Democrats Scold AARP Over Medicare Bill - **AARP members try in vain to burn their cards!**

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Turning on their host, several of the Democratic presidential candidates scolded the powerful AARP for endorsing a Republican-backed Medicare prescription drug bill

<snips>
Six of the nine candidates participated in the morning forum sponsored by the 35 million-member organization that represents Americans age 50 or older. The AARP's sponsorship didn't stop the Democrats from assailing the bill or the group
...
"I wish AARP had chosen to oppose this bill," said Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts. "I wish AARP was spending its $7 million telling Americans what is wrong with this bill."
...
While the Medicare legislation and AARP was the focus of the candidates' criticism, they did use the forum to pick on each other. Gephardt reiterated his complaints that Dean, as Vermont governor, backed GOP efforts in the 1990s to scale back spending on Medicare.
</snips>

I'm not sure that was the best forum to be bashing the AARP's decision to back the bill, since it was hosted by the AARP:p But whatever - I'm sure we'll hear more complaining about this in the coming days.

CkG
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Clearly the GOP consulted AARP leadership while they were writing the Medicare bill . . . along with health insurance providers, drug companies, and hospital associations. Maybe AARP calculus (Bush bill is better than no bill) will pay off in the long run but the rank and file are not cheering this proposal . . . in part b/c most of them likely don't know what's in it.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Maybe AARP calculus (Bush bill is better than no bill) will pay off in the long run but the rank and file are not cheering this proposal . . . in part b/c most of them likely don't know what's in it

Wow. What a presumption.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Does this bill prohibit drug reimportation or is this some other bill?
All the politicians are making the rounds saying how it'll protect seniors from those dangerous canadian medicines ;)
I guess the solution to seniors having to go to canada for affordable medicine is not to make it more affordable here, but by making reimportation illegal.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That dirty AARP.

Why do you say that?

CkG

Turning on their host, several of the Democratic presidential candidates scolded the powerful AARP for endorsing a Republican-backed Medicare prescription drug bill.

I wanted to get in on the action.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Wow. What a presumption

It's a pretty safe assumption that few members of Congress really know what's in the bill. I believe the CBO is still working on the cost estimate as well. The less amorphous items:

1) Generic drug makers will no longer be hamstrung by Big Pharma and their patent "shell games".
2) Big Pharma essentially gets guaranteed access to the federal Treasury to the tune of several hundred billion dollars MORE over the next decade.
3) HMOs are guaranteed access to healthy seniors . . . essentially the government will pay HMOs to watch old people age.
4) Less healthy elderly will find no takers in the private insurance market. These patients will remain in traditional Medicare. The per patient costs for Medicare recipients will rise dramatically which will force Congress to claim "Medicare MUST be reformed" . . . say good-bye to Medicare. Of course, the sick and able that are forced (or choose) to remain in Medicare will get less generous drug and preventative care benefits. So people will be punished for liking the system as is . . . and they will be punished for being too sick to be attractive to private insurance providers.
5) The reimportation clause was either dropped entirely from the bill or the bill requires the FDA to certify that drugs reimported from Canada are safe. FDA Commish McClellan has made it clear it will be a empty day in Rush's Vicodin bottle before that will happen. So Americans will either NOT get Canadian reimports . . . or NOT get Canadian reimports.

I could go on . . .
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Wow. What a presumption

It's a pretty safe assumption that few members of Congress really know what's in the bill.

Oops, sorry, the way your previous post was worded, it sounded like you said the rank and file AARP members don't know what's in the bill:

Maybe AARP calculus (Bush bill is better than no bill) will pay off in the long run but the rank and file are not cheering this proposal . . . in part b/c most of them likely don't know what's in it.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That dirty AARP.

Why do you say that?

CkG

Turning on their host, several of the Democratic presidential candidates scolded the powerful AARP for endorsing a Republican-backed Medicare prescription drug bill.

I wanted to get in on the action.

So you don't like the AARP? Or just don't like the fact that they support a Republican bill?

CkG
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That dirty AARP.

Why do you say that?

CkG

Turning on their host, several of the Democratic presidential candidates scolded the powerful AARP for endorsing a Republican-backed Medicare prescription drug bill.

I wanted to get in on the action.

So you don't like the AARP? Or just don't like the fact that they support a Republican bill?

CkG

I think he just wants to post.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Oh I meant that as well . . . if the people responsible for representing the best interests of the electorate don't know what's in the legislation . . . what hope does the common man have?

If I had to guess; I would say AARP leadership believes they are getting something for nothing. Maybe by their calculus, most of the membership will be dead before Medicare collapses or the bill comes for the IOUs paying for the drug plan (which won't start until 2006 anyway).

