · 11-18-2003, 04:59 AM

Here come the baby boomers...

Sparhawk · 11-18-2003, 05:16 AM

More hypocricy from the Administration, when Bush signs into law the biggest expansion of the Federal government since LBJ's Great Society.

Can anyone honestly say with a straight face anymore that Republicans are the party of fiscal discipline?

onetime2 · 11-18-2003, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
More hypocricy from the Administration, when Bush signs into law the biggest expansion of the Federal government since LBJ's Great Society.

Can anyone honestly say with a straight face anymore that Republicans are the party of fiscal discipline?

So, rather than talk about the benefits that this will bring to seniors, it's about the hypocrisy of the Bush administration? Isn't this a step in the right direction, which will help to take care of an aging population and ease the burden of Rx costs that many seniors face?

Sparhawk · 11-18-2003, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
So, rather than talk about the benefits that this will bring to seniors, it's about the hypocrisy of the Bush administration? Isn't this a step in the right direction, which will help to take care of an aging population and ease the burden of Rx costs that many seniors face?

The full 1,100 page bill hasn't been disclosed yet, so I'll refrain from commenting on the specifics. But $400 Billion dollars? And right on top of a $100 Billion dollar "energy" bill (the term is used very loosely, even by those backing it). I mean come on...

I'd like to revise Churchill if I may:

If you are over 40 and fiscally irresponsible you have no heart, if you are under 40 and are fiscally irresponsible you have no brains.

P.S. Fuck you Congress, for mortgaging my future in exchange for 35 million AARP members' votes.

Superbelt · 11-18-2003, 06:00 PM

AARP is no longer your grandmas advocacy group. They shed their full name for the AARP monkier so they could attract non-decrepid members. They also, unfortunately, have a financial interest in this bill passing.
They have lost their ability to be a true advocate for medicare consumer rights. They have become part of the insurance business.

"Critics say AARP, which formally unveiled its new headquarters building in downtown Washington last month, has softened its earlier militancy because it is preoccupied with its profit-making enterprises, including $100 million in earnings from the sale of insurance, mostly Medicare supplemental policies."
- Newsday, 10/21/2000

"AARP's receives more than $100 million in revenue from health insurers."
- Denver Post, 5/21/96

"Critics suggest that AARP's substantial profits from the sales of Medigap and other insurance policies, drug company advertising in its magazines, and investment schemes conflict with its interests on behalf of seniors...AARP President William Novelli acknowledged complaints from members that AARP has been too timid in the political battles to defend Medicare and Social Security. He conceded that AARP has pulled its punches since right-wing groups and members of Congress criticized it as too liberal."
- Newsday, 2/19/02

"AARP's pharmacy service is part of its insurance sales operation which generated $ 101 million in revenue last year - 17 percent of the organization's total budget."
- Capitol News Service, 8/15/02

"AARP receives millions of dollars from UnitedHealthcare, a national health insurance firm based in Minnesota."
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/24/01

onetime2 · 11-25-2003, 08:23 AM

And has now passed the Senate.

Ustwo · 11-25-2003, 08:57 AM

This giant give-away is one of the things about Bush I don't like.

Pure political pandering. If I wanted that I'd have voted for Gore.

The fact that the AARP endorses it is proof of that.

JBX · 11-25-2003, 09:58 AM

ARgggg Who the fuck can I vote for that believes that the Federal Government should be small. Fucking gifts to voters has got to stop. Mother fucker I can't tell you how pissed I am, I better come back and write later...

matthew330 · 11-25-2003, 10:31 AM

I'm confused - I really woulda thought that liberals would have been pissed because it wasn't enough money. A large part of their platform lies on convincing seniors that we want to make them choose between dinner and medication.

Downtownat10 · 11-25-2003, 12:10 PM

Even putting Government expansion aside, this bill will do nothing to help the average senior citizen. I don't necessarily enjoy siding with Kennedy, but he's got it right. Also, thanks to Superbelt for throwing out those quotes.

It has been mentioned that the AARP is expecting huge kickbacks from throwing their support with this bill. Many conservatives have told me that it nonsense, and they support it because it will work. But if that is the case, why did they do such a quick 180 on their approval of the bill?

