Single issue voters -- prescription drugs for one

[AndrewR]

Is anyone else bothered by the single issues that dominate segments of the population? In particular, the prescription drug thing has irked me since the candidates are absolutely beholden to the "grey horde" on this issue. I'm not saying it isn't required (I've only read a few things about it), but the fact that you CANNOT under any circumstances go against the AARP crowd if you wish to have any hope of success is troublesome.

Why? It seems to circumvent democracy. How? A minority is dictating its demands to the rest of the electorate.

It just seems more common that it used to be, and I am not comfortable with the trend.

 

[Total Refected Power]

Wait and see what happens once "price-controls" are in place. Fewer medicines will make it to market as drug companies have less resources for research and development. The government does not do drug research. It comes almost entirely from the private sector whose goal in our capitalistic system is to ultimately be profitable. To put them on a different playing field that any other industry is wrong. In the end we will all suffer as there will be less incentive for drug research as they are squeezed by AL GORE.

 

[kranky]

Exaggerating a little here to make a point, but it's because senior citizens are worth four times a regular citizen to a politician. They are like super-voters.

Why? Because they get out and vote. Why not pander to the group that you know will actually get out there and pull the lever for you? The best thing that could happen is for other age groups to vote more, and there would be no point in politicians sucking up to any special group, because they couldn't make enough of a difference.

But currently, the senior citizens know the power of the vote, they make sure the pols know they vote, and they reward the candidate that promises them the most.

 

[denali]

The reason both canidates pander to the eldery is that they vote. They have the voting booths set up in the retirement homes so they don't need to leave the building. Also those over 65 have the highest median net worth of any segment of the population, ~$140,000. Politicians scare these people that medicare/social security will go bankrupt if they don't fix it. If the government did nothing they might go bankrupt but it won't be for atleast 20 years by which time most of the people they are try to scare will be dead.

I don't understand why Gore wants to give coverage to every one even those that already have coverage. Bush atleast seems to only want to help those that are poor.

Medical technology has advanced greatly recently however just because we can prolong a life does not mean that we should. Former Colorado governer Lamm said it best when he said that we have a duty to die.

 

[DABANSHEE]

Well it doesn't cause any problems in the rest of the OECD, - here in Australia for instance I pay less than A$4 (US$2.20) for each prescription that the pharmacist does for me, but I have a student card. For people without benefit cards prescriptions cost about A$12 (about US$7) each. But after a certain amount of prescriptions a year, any over that amount are free. Consequently (as the govt is really the one paying for the greatest proportion of each prescription) pharmaceutical companies negotiate with the govt to get their drugs on the PBS (phamaceutical bebefits scheme) list, so they can only charge for that drug what the govt is willing to pay. Hence even American drug companies sell their drugs for less here than they would in the US. They have similar setups in most of Europe too.

Maybe this prescription drug thingie is one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive in the US. Remember America pays more in healthcare than any other nation, both per-capita & as a percentage of GNP.

 

[denali]

DABANSHEE, Americans do pay the most for medical care no doubt about it. The reasons for this however are not because companies are making huge amounts of money. In the US you can get any medical procedure at any time without waiting and not always with a valid reason. The US is also the most litigous counrty with no limits on awards. The US also has the strictest regulations for getting a drug approved. All of the above tend to drive up the costs of medical treatment in the US.

I doubt that the majority of people in the US would be willing to go onto a waiting list to have any medical procedure as in the rest of the OECD.

 

[JellyBaby]

As government is increasingly dipping its greedy hands into health care I see some trends: company health plan choices are fewer now and not as good, treatment costs have skyrocketed, prescription drug prices are skyrocketed, and health care choices are becoming more and more limited. Why? It wasn't this way at all before government intervened. But they'll do something incredibly stupid like OKing the advertising of prescription drug ads. Drug companies immediately launch huge ad campaigns. They won't absorb the cost, of course, you get the freakin' bill.

No, I don't see how offering a prescription drug plan can help anyone in the long term. When Clinton first ran, remember all the time he spent getting the younger vote? Lots of youngins back then. Now as the population ages the demlicans target them. It's pathetic, though. They dangling something "free" in front of them, scare the sh!t out of them, simply to gain votes.

