Republicans Want a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - why?

[NaMeaHou]

I figured it out. At first, I thought it was all a matter of electioneering - trying to buy the votes of elderly and disabled voters who receive medicare, but I now believe it is for a different, more logical reason.

At the current time, Medicare pays for no drug costs. Many thousands of people on medicare rely on pharmaceutical companies to provide free medications through various Patient Assistance Programs. The meds are usually provided at three month intervals, with a new prescription and statement of income needed for each approval. Note, the meds are free.

The bill that has been floating around, in its current incarnation would provide the following:

snip>
Under the new structure of benefits, Medicare recipients would have to pay premiums averaging $35 a month and a $275 deductible for drug coverage.

The beneficiary would pay 25 percent of drug costs from $275 to $2,200 a year. Medicare would pay the other 75 percent. The program would then pay nothing until the beneficiary had spent a total of $3,600 out of pocket.

That gap in coverage, sometimes called a doughnut hole, exists mainly because Congress decided that it did not have enough money to finance a more complete benefit.

After spending $3,600, the beneficiary would pay 5 percent of the cost of each prescription or a nominal co-payment, perhaps $5 or $10 for each prescription.

Note the following:

Medicare recipients would have another $35 added per month to their premiums.
There is a $275 deductible (medication payments that the pharmaceutical companies would get)
Then, the individual would pay 25% of the cost of meds to $2,200 in cost total.

25% adds up to a lot of money for many that rely upon numerous, expensive medications.

My bet is that the patient assistance programs will be gutted, and people will end up paying many hundreds of dollars that they can not afford for medications. The drug companies get richer and medicare recipients basically get screwed.

Am I right? This seems like typical Repub logic to me.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=3&u=/nyt/20031023/ts_nyt/congressstrikesatentativedealondrugbenefits

[monkeyboy]

1. There are always 2 reasons why

There are always 2 reasons why Repubs do anything 'social':

1. To claim it as theirs
2. To deliver a watered down (cheaper) version of the original

[Clete]

15. It's a step to privatize Medicare.

It would be very, very bad for seniors in the long run because they would be at the mercy of for profit HMOs like Tenant and PacifiCare.
Seniors would get very little care. Doctors would get short-changed on their fees and your tax dollars would be traded on the stock exchange making many people rich at the expense of senior citizens. One of these days I will post my horror story with Secure Horizons and my husband.

[djg21]

2. Easier answer.

Oxycontin and Vicodon are covered under medicare? While they bitchh about entitlements, they're always first in line with their hands out -- especially when it comes to little blue pills.

[bobbieinok]

3. prescriptions on medicare

1) A local pharmacy had a hand-out that asked people to write congress requesting that prescriptions could be purchased locally.
There is/was something that they interpreted as medicare only paying for mail-order drugs. This would indeed be a boon to those companies.

2) A local medical laboratory had a hand-out that said the bills being discussed demand that seniors pay a 20% payment for lab-tests; previously seniors on medicare did not pay anything for labtests.

Each of these sound pretty bad, especially #2. Pick up costs for drugs but get $$$ back when seniors pay fees for lab work.

Anyone else seen/heard anything like this??????

[Don_G]

4. It Looks Good, Costs Very Little And More Money To Loot

It IS typical Rethuglican logic.

[judge_smales]

5. Wouldn't a publicly funded drug program be a massive

boon to the pharmaeutical industry?

Doesn't the pharma. industry shovel $$$ onto the NeoCons with both hands?

Could there be a connection?

Or am I being to cynical?

[redqueen]

6. Part of larger agenda

Added to all the other ideas here, consider that the cost of something like this is going to become staggering as baby boomers start retiring.

Remember the Norquist comment? About shrinking the gov't until it's small enough to drown in a bathtub?

This will kill Medicare (unless we get socialized medicine / pharmaceutical companies). :)

[madfloridian]

7. Those who already have good drug coverage may be dumped.

One of the goals of this is to allow the companies (who are already insuring seniors through other plans in addition to Medicare) to dump the ones they cover already. It will force people into managed care programs because they can say....well, goody, there is something else available....good-by.