Sparhawk · 11-25-2003, 02:39 PM

Another opinion:

Quote:

Medicare as Pork Barrel

By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, November 24, 2003; Page A21

Given all the excitement, you'd think that passing a Medicare drug benefit would solve one of the nation's pressing social problems.

It won't. But you wouldn't know that from politicians or the news media. They treat the elderly's problems in getting drugs as a major social crisis. You would know it if you'd read a government survey of Medicare recipients in 2002. It asked this question: "In the last six months, how much of a problem, if any, was it to get the prescription medicine you needed?" The answers were: 86.4 percent, not a problem; 9.4 percent, a small problem; 4.2 percent, a big problem.

Medicare has about 41 million beneficiaries, so even 4.2 percent represents about 1.7 million people. The survey doesn't say whether their problems reflected high drug costs, doctors' reluctance to write prescriptions or something else. But most people can somehow afford drugs. In 1999 about 30 percent of retirees had insurance from former employers. About 20 percent had government coverage (mainly from Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs). Another 25 percent bought insurance -- Medigap -- or had some other coverage. For the very poor without coverage, pharmaceutical companies provide free or heavily discounted drugs.

No one designed this system. It is a flawed and messy hodgepodge that, on balance, works. It may not work forever, and it doesn't work for everyone. Some retirees without insurance suffer staggering drug costs. But no system will ever be perfect. The test of any replacement is whether it improves upon the status quo for the whole nation, not just retirees. By that test, Congress's drug benefit fails.

It would actually make a major national problem -- paying the baby boom's retirement benefits -- worse. In its first decade, costs are estimated at about $400 billion, which isn't so much compared with projected total federal spending of $28 trillion. But if a new "blockbuster" drug appears, forget the $400 billion estimate. Spending will explode anyway as baby boomers retire and drug use rises. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office, puts the second decade's costs between $1.3 trillion and $2 trillion.

Even this may be too low, considering inevitable pressures to expand coverage. The basic benefit has huge gaps. For most retirees -- though not the very poor -- it has a $250 deductible and covers 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250. After that, coverage stops until drug spending hits a catastrophic level of about $5,100. Of course, this makes sense only as politics. The idea was to give everyone some benefit but limit total costs. Once Medicare recipients discover the coverage gap, they'll clamor that it be eliminated.

Who's going to pay? Well, tomorrow's workers -- the main taxpayers. They're today's children and young adults. The drug benefit will add to the huge costs of retirement programs. By 2030, the number of Medicare beneficiaries rises almost 90 percent to 77 million. As a share of national income, spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which covers some nursing home care, too) is already projected to jump about 80 percent by 2030. To pay for this spending would require a tax increase of roughly 35 percent that, in today's dollars, is about $700 billion annually. And that's before a drug benefit. Everyone in the White House and Congress knows this. But the young aren't paying attention, so they're ignored. Supporting the drug benefit then becomes an exercise in short-term politics. To wit:

• The White House wants more elderly voters in 2004. (Among voters 60 and over, Bill Clinton won by 50 percent to 38 percent in 1992; in 2000, Al Gore won 51 to 47.)

• AARP -- with 35 million members -- believes that once a drug benefit is enacted, Congress will have to improve it.

• Many Democrats fear voting against coverage -- and crossing AARP -- even though they'd prefer a bigger program.

• Drug companies think sales and profits may improve. Demand will rise and they'll be paid (by Medicare) for some drugs they now give away.

• Corporate America sees a way to drop retiree drug insurance (to limit that, the bill offers -- over 10 years -- $71 billion to companies that keep coverage).

Medicare has become pork barrel. It plays to retirees' desires and raises their discretionary income. The question of generational justice is nearly absent. Who cares about the long-term budget outlook or about clueless younger workers?

What's been missed was an opportunity to strike a grand bargain: some sort of drug benefit in exchange for cost-saving changes in retirement programs (gradual increases in eligibility ages, some benefit cuts for wealthier retirees, measures to curb Medicare spending). Although retirees deserve protection against crushing drug bills, future workers also deserve protection against crushing tax burdens. But that bargain was nowhere in sight because it requires more political candor and courage than either party can summon.