At the end of the day we have a worsened health care system, higher taxes, bigger and more intrusive government, angry young voters who become even more skeptical of government. But Gore and his cronies pocket's are overflowing with money. And the elderly become the target of a liberal media who'll feed the rest of the nation the message of how good big, federal government is...if you'd just keep voting for more of it! Sheesh.

AndrewR, I thought you were quite content with politics as usual in America. In another thread you tossed out the idea that America likes stability (and happy with demlicans and republicrats as their only choices). Methinks, perhaps, you?re finally seeking liberty?

 

[AndrewR]

<< It seems to me with Bush promising tax breaks and these other government subsidies that he is praticing Democratic Party Politics. >>


Red, Bush is doing to the Democraps what Clinton did for 8 years -- taking some of their positions and making them his own. That said, I cannot see how in good conscience you can call tax cuts a Democratic tenet!

JellyBaby: Now, don't try to rope me into some third party vote because it won't happen. I said that there's a disturbing trend in politics that I am bothered by because I don't want my next President chosen by people who won't be around to see the end of his term. If they trained a monkey to sign only bills endorsed by AARP, he'd probably get elected. Sad, but true.

 

[jjm]

Let's see...A segment of the population with common interests bands together and exercises its right to influence government policy by VOTING for the candidate which best addresses its issues. Hmmmm. Certainly sounds like a communist plot to me!

Obviously, they should be dumping money on their favorite candidate. That's the American way! Damn Commies!

 

[JellyBaby]

<< JellyBaby: Now, don't try to rope me into some third party vote because it won't happen. >>

We will assimilate you. Resistance is futile, ya know.

It's also good you realize the republicrats are indeed stealing a few ideas from the demlicans. And as you've pointed out they're late to the party as the dems. have been raping them for years with that self-same strategy. I used to be a conservative because I really felt the old party platform (Reagan on back) based on self-reliance was better than anything the democrats had to offer. I was also glad the republicans never seemed to use trickery and as many attack tactics as the democrats. But this is now. When Lott looks into the mirror he sees Gebhart and vice versa. There really is no appreciable difference between the major parties, if ever there truly was. So I'm free of their spell and I would hope someday you will be, too.

 

[AndrewR]

Red: Do you not agree with a tax cut? We're running a surplus, and I think we will see a cut by either candidate when elected, barring some bizarre depression or something. Frankly, it's not a luxury right now, it's a necessity. If you've ever worked in a corporation or any other organization which requires budgeting, you know that if you give someone money, they will spend it because they stand to lose it the next year if it sits there. Case in point: the federal government. We now have the opportunity to take away some money from the budget so that it doesn't go for pet projects like 6 lane highways in rural Iowa. We must take it away. Make them raise taxes down the road if necessary. Give it back to the people who overpaid.

jjm: So you're comfortable with the fact that whichever candidate scares enough seniors over prescription drugs will gain a several million vote increase and almost definitely carry Florida, one of the largest states? Seniors are entitled to vote, obviously. However, I find the fact that their influence is growing stronger and stronger troublesome for the scenario I mentioned previously. With the &quot;aging of America&quot;, this is only going to worsen in the next couple decades. We, the younger generations, will end up paying for everything for seniors because they will control an enormous swing vote which will place sympathetic candidates into office. Anything that is proposed that might possibly reduce benefits, even to the rich!, is absolute political death for either a candidate or an incumbent -- that's a reality. One word that benefits might be reduced is enough to brand the person an &quot;agist&quot; or a cold accountant seeking to throw the elderly into the snow. We won't mention the fact that people with a net worth of $4 million cannot refuse to accept Social Security (no sh|t, that's my wife's grandfather -- he tried and failed). This is fine with you???

 

[DirkBelig]

The vast majority of seniors are NOT the wretched dog food eating sob cases that are paraded across our TVs as a prelude to the picking of our pockets. Most seniors are quite comfortable with paid off homes, no dependents, pensions and Social Security. They're active and living LONGER LIVES thanks to the drugs that are available now.

