Reasonable folks could argue that there is nothing worse than a bloated, inefficient, unnecessary entitlement program that no one really wants and that was created purely for political reasons. They would be wrong, because a bloated, inefficient, unnecessary entitlement program that no one really wants and that was created purely for political reasons and is inefficiently administered and disseminating inaccurate and incomplete information while allowing people to purchase drugs expressly forbidden by the legislation is worse:
Congressional investigators said Wednesday that they had found serious, widespread problems in a government program that issued drug discount cards to 6.4 million Medicare beneficiaries, as a precursor to the full-fledged drug benefit that takes effect next year.
The problems included inaccurate and incomplete information – disseminated by the government and insurance companies – and improper use of the discount cards to buy barbiturates and certain other drugs, explicitly forbidden by Congress.
The Bush administration had said the discount cards would cut retail prices of prescription drugs by 10 percent to 25 percent. But the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said Medicare officials could not document the savings because “there was a lack of reliable data” on the price concessions obtained from drug manufacturers and pharmacies.
So if you thought the Prescription Drug Plan was bad, hold on to your seats. It looks like it is going to get worse, and our ‘fiscal conservatives’ in Washington are just the guys to prove how bad a government program really can be.
Brad R.
Yep. The GOP is turning me into a libertarian.
Krista
Heck, we’re quasi-socialist up here, and yet our medicare program ticks along relatively smoothly. I think the problem with your drug plan is that the people designing it and implementing it are doing so with the goal of getting the most positive spin for the least expenditure. Will anybody actually save money on their meds? I really don’t think they care.
ppGaz
The problem with it is that it is designed and approved by large corporations. Almost everything wrong with American health care, in terms of costs and in terms of uneven access, can be traced to corporate power over politicians.
The so-called “Medicare prescription drug plan” was aimed at bamboozling the public into thinking that a problem was being solved, while at the same time inventing a new way to stuff revenue into corporate coffers.
It’s the perfect GOP solution to everything.
Mason
I’m shocked… shocked!
Another Jeff
I don’t really call myself a libertarian, but i used to always say that i’m a moderate Republican, as in socially liberal but fiscally conservative, but I don’t say that anymore since no such creature seems to exist at the Federal level.
That’s why, despite what the polls say, I think Democrats are really screwing up by running Casey Jr against Santorum. I’ve already said that i’m not voting for Santorum because of his far-right views on abortion and gay marriage, but the Dems are running a guy who’s views aren’t all that much different on those two issues. Assuming the Libertarian candidate isn’t a complete nut, I’ll probably cast a protest vote for them in the Senate race. Republicans should really count their blessings that the Democrats can’t seem to get their shit together as an opposition party, and that Libertarians nationally are still too flaky and unorganized to be a viable third party.
Still waiting to see who runs against Rendell to figure out what i’ll do for Governor. There’s a chance that it’ll be Lynn Swann, who i absolutely loved as a football player, but that doesn’t mean he’d make a good governor.
Mr Furious
That might be the biggest load of shit to come down the pike from these guys. And we all know that is an 8-lane superhighway of bullshit.
“You’re saving 25 percent. Off What? Just trust us.”
This POS drug benefit is justification alone for ousting of any politician that voted for it.
Sojourner
The Repubs are doing a fabulous job of demonstrating the ineffectiveness of government. Which is, of course, what they believe. Self-fulfilling prophecy or intentional incompetence?
If you want to see effective government, look to the Dems who also happen to believe that the government can help.
Another Jeff
Sojourner is right. Here in Philly, with Democrats having controlled the entire city for sixty years, we have low taxes, great services, great schools, a low murder rate, and absolutely no corruption whatsoever.
Jane Finch
Lack of reliable data?? Please. If there are in fact price concessions (and that by no means is a given when it comes to the non-rationalized Medicare pork barrel), they should be easily documented. Maybe they need to second a pinko Canuckian health bureaucrat who, being in the business of getting price concessions from drug companies, can easily do the math and report the results.
ppGaz
Parties are not correlated to corruption and incompetance. People are.
People become more likely to entertain corruption, and to employ the services of incompetants, with established power.
The remedy is not GOP or DEM, it’s accountability, and regular replacement of officials. Rooting for a “team” simply plays into the hands of the corrupt and inept.
Rooting for results is much more likely to get you …. good results.
Right now, the important thing in Philly might be to get rid of the incumbents. Same thing in Washington, DC. Get rid of the potatoheads.
The main value of the American Constitution is that it provides a framework for doing just that … replacing your government.
Cyrus
“The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work, and then get elected and prove it.” -P.J. O’Rourke
Krista
I’m with you, Jane. They should bring in the Dutch to rebuild New Orleans, and bring in the Canadians (or the ghost of Tommy Douglas)to fix their health care. I don’t think people would go for it, though. It would involve raising taxes. (Even though their taxes are already some of the lowest in the industrialized world.)
Steve S
In Canada the socialism you guys practice is in the interests of the people. In the United States, however, we have Socialism of a different sort. You can call it Crony Capitalism, or Corporate Socialism.
The Medicare drug plan was an invention by GW Bush to please everybody. He got it passed early on in his term, and made everybody feel really good, like he was doing something. But notice that it didn’t go into effect until *after* the election?
That’s because all it really is is a big massive handout from the Government to the Drug companies. It’s not saving any seniors on any medications, but it’s not hurting corporations. They’re guaranteed to profit, because another part of the bill says if they lose money the govt will bail them out.