HarmlessRabbit · 11-25-2003, 03:37 PM

KQED here in San Francisco had a really excellent program on this morning featuring panelists from AARP, the health insurers, Senior Action Network (a group opposing the bill), and others. I really enjoyed the program, and they did a good job of presenting all sides:

You can listen here (scroll down a bit to find the show):

http://www.kqed.org/programs/program...sp?progID=RD19

The impression I get is that this bill is a little of everything. A little bit of help for seniors, a little bit of money for insurers, a little bit of money for pharmaceutical companies, and a little bit of added pork barrel politics and bureaucracy. It doesn't sound like anyone likes the bill, but it's the only one they could get passed.

Liquor Dealer · 11-25-2003, 04:54 PM

I think I heard this expressed in probably the most basic of ways this morning - it went something like - George Bush out Clintoned Bill Clinton - He presented something that was the other parties as his own, pushed it through Congress - burned the other party and will get all the credit! If it was OK for Clinton surely you'll concede a little to George!

HarmlessRabbit · 11-25-2003, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I think I heard this expressed in probably the most basic of ways this morning - it went something like - George Bush out Clintoned Bill Clinton - He presented something that was the other parties as his own, pushed it through Congress - burned the other party and will get all the credit! If it was OK for Clinton surely you'll concede a little to George!

I'll give the bush administration credit. Getting a huge bill like this passed takes a hell of a lot of work.

And your point is good, Clinton gets much of the credit for welfare reform, when he largely just co-opted the republican agenda, watered it down a bit to where he could pass the vote, and called it victory.

Bush's loss on the "energy" bill shows that there are still a few people with principles in congress, though.

Overall, the shooting down of the energy bill and the passing of some (flawed) Medicare reforms makes me a reasonably happy liberal. I can't hope for much more in a republican-led government.

onetime2 · 11-26-2003, 04:45 AM

Sparhawk,

There are some flaws in that thinking. Not the least of which is the fact that the benefits paid by corporations now will not be the benefits paid by corporations in the future. Healthcare costs are growing too fast and corporations are looking at these benefits as a way to contain ever growing retirement expenses.

Just another thing to think about.

smooth · 11-27-2003, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
So, rather than talk about the benefits that this will bring to seniors, it's about the hypocrisy of the Bush administration? Isn't this a step in the right direction, which will help to take care of an aging population and ease the burden of Rx costs that many seniors face?

I don't understand why, if the intention was to ease costs, the Republican party was adament against allowing cost controls or for seniors to purchase medication from non-US sources.

Whether seniors will actually benefit in the long-run from this is arguable, but even if they do it will be at great expense to taxpayers and huge benefits to Rx corps. The last part is the most troubling to me because we could have provided relief to seniors without shifting more money from the middle class to multinational corporations.

onetime2 · 11-27-2003, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I don't understand why, if the intention was to ease costs, the Republican party was adament against allowing cost controls or for seniors to purchase medication from non-US sources.

Whether seniors will actually benefit in the long-run from this is arguable, but even if they do it will be at great expense to taxpayers and huge benefits to Rx corps. The last part is the most troubling to me because we could have provided relief to seniors without shifting more money from the middle class to multinational corporations.

There has been talk of allowing the purchase from non-US sources. Also, in many states which already offer help to seniors in the form of medication plans, this will allow them to offer their benefit to MANY more people. NJ is one such example. We already have a plan and this new plan will work in conjunction with it allowing them to shift the money we spend on those who will be covered by this to those that we can not cover. It's estimated that this will free up something on the order of a quarter billion dollars for NJ seniors.

On one hand you say that it's arguable that seniors will benefit and on the other you categorically state that it will be of huge benefit to the drug companies. It's too early to say either. The fact remains that retiree drug benefits are being discontinued at an increasing rate. Something needed to be done. This is a step in the right direction and may serve to save money in the long run by getting seniors on drugs that will prevent surgeries and hospital stays that Medicare would have been forced to cover had they not gone on drugs (like blood presssure meds and the like).

As far as cost controls, there are no cost controls for meds for the rest of the population, so it's unlikely that it would have passed the legislature with them in it.

smooth · 11-27-2003, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
There has been talk of allowing the purchase from non-US sources. Also, in many states which already offer help to seniors in the form of medication plans, this will allow them to offer their benefit to MANY more people. NJ is one such example. We already have a plan and this new plan will work in conjunction with it allowing them to shift the money we spend on those who will be covered by this to those that we can not cover. It's estimated that this will free up something on the order of a quarter billion dollars for NJ seniors.