But it's only a matter of time before Medicare follows the death spiral of employer-provided insurance and Medicaid. Employer-sponsored insurance premiums rose 13.9% year over year. 51% of large firms said they were "very likely" to increase employee premiums . . . for those not used to industry speak that means, "hell yes we're going to raise premiums." Three perent of these employers are planning to restrict employee eligibility and one percent expected to drop all coverage. Of course the great jobs engine that everyone extolls (small business) has no intentions of offering any coverage.

Medicaid enrollement increased from 11.2 to 11.6% of the population while Medicare decreased from 13.5 to 13.4% (sage ones going to the great big subsidized health care plan in the sky probably). The continuing loss of employer-provided plans, lagging employment, and impending onslaught of Baby Boomers means national healthcare costs are about to drop a bomb on the US economy.

Every state cut Medicaid costs in some fashion in fiscal 2003 despite the fact more people were accessing care. All states plan additional cuts for fiscal 2004. The two most frequent strategies "controlling drug costs" and "reducing/freezing provider payments". Congress has done the latter multiple times with Medicare but for some odd reason . . . lobbyists . . . chose not to do so with the former . . . lobbyists despite the tremendous pressure that medication imparts upon the system in Medicaid and NOW Medicare as well . . . starting in 2006.

 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
the dems are mad because the elderly choose to think and act for themselves rather than let the government do it for them. anything that gets in the way of implementing of the welfare state gets them heated. typical democrat mediscare tactics.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Wow. What a presumption

It's a pretty safe assumption that few members of Congress really know what's in the bill. I believe the CBO is still working on the cost estimate as well. The less amorphous items:

1) Generic drug makers will no longer be hamstrung by Big Pharma and their patent "shell games".
2) Big Pharma essentially gets guaranteed access to the federal Treasury to the tune of several hundred billion dollars MORE over the next decade.
3) HMOs are guaranteed access to healthy seniors . . . essentially the government will pay HMOs to watch old people age.
4) Less healthy elderly will find no takers in the private insurance market. These patients will remain in traditional Medicare. The per patient costs for Medicare recipients will rise dramatically which will force Congress to claim "Medicare MUST be reformed" . . . say good-bye to Medicare. Of course, the sick and able that are forced (or choose) to remain in Medicare will get less generous drug and preventative care benefits. So people will be punished for liking the system as is . . . and they will be punished for being too sick to be attractive to private insurance providers.
5) The reimportation clause was either dropped entirely from the bill or the bill requires the FDA to certify that drugs reimported from Canada are safe. FDA Commish McClellan has made it clear it will be a empty day in Rush's Vicodin bottle before that will happen. So Americans will either NOT get Canadian reimports . . . or NOT get Canadian reimports.

I could go on . . .

1. True. I support this sort of action.
2. Sure. ANY Prescription bill will do this - which is why as a whole I don't support ANY Prescription Drug Entitlement.
3. As opposed to Full gov't access? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The privatization aspect means that it won't be a wholly gov't program.
4. Either way you look at it - ANY prescription bill would change the existing rules and "hurt" some who enjoy the system as is. For Democrats to use this "excuse" is a bit disingenuous because their own plans would do the same("hurt" some). Creating a full fledged Entitlement is also bad because some would be forced off of their current private plan(from pensions or other retirement benefits) because Corporate pensions will drop the drug/health portions since the gov't is provided it.
5. Drug re-importation is included but yes - the FDA will have the discretion on what ones are allowed. It really is a whole issue in and of itself - there are quite a few states that are looking into drug re-importation - I think the FDA will eventually have to cave but this isn't the legislation that will do it.

That all being said - I don't support ANY drug entitlement bill at this time. As I stated in a different thread:
"Neither plan has "serious exploration into Medicare reform" and both will be a boon for Big Pharma since they can now use the gov't to suckle from. This entitlement shouldn't even be contemplated until our whole Entitlement system is revamped to perform better and cut out the bloat.
Wishful thinking, I know, but hopefully someday people will realize that the gov't can't provide everything for everyone."

CkG
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
3) HMOs are guaranteed access to healthy seniors . . . essentially the government will pay HMOs to watch old people age.
4) Less healthy elderly will find no takers in the private insurance market. These patients will remain in traditional Medicare. The per patient costs for Medicare recipients will rise dramatically which will force Congress to claim "Medicare MUST be reformed" . . . say good-bye to Medicare. Of course, the sick and able that are forced (or choose) to remain in Medicare will get less generous drug and preventative care benefits. So people will be punished for liking the system as is . . . and they will be punished for being too sick to be attractive to private insurance providers.

3. As opposed to Full gov't access? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The privatization aspect means that it won't be a wholly gov't program.
4. Either way you look at it - ANY prescription bill would change the existing rules and "hurt" some who enjoy the system as is. For Democrats to use this "excuse" is a bit disingenuous because their own plans would do the same("hurt" some). Creating a full fledged Entitlement is also bad because some would be forced off of their current private plan(from pensions or other retirement benefits) because Corporate pensions will drop the drug/health portions since the gov't is provided it.