Bush will give the poorest people free drugs IMMEDIATELY, Gore's plan wouldn't get them for several years. Gore tries to spin this issue by saying that he'll give drugs to everyone and Bush won't. This means that Bill Gates will be entitled to &quot;free&quot; drugs under Gore's plan, paid for by us. Sweet deal, huh?

I'm thoroughly disgusted that the public has become such a pack of greedy moochers that &quot;conservative&quot; pols feel compelled to match the liberals giveaway-for-giveaway. Totally weak.

 

[jjm]

AndrewR - I have no idea where your last response was going. Were you trying to go out on additional tangents?

How can you be so upset about a group exercising its muscle in the voting booth? I could understand if you were complaining about its use of money, but complaining about its use of votes? That just makes no sense at all. Don't whine about them, whine about the younger generation that fails to vote at all. They are the problem, not older Americans who show up at the booth.

And I do not buy for one minute the implication that older Americans are of so little intelligence that they are easily scared by the propaganda put forth by either candidate. In fact, I suggest that they are better informed and take more time to study the real issues than younger voters. If they reject a candidate, it is unlikely that the rejection was due to what his opponent says. It is more than likely a result of the candidate's failure to put forth real proposals that convince them that their concerns will be adequately addressed.

I think you lose a lot of credibility with any reader when you complain about too many people in a particular group exercising their right and duty to vote. It's the people who fail to study the issues and fail to vote who are the real problem. How could it possibly be anything else?

Dirk - I don't have time to check right now, but I think you may have mixed up your assertions. As I recall, Gore's plan offered immediate benefits across the board from day one for everyone. Hmm, that does sound just like the claims Republicans are making about their tax proposal, doesn't it?

 

[AndrewR]

jjm: I was considering the implication of this discussion, and you're right that part of the blame falls on other segments of the population which do not vote in the same numbers. That being said, it's not as easily done as &quot;going out to vote&quot;. It's difficult at best for me to vote since the voting center where I need to go does not have nearly adequate parking and is inaccessible during the day (too far for a lunch visit), meaning I have to go after work when the lines are ridiculously long. My employer also does not place an emphasis on voting so I do not have the luxury of voting whenever I please, unlike a retiree, because I would have to take vacation time to do so.

More later...need to go lunch...

 

[jjm]

AndrewR - Please don't think this is a flame, but the excuses you cite are weak. I work nearly two hours from my home town and have not missed a single voting opportunity in ten years. Are there crowds when I get there at 7:00? You betcha; every time.

It all depends on the importance you place on voting. To me, voting is a valauble right and an obligation since many before me have literally died to protect it. I will not take it lightly. Some say that not voting is a form of voting. I respect their right to say that, but I think that's lame. If a voter does not like the candidates offered for president, there are always multiple offices and other issues on the ballot. They are important and require attention.

If we don't bother to make informed decisions and vote when asked, then we have no right to expect that the political system will produce the outcome we desire. Whining about the fact that others don't vote in the manner that is acceptable to us is like the spoiled child who complains that he should have everything done for him. As my mother would say, get up and do it yourself!

 

[JellyBaby]

<< In fact the only person I would trust would be Alan Greenspan. >>

Maybe. I feel he may have gone overboard with 6 rate hikes. The economy is definitely braking but hopefully not receding.

Big Al told everyone the best way to use the surplus was to give it back to taxpayers and/or pay-down the debt. Of course both Gore and Bush have will throw a tiny bit to this end but still have large spending planned. To me this is ridiculous, wastefull and irrresponsible. They keep charging new toys on our credit card and I'm sick of it.

 

[jjm]

Jelly - You are wrong. Go read the text of his February speach.

Greenspan said:

1. Use the surplus to pay down debt. Period.

2. If you (Congress) can't resist (translation: too weak-willed) the temptation to use the money, do a limited tax cut rather than spend it.

He is hoping that a tax cut would be used at least partly to contribute to greater savings. Both a tax cut and more government spending would be too stimulative to an economy that is already running at a fast pace. But there is hope that at least some of the tax cut would be saved rather than spent.

GREENSPAN IS NOT IN FAVOR OF A TAX CUT. It is simply the lesser of two evils in his estimation if Congress does not have the intelligence and guts to pay down the debt.