On one hand you say that it's arguable that seniors will benefit and on the other you categorically state that it will be of huge benefit to the drug companies. It's too early to say either. The fact remains that retiree drug benefits are being discontinued at an increasing rate. Something needed to be done. This is a step in the right direction and may serve to save money in the long run by getting seniors on drugs that will prevent surgeries and hospital stays that Medicare would have been forced to cover had they not gone on drugs (like blood presssure meds and the like).

As far as cost controls, there are no cost controls for meds for the rest of the population, so it's unlikely that it would have passed the legislature with them in it.

The traditional argument has been that the market would have provided an effective cost control--although, in this case, it isn't being allowed to work.

I say it will categorically be a boon to corps because they can charge as much as they like and suck the government's teet. Our seniors aren't allowed to buy the same drug across the border even if it's cheaper, the government is specifically restricted from bargaining for a group rate (which the rest of the population can currently do with a large enough plan), and any "talk" occurring has been one side trying to get it in to the bill but it's been rejected out of hand along party lines.

It's not too late to say that there is no mechanism to control spiraling drug costs. There isn't one. A company can choose to charge as much as it likes, can enforce its patent over the drug, has the law in its favor to restrict the power of market choices to drive down prices, and now effectively gets to stick the taxpayer with the bill. The only reason I can see a mechanism to prevent that situation wouldn't have passed is due to the bought and paid for (by the pharm. corps., not with citizen's votes) "representatives."

onetime2 · 11-27-2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
The traditional argument has been that the market would have provided an effective cost control--although, in this case, it isn't being allowed to work.

I say it will categorically be a boon to corps because they can charge as much as they like and suck the government's teet. Our seniors aren't allowed to buy the same drug across the border even if it's cheaper, the government is specifically restricted from bargaining for a group rate (which the rest of the population can currently do with a large enough plan), and any "talk" occurring has been one side trying to get it in to the bill but it's been rejected out of hand along party lines.

It's not too late to say that there is no mechanism to control spiraling drug costs. There isn't one. A company can choose to charge as much as it likes, can enforce its patent over the drug, has the law in its favor to restrict the power of market choices to drive down prices, and now effectively gets to stick the taxpayer with the bill. The only reason I can see a mechanism to prevent that situation wouldn't have passed is due to the bought and paid for (by the pharm. corps., not with citizen's votes) "representatives."

How is the market being stopped from working? The bill provides benefits that currently under or uninsured seniors don't have. The lack of the bill doesn't have them in a stronger bargaining position, so I'm not clear on your argument here.

As far as being precluded from bargaining for drug prices, that's ridiculous. The thinking that the pharm companies can charge whatever they like is flawed. There are countless ways for pharmacies, insurance firms, and the government to get price breaks in the current system. I agree that collective bargaining for pharmaceuticals is effective. Government purchasers (like the VA) get some of the best prices for drug purchases. But, there is a growing inclination for PBMs (Pharmacy Benefit Managers) to work together to insist on lower prices and it will continue without regard to this plan. Those seniors who enter into the private market through this plan will benefit from this trend.

Price controls will do two things. First, it forces those countries without price controls to pay more for the rest of the world. Currently, it is the US drug buyer who is subsidizing low prices in the rest of the world. The price controls put in place in the rest of the world force the drug companies to make up there costs here. The second thing they will do is limit the number of new drugs researched and approved. There are limited resources for the expensive research and drawn out approval processes. Implementing price controls will force drug companies to put their resources behind only those that are most likely to be approved for big target markets. That will mean fewer dollars spent on niche diseases (MS, Parkinsons, etc).

smooth · 11-28-2003, 11:28 AM

I don't think you are aware that, according to the arguments on the floor, this bill specifically precludes the program from collective bargaining.

I didn't say that the bill should have established a price control. That's the market's job and the government shouldn't step in unless the market isn't working properly. In this case, the market has already provided a price control but the bill doesn't acknowledge it or allow us to benefit from it. This is backward policy. We should be benefitting from lower prices, not restricted by our government from enjoying them.

Not allowing people to walk across the border to buy the same product from Mexico or Canada is restricting the market. They both have the same medication for less than it is being sold here but we can't purchase it. If that isn't preventing the capitalist market to work properly I must need an economist to tell me how it isn't. Please do so.

