Medicare Drug Benifit Cost Soars by a Third, Deficit over 1/2 Trillian Projected

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SuperTool
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64627-2004Jan30?language=printer
Another Bush administration lie costing us hundreds of billions.

Oops, again.

That's funny - the objection(inpart) from the left was that it didn't spend enough(cost enough). Now that this entitlement actually does cost/spend more - the left still isn't happy. How much bigger does it need to be to please them? Yes yes - we all know the whining about controlling pricing will come up but that is BS. It wouldn't be an issue if the damn entitlement would have been passed in the first place and the gov't doesn't need to get it's grubby paws on any more markets than it does now in regards to pricing regulation. The left has been trying to get prescription coverage for seniors passed for years and never delivered - now it seems like it's just sour grapes or that it was used as a partisan wedge issue by them Either one seems to fit.

This entitlement sucks - should be scaled back if not eliminated - and then restructure our WHOLE welfare type system. Set the rules - adjust for inflation - then quit whining. Seems they both want to bicker about it more than they actually want to solve our entitlment and welfare problems.

CkG

Just more of the same from the Bush admin: Know the truth, but deny it until later.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So instead Bush set up a new system where the government has to pay monopoly prices for drugs without any price negotiation ability. This is going to explode, not unlike the CA energy crisis. If the government pays for things, it should have a right to negotiate prices, just like any other payer would.

The selling price for prescription drugs should not be controlled by the gov't - not in a free market anyway.
I will not make excuses for this bill and what it may or may not do on the drug front, because the whole issue is that it shouldn't be there in the first place. The fact that price controls aren't included doesn't make this a bad bill, it's because it's concept is fundamentally flawed. It's a nice chanting point to say it's bad because of X, but would you really support it if it did have X? What other excuse would then be found to say it is "bad"? Y? Well then what if "Y" was addressed too- would it be "good" then?
Gov't entitlements are destroying our country and look to increasingly burden our fiscal state. It's nice to say you want to help seniors pay for things, but at what cost? It's nice to say you want to help "Z" but at what cost? Do we really need the gov't helping everyone for everything? Why are we so reliant on the gov't to provide? What happened to -ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country - type mentality(phrase may not be exact so I left out the quotes) Increasing our reliance on gov't will only lead to more and more dependence on it and ultimately the loss of control of it. This "what are you going to do for me" BS has to stop.

However - a lost item in this bill is HSAs - which I support. I don't remember the exact details of how it works but the concept looks to be good(some info here). I just wish they wouldn't lump the good around the fundamentally bad

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We need a mandatory death age.
One benefit the condemned get is to pick one other person to take with them, of any age.

That's a fair system that reduces overpopulation.