Millions will have this happen to them.

[Yupster]

8. So when Bush runs in 04 he will say

that for 20 years Democrats have run every election promising a prescription drug plan, but never passed one.

I ran promising tax cuts and you got the check in the mail.

I promised a prescription drug benefit, and we passed one.

I am honest, thrifty, brave, clean and reverand. Not like the Democrats who have sex with interns.

Vote for Bush, an honest man who keeps his promises.

[sleestak]

9. Why?

Why seems to be the proper question. Weren't they supposed to be the party for smaller government? They are showing themselves to be quite disingenuous.

[mrsteve]

10. Welcome to DU sleestak

And "disingenuous" is a wonderfully understated way to describe that bunch of craven liars known as the Republicans. Yes, Republicans are for "smaller government", as long as "smaller government" doesn't impair their ability to rape the treasury and impose their moral hypocricy on others.

In the case of the Medicare Drug Benefit, here (basically) were the two options:

1) Democratic Plan - full coverage to seniors, governemnt negotiated prices with the drug companies (to keep prices down), no third party insurance plans to work with (to cut confusion and overhead costs).

2) Republican Plan - partial coverage to only eligable seniors through a complicated fee scheme, all prescriptions purchased through normal retail channels (thus allowing the prices of drugs in the US to continue to skyrocket as the boomers retire), incentives in the plan to encourage private coverage over government coverage (to allow third party insurers to get their fees and overrides).

Thus, the "party of smaller government" increases the size and cost of government, yet rewards their campaign contributors (big pharma and the insurance companies) while lying to seniors and cutting their benefits. It's a real win-win! :grr:

[ShavedBeard]

11. The worst part

of all prescription drug proposals out is that they have no means testing. Why the hell should a fry cook at McDonalds pay for Ken Lays and Bill Gates prescription drugs?

[NewJerseyDem]

16. Well Ted Kennedy disagrees

There would have been means testing but Senator Ted Kennedy threatened to filibuster any bill that has means testing.

Means testing would mean the end of medicare. Right now, medicare is universal so it is popular. The wealthy feel like they are getting something in return for their tax money so they are less likely to be anti-tax and anti-social spending. Once the rich and even the upper middle class start to lose those benefits they will turn against medicare as just being welfare that is money taken from them and given to the poor. Medicare's popularity will decrease and the effort to eliminate it will gain power.

While means testing sounds good I believe that it is damaging in the long run.

The fry cook isn't paying for Bill Gate's healthcare. Gates is still paying more in taxes than the fry cook is. Right now the rich are paying money for their own medicare and for part of that fry cooks.

[Clete]

17. Because

Ken Lay and Bill Gates also have paid into the system and shouldn't be prevented from getting some of their money back. On the other hand Ken Lay and Bill Gates really need to pay more into FICA than a percentage of the first $80,000 they earn per year. If they paid a percentage of their entire income, any money they got back in benefits would be far less than what they paid in.

[denverbill]

12. Actions speak louder than words.

For 40 years, Republicans have been out of power in Congress, and they could sit on the sidelines and criticize the 'tax and spend' Democrats. But look at the reality.

In the last 3 years, government spending has grown faster than at any time during the Clinton administration. And that DOES NOT include spending for the war on terror. That's JUST discretionary spending.

Then think back on how Republicans felt about 'nation-building' back in the Clinton era. Clinton, in his wildest dreams, never imagined attempting to rebuild two entire countries from scratch.

[Yupster]

14. That's because when they criticized

pork barrel spending, they meant pork for Democratic districts.

Now Republican districts have far more needs than Democratic districts. This isn't pork mind you, it's ummmmmmmm bacon yes, bacon for the good people of our districts. Not pork like those big spending Democrats used to waste.

[DocSavage]

13. As explained to be by a very vocal repug

If the plan is passed, all of the companies and corporations that are now paying for perscriptions for thier retired employees will be off the hook for that cost. The cost will shift to the govt. The Dems will put a posion pill in the bill that will force Bush to veto it. It is a way not to get the bill and blame the dems at the same time.