In fact, if you are a senior, you are far better off if you had a supplemental drug coverage plan from a private insurer and just stuck with that.
Davebo
I recall some Republicans suggesting the entire plan be put off for a few years so the money could be used to help fund hurricane relief among other things.
Bush threatened a veto, but we all know that’s a hollow threat. I wonder what ever happened to it?
jg
Reagan said gov’t is the problem and ever since the republicans seem to be trying to prove it.
Krista
Government isn’t the problem. BAD government is the problem. Unfortunately, in the US, it costs a ridiculous amount of money to run a campaign. There’s no way to get to the top of the heap without owing a lot of people a lot of favours. Then as soon as you’re in, you’re beholden to all of these various industries, and have to kowtow to them, instead of doing what’s right. Besides, if you run for President, you’ve got to be rich. And the rich just don’t have the same mindset as you and me. Their reality is very, very different from ours, and they just can’t relate to the idea of having to decide between getting groceries or paying the heating bill. The best way to fix it, (which is never going to happen), would be if the President would at least surround himself or herself with advisors from the middle and working classes.
Otto Man
Bush uses his veto power like Barney Fife used that single bullet in his shirt pocket.
John Gillnitz
This plan was developed by lobbyist for lobbyists. It allows the army of weasels employed by Merck and Pfizer to justify their existence. I guess in Bush’s America graft has better returns then RnD. Lets not forget the outright bribery and intimidation that went on to get this legislative turd passed. I can’t decide which is the bigger fiscal boondoggle: this plan or Iraq.
mizerock
Nice prize for the lobbyists. So which groups should I be giving my money to, so they can push bills in Congress that actually help the 290 millions of us that aren’t CEOs at Pfizer? Or is this really just part of the plan to get rid of entitlements: make them so evil and disfunctional that nobody benefits from them anymore.
I can’t help but feel the “business as usual” entitlement programs would not hurt us as much as these changes – even if it eventually means they go away forever! I mean, once you’ve run up your credit card balance high enough, it doesn’t matter much if you stop making new purchases – you’re SUNK.
Madmatt
Just curious…can anybody name a repug plan that didn’t go above cost and actually helped somebody?
John Gillnitz
Madmatt Says:
Just curious…can anybody name a repug plan that didn’t go above cost and actually helped somebody?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Well there was the emancipation proclamation.
jg
http://www.slate.com/id/2131200/
Stormy70
It got the HSAs through, and I can now quit subsidizing unhealthy people through my insurance premiums. The bill was worth it for that alone.
How many group rates went up this year because of the $40,000 gastric bypasses performed? The doctors are really pushing these, and the rates are going to rise across the board with these expensive procedures becoming more prevalent.
Stormy70
I wouldn’t want Canada’s model, at all.
John S.
Yeah, Stormy, Canada’s healthcare model really sucks. From the article you linked to:
Too bad ours sucks worse.
ppGaz
WTF is the matter with you? Do you actually mean the insane shit that you post?
jg
PPG, she ain’t unique. Lots of people feel this way. Its why shit like ‘government is the problem’ goes over so well. Its always ‘those people’ that are causing hardship for red blooded model americans like Stormy.
Kimmitt
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
— John Kenneth Galbraith
Anandakos
The dems should have two big planks for 2006: a constitutional amendment stating clearly that the rights enumerated in the constitution as amended apply only to living human beings and a Clean Elections law similar to Arizona’s for Congressional elections.
Yes, corporations need to be “persons” before a court of law to defend themselves in a lawsuit or to sue another party. Congress should have the right to grant rights to corporations or any other organization, but the presumption that organizations have the same rights as human beings is frankly an abomination. They are just legal constructions created to limit investors’ liability; that’s all they should be able to do.
Krista
I would never wish illness upon another human being, but you know that phrase, “There but for the grace of God go I”? You might want to say it anytime you think of those unhealthy people. We’re all just one stroke of bad luck away from having to depend on our fellow man. Don’t fool yourself into thinking it won’t happen to you, or that your private insurance will cover everything. There are a lot of middle-class Americans, people just like you, who have been struck with a chronic condition, and whose insurers have screwed them over, and they wind up having to file for bankruptcy.
There but for the grace of God goes you, Stormy.
Craig
Lot of good posts here, like the one right above, or the Galbraith quote, but I think this needs to be repeated:
“Yes, corporations need to be “persons” before a court of law to defend themselves in a lawsuit or to sue another party. Congress should have the right to grant rights to corporations or any other organization, but the presumption that organizations have the same rights as human beings is frankly an abomination. They are just legal constructions created to limit investors’ liability; that’s all they should be able to do.”
I’m not sure it even needs an amendment – I think it should be possible to change this with a law.
Anandakos
Thanks for the kind words, Craig. I truly wish that it were possible to revoke corporate “rights” by statute, but I fear it is not. There are nearly one hundred and forty years of precedent that have incrementally “personalized” corporations, starting with the Credit Mobilier decision in 1869.
Was all that judicial “legistlating”? I don’t know; I’m not a constitutional scholar or lawyer. I do know that stare decisis is sufficiently powerful that one hundred and forty years of precedent is not going to be wiped away by a law. It would be struck down by the courts, and rightly I think. The end cannot be construed to justify the means even when it’s the best end for society. To short circuit the process of winning political and social acceptance of fundamental change is the root of all political folly and worse. This change is one I strongly believe must be made soon or humans will become slaves to deathless corporations. But we have to do it the right way.
That’s why I believe we need an amendment. The process is so difficult that an amendment which passes will be respected as truly the will of the people.