EDIT: Hey, looky here, an article about it:

Quote:

Welfare Turns Into a Suite Deal
Under the GOP, corporate titans are lining up for government handouts.

Remember when the "welfare queen" was a woman driving a Cadillac? Today, that character has become a CEO riding in the back of a limousine.

The Bush administration and the Republican-led House have taken steps toward providing an unprecedented taxpayer-funded handout to private companies.

The energy bill, which passed the House and will be taken up again by the Senate in January, contains nearly $30 billion in such benefits, including $11.3 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies that just had one of their most profitable years on record.

That bill also contains $18 billion in federal loan guarantees for private construction of a gas pipeline from Alaska to Chicago; $1.1 billion to build a nuclear reactor in Idaho to produce hydrogen; $95 million to research turning dead turkeys into energy; and funding to construct a rain forest museum in Iowa. This is while Pell Grants--money that sends kids to college--are being frozen for the first time in 10 years.

And despite an oft-stated commitment to family values, the Republicans' bill even contains money to build an energy-efficient Hooters restaurant in Louisiana. Now, if Hooters wants to practice energy conservation, fine. But is it really the responsibility of American taxpayers to pay for it?

Similarly, the newly passed Republican Medicare reform bill provides billions in federal welfare assistance for private businesses.

HMOs and PPOs will receive almost $80 billion in federal subsidies to administer the program. An estimated $139 billion in additional profits will flow directly to pharmaceutical companies. Rather than enabling Medicare to use its market power to bargain for cheaper drugs in classic capitalist fashion, the Medicare reform bill specifically prohibits such negotiations.

It also sets the bar so high for federal approval of safe and affordable drugs from Canada that it completely forecloses the free-market competition that might drive down U.S. drug prices by 50%.

If an HMO wants to sell insurance, it should. But it should not expect a taxpayer subsidy. If an oil company wants to build a gas pipeline, it should. But it should not expect taxpayers to help.

What has happened to the Republican Party that claimed to be the protector of free markets, the true believers in a capitalistic system in which competition would provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number? Judging by the energy and Medicare bills created by a Republican Congress, never has a political party stood for a greater dependency on government handouts for corporate titans.

The party that campaigned for years on demonizing welfare has been transformed into a party that espouses the virtues of dependency.

I am a Democrat who happens to have worked on ending the broken welfare system and the culture that goes with it. The Clinton administration's reforms were designed to decrease dependence on government and increase personal responsibility. This is a value that now must be instilled in our corporate suites and taught to the captains of capitalism.

Just as with aiding individuals on the welfare rolls, most Democrats believe in giving U.S. businesses the tools they need to compete effectively: a solid infrastructure of transportation and water systems, fair trade policies that help to equalize opportunity and, most important, a public education system that can provide American businesses with a well-trained workforce. Government should not seduce companies with public assistance when profit should be their driving force.

What today's Republicans have created is a whole new culture of welfare that threatens the very free-market system they claim to champion. It's time to get the new corporate "welfare queen" out of his limousine.

onetime2 · 11-28-2003, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
[B]I don't think you are aware that, according to the arguments on the floor, this bill specifically precludes the program from collective bargaining.

I didn't say that the bill should have established a price control. That's the market's job and the government shouldn't step in unless the market isn't working properly. In this case, the market has already provided a price control but the bill doesn't acknowledge it or allow us to benefit from it. This is backward policy. We should be benefitting from lower prices, not restricted by our government from enjoying them.

Not allowing people to walk across the border to buy the same product from Mexico or Canada is restricting the market. They both have the same medication for less than it is being sold here but we can't purchase it. If that isn't preventing the capitalist market to work properly I must need an economist to tell me how it isn't. Please do so.

Quite the unbiased article there.

The "program" will not have collective bargaining abilities but the individual plans that cover the seniors within this plan will. Every PBM is moving in that direction through drug formulary rules, contracts with manufactures, and cooperation among the PBMs.

It doesn't take an economist to recognize that Canada and the US are two separate markets governed by very different rules. The US FDA puts far more restrictions on drug use and approvals than just about any other country in the world. I hope that one day you can look at the pharm industry as a truly global market but right now it's a bunch of islands that all interact in some ways but can in no way be considered a single market nor does it act as a single market. I hope the trend of buying from outside markets continues, if only because it will eventually end our subsidization of others' drug prices. Unfortunately, that will mean fewer dollars going towards the smaller market diseases.