 

[JellyBaby]

jjm,

Chill out, dude, I'm on your side here. Paying down the public debt segment is the way to go. Failing that, a tax reduction is second best, as Big Al said. He knew the federal politicans wouldn't have the fiscal restraint to simply pay off the nation's credit card bill. The only mistake that can be made (and both candidates are making it) is to increase spending. Gore is especially irresponsible here, according to the figures I've seen.

 

[AndrewR]

I knew you'd jump on that before I had a chance to expand on my thought...

What I am trying to convey is that while seniors have a very easy time voting at the booth, there are many people who have obligations which may impact their ability to vote. Family emergencies, work emergencies, two or three jobs -- all of these will likely never impact a senior voter but can be quite commonplace for someone gainfully employed.

So, if you imply that seniors vote en masse out of civic duty, I'd say you could also attribute a portion of that to boredom, which is a common problem among the elderly. When there's a chance to go out and do something, they take it. In essence, the civic duty aspect is much easier for them to fulfill. It's not a huge point, but I think it lessens the significance of a large percentage of seniors voting during every election when you attempt to use that fact to prove the premise that seniors are well informed and vote as a result.

Oh, by the way, I'm not whining.

It comes down to a general negative view I have of the American public at large. I've mentioned it before and will say so again -- there are plenty of idiots loose in this country. If you doubt that, then you really haven't read a newspaper in about twenty years (and that's not just for the articles themselves, the writers sometimes are enough to convince you). Pay particular attention to the Letters to the Editor -- rarely are there nuggests of intelligence in there, and it's quite shocking to read some people's comments. Then, these people vote. People were having trouble understanding $660 billion (they did an interview with some people on a local station here), when Gore mentioned that in the debate. Ok, perhaps it's a large number to truly comprehend, but if the mere mention of a number makes people confused, who can say that they understand the practical implications of a tax cut in capital gains, a reduction of the prime rate, or any other somewhat involved financial actions of the federal government? These are the same people who you say make intelligent and informed choices?

Ok, I'll edit some more when I get home...work in progress so stop commenting before I'm finished.

 

[Tominator]

Red Dawn
You keep raving like a loon, but never say anything new....

My Parents, both in their 70's quit AARP years ago because of their political meddeling.

Tax Cuts have always been good for America! It amazes me that most don't want Bill Gates' tax rate to decrease, but if Gore's drug plan is implemented YOU will be paying for Bill Gates' drugs! LOL!!!

 

[searcher]

BILL GATES IS ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICARE!!!!

I thought he was much younger than that.

Typical Rabid Republiklan BS.

Michael

 

[JellyBaby]

<< How about paying down the debt like Greenspan suggests? >>

If I had access to your credit cards, Red, and I had ran them all up to their limits and you had no legal way to stop me, what's my incentive to pay you back?

 

[AndrewR]

Red: The problem with Greenspan is that he's coming exclusively from an economic perspective, which is understandable given his position. However, that's not the sole force in operation with the surplus -- you must consider the political aspects involved.

Just as tax cuts are being used to entice Americans to vote for a particular candidate, you have 535 elected officials in Congress who use spending projects to entice votes for themselves in their respective districts. When you keep the money in their hands by leaving it in the budget, eventually they will stop paying down the debt and use that money for pork projects to raise their standing at home.

I understand that the fiscal aspects of having such a huge debt are detrimental, and I do think we need to put some money toward reducing the debt because it will eventually free up money down the road. However, we also need to take a portion of that money out of Washington and away from Congress, or it will simply be squandered. I need my tax money to pay my debt, not the debt of the nation.

Greenspan is correct that the best economic decision is to pay down the debt with the entire surplus. The best overall decision on the surplus is not so simple.

 

[Tominator]

Greenspan said no such thing! For five full days the networks reported that is what he said. He said that either paying down the debt OR tax cuts were fine with him. Just don't leave the money in Washington.

Link? YOU find it. I heard Greenspans whole statement several times. No mistake.

I'll say it again...There has never been a tax cut given that did not lead to an increase in economic activity. This leads to more collected in taxes...everytime! Even JFK was a 'trickledowner.'