Of course the government will offer full access to all people currently receiving Medicare BUT the HMOs will only accept the ones they want (and it ain't the ones on dialysis or post-stroke). I believe this legislation includes some provision to prevent HMOs from exclusively "cherry-picking" but at the same time it essentially guarantees that companies willing to risk covering these people will make money. That's not competition . . . that's a payoff. It's a no lose situation for HMOs b/c the healthy elderly will pay premiums that exceed the costs of healthcare and HMOs will bill the government for the entire cost (plus profit) for taking care of sick elderly. What's the lesser evil; a government entitlement program for the elderly or a government-funded entitlement program for corporations serving the elderly? Regardless of your answer, the former is likely cheaper.

I sorta like Medicare and Medicaid b/c I believe healthcare is indeed a basic necessity that should be provided to those that cannot provide it for themselves. Having said that though, it is ridiculous to stack a Prescription Drug Benefit (an entitlement program with unparalleled inflationary potential) on top of an already troubled and soon to be unwieldy Medicare.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Of course the government will offer full access to all people currently receiving Medicare BUT the HMOs will only accept the ones they want (and it ain't the ones on dialysis or post-stroke). I believe this legislation includes some provision to prevent HMOs from exclusively "cherry-picking" but at the same time it essentially guarantees that companies willing to risk covering these people will make money. That's not competition . . . that's a payoff. It's a no lose situation for HMOs b/c the healthy elderly will pay premiums that exceed the costs of healthcare and HMOs will bill the government for the entire cost (plus profit) for taking care of sick elderly. What's the lesser evil; a government entitlement program for the elderly or a government-funded entitlement program for corporations serving the elderly? Regardless of your answer, the former is likely cheaper.

I sorta like Medicare and Medicaid b/c I believe healthcare is indeed a basic necessity that should be provided to those that cannot provide it for themselves. Having said that though, it is ridiculous to stack a Prescription Drug Benefit (an entitlement program with unparalleled inflationary potential) on top of an already troubled and soon to be unwieldy Medicare.

My answer is "neither";)
But I agree with you on your opinion that stacking a Drug entitlement on top of a failing Medicare system is ridiculous.

CkG
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
we need price caps before we have a prescription drug benefit. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for a drug company ripoff. I think there is a fiasco waiting to happen, and Democrats are right in opposing it.
Better get off this train before it wrecks.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
And banning reimportation of drugs means it will go underground, instead of legitimate companies doing it. This will expose Americans to much higher danger. If you can't afford medicine, instead of having an option of buying it from a legitimate Canadian pharmacy, now you will only be able to buy it from some underground operation in Mexico, where who knows what they are going to ship.
There is a second drug war coming. Now the war is on reimported prescription drugs.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
we need price caps before we have a prescription drug benefit. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for a drug company ripoff. I think there is a fiasco waiting to happen, and Democrats are right in opposing it.
Better get off this train before it wrecks.

price controls have always been so effective in the past
rolleye.gif
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
And banning reimportation of drugs means it will go underground, instead of legitimate companies doing it. This will expose Americans to much higher danger. If you can't afford medicine, instead of having an option of buying it from a legitimate Canadian pharmacy, now you will only be able to buy it from some underground operation in Mexico, where who knows what they are going to ship.
There is a second drug war coming. Now the war is on reimported prescription drugs.

Canada is currently trying to stop this practise as it is causing drug shortages in Canada. It the other side of the border is not interested in exporting drugs.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
we need price caps before we have a prescription drug benefit. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for a drug company ripoff. I think there is a fiasco waiting to happen, and Democrats are right in opposing it.
Better get off this train before it wrecks.

price controls have always been so effective in the past
rolleye.gif

Providing a government benefit without capping costs on the other hand has been a runaway success
rolleye.gif
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
we need price caps before we have a prescription drug benefit. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for a drug company ripoff. I think there is a fiasco waiting to happen, and Democrats are right in opposing it.
Better get off this train before it wrecks.

price controls have always been so effective in the past
rolleye.gif

Providing a government benefit without capping costs on the other hand has been a runaway success
rolleye.gif

capping costs==rationing.

Who gets to decide who gets the benefits.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
not capping costs = black hole for taxpayer money. What's to stop drug companies from jacking up prices if they know the government will pay it? This will not only explode the budget, it'll make drugs less affordable for those without coverage.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
not capping costs = black hole for taxpayer money. What's to stop drug companies from jacking up prices if they know the government will pay it? This will not only explode the budget, it'll make drugs less affordable for those without coverage.

That is the entire problem with every entitlement program that exists.