11-18-2003, 04:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Bush Medicare Rx plan gets AARP backing Like him or hate him, it's an impressive endorsement... http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ess/index.html For those not into links... AARP endorses Medicare Rx drug bill Democratic opponents say it will dismantle Medicare From Steve Turnham CNN Washington Bureau Monday, November 17, 2003 Posted: 5:16 PM EST (2216 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and congressional Republicans kicked off a major lobbying blitz for the $400 billion Medicare-prescription drug bill Monday, buoyed by the endorsement of the nation's largest seniors group. Democratic opponents attacked the measure as a "Trojan horse" that will serve to dismantle Medicare, while some conservative Republicans lashed out at the "enormous cost" of the proposal, suggesting it could exceed the current price tag. The key Medicare negotiators, including Democratic Senators John Breaux of Louisiana and Max Baucus of Montana, met at the White House for a photo opportunity with Bush as the president begins a major effort to get the bill through before Congress adjourns. Bush is slated to leave the country Tuesday morning for a state visit to Britain. The endorsement from AARP, which represents 35 million Americans aged 50 and over and is a muscular lobbying force on Capitol Hill, couldn't have come at a better time for Bush and congressional GOP supporters. The group had initially opposed key provisions of the bill. "AARP believes the millions of older Americans and their families will be helped by this legislation," Bill Novelli, chief executive of the group, said in a statement that acknowledged the legislation is "far from perfect." "It will provide substantial relief for those with very high drug costs and will provide modest relief for millions more." AARP -- now known only by the acronym for the name it scrapped to reach out for members beyond retirees -- plans to lend its considerable weight to push the package through with a three-day ad campaign starting Tuesday on cable television. Wavering lawmakers also will feel the heat from the White House directly, colleagues who are backing the measure and from other lobbyists. "It's a tsunami," said one GOP aide of the lobbying effort. "They're pulling out all the stops to get this over the finish line." Spearheading the Democratic opposition to the bill is the party's leading health care advocate, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was a key supporter of the initial proposal. He spoke out against the bill in its current form Monday, saying the drug benefit is nothing but bait to get lawmakers to accept other elements of the bill that would force Medicare into competition with private plans, force premiums up and spell the end of Medicare in its current form. He said the bill sets up a "$12 billion slush fund" to subsidize HMOs wishing to offer a private alternative, and that private firms would cherry pick the healthiest seniors, leaving Medicare saddled with the bill for caring for the sickest. "If they are so efficient, why do they need a handout?" asked Kennedy, his voice rising in anger. "Talk about a fair playing field between the Medicare and the private sector. That's hogwash, that's hogwash." Dean, Clark oppose Two of the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Dr. Howard Dean and Wesley Clark -- also issued statements opposing the revised legislation that is slated for a conference committee vote Tuesday, with Dean calling it a "special interest boondoggle." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, attacked AARP for allowing itself to be "co-opted by Republicans" whose real intent is to kill Medicare. "The country cannot afford a Trojan horse deal which purports to help America's seniors, but is really a cruel hoax that dismantles Medicare and does not provide seniors an affordable, defined, guaranteed Medicare prescription drug benefit," she said. The AARP endorsement came as Democrats weigh whether to try to block the bill when it comes to the Senate floor as early as this week. They would need just 41 votes to block the legislation under Senate rules, but it is far from clear whether they have the political will to mount a filibuster against a measure whose central provision, a huge prescription drug benefit, is widely popular. The Congressional Budget Office must still certify that the bill doesn't blow it's budget of $400 billion. Otherwise, negotiators will have to go back and alter its delicately balanced provisions to meet the cap. But lawmakers have been working with CBO all along to make sure the bill stays on budget. Some conservatives remained wary, however. "The enormous cost of this proposal will only hasten Medicare's insolvency, and we'll have to rely on future Congresses to have the political courage that this Congress lacks," said Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake. "In the end, I think this looks like nothing more than an extremely expensive way to buy votes." <B>I'm happy to see there's a good chance for passing this. Prescription benefits are too important to seniors. </B> __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

11-18-2003, 05:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	More hypocricy from the Administration, when Bush signs into law the biggest expansion of the Federal government since LBJ's Great Society. Can anyone honestly say with a straight face anymore that Republicans are the party of fiscal discipline? __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

11-25-2003, 08:23 AM	#7 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	And has now passed the Senate. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

11-25-2003, 08:57 AM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	This giant give-away is one of the things about Bush I don't like. Pure political pandering. If I wanted that I'd have voted for Gore. The fact that the AARP endorses it is proof of that. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-25-2003, 09:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	ARgggg Who the fuck can I vote for that believes that the Federal Government should be small. Fucking gifts to voters has got to stop. Mother fucker I can't tell you how pissed I am, I better come back and write later... __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

11-18-2003, 04:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	Here come the baby boomers...

11-18-2003, 06:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	AARP is no longer your grandmas advocacy group. They shed their full name for the AARP monkier so they could attract non-decrepid members. They also, unfortunately, have a financial interest in this bill passing. They have lost their ability to be a true advocate for medicare consumer rights. They have become part of the insurance business. "Critics say AARP, which formally unveiled its new headquarters building in downtown Washington last month, has softened its earlier militancy because it is preoccupied with its profit-making enterprises, including $100 million in earnings from the sale of insurance, mostly Medicare supplemental policies." - Newsday, 10/21/2000 "AARP's receives more than $100 million in revenue from health insurers." - Denver Post, 5/21/96 "Critics suggest that AARP's substantial profits from the sales of Medigap and other insurance policies, drug company advertising in its magazines, and investment schemes conflict with its interests on behalf of seniors...AARP President William Novelli acknowledged complaints from members that AARP has been too timid in the political battles to defend Medicare and Social Security. He conceded that AARP has pulled its punches since right-wing groups and members of Congress criticized it as too liberal." - Newsday, 2/19/02 "AARP's pharmacy service is part of its insurance sales operation which generated $ 101 million in revenue last year - 17 percent of the organization's total budget." - Capitol News Service, 8/15/02 "AARP receives millions of dollars from UnitedHealthcare, a national health insurance firm based in Minnesota." - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/24/01

11-25-2003, 10:31 AM	#10 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	I'm confused - I really woulda thought that liberals would have been pissed because it wasn't enough money. A large part of their platform lies on convincing seniors that we want to make them choose between dinner and medication.

11-25-2003, 12:10 PM	#11 (permalink)
Downtownat10 Crazy Location: A Fortified Compound, East Coast	Even putting Government expansion aside, this bill will do nothing to help the average senior citizen. I don't necessarily enjoy siding with Kennedy, but he's got it right. Also, thanks to Superbelt for throwing out those quotes. It has been mentioned that the AARP is expecting huge kickbacks from throwing their support with this bill. Many conservatives have told me that it nonsense, and they support it because it will work. But if that is the case, why did they do such a quick 180 on their approval of the bill? __________________ Heh. Oops. Sorry about that one...

11-25-2003, 03:37 PM	#13 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	KQED here in San Francisco had a really excellent program on this morning featuring panelists from AARP, the health insurers, Senior Action Network (a group opposing the bill), and others. I really enjoyed the program, and they did a good job of presenting all sides: You can listen here (scroll down a bit to find the show): http://www.kqed.org/programs/program...sp?progID=RD19 The impression I get is that this bill is a little of everything. A little bit of help for seniors, a little bit of money for insurers, a little bit of money for pharmaceutical companies, and a little bit of added pork barrel politics and bureaucracy. It doesn't sound like anyone likes the bill, but it's the only one they could get passed.

11-25-2003, 04:54 PM	#14 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	I think I heard this expressed in probably the most basic of ways this morning - it went something like - George Bush out Clintoned Bill Clinton - He presented something that was the other parties as his own, pushed it through Congress - burned the other party and will get all the credit! If it was OK for Clinton surely you'll concede a little to George! __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

11-26-2003, 04:45 AM	#16 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Sparhawk, There are some flaws in that thinking. Not the least of which is the fact that the benefits paid by corporations now will not be the benefits paid by corporations in the future. Healthcare costs are growing too fast and corporations are looking at these benefits as a way to contain ever growing retirement expenses. Just another thing to think about. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.