MEDICARE - The $913 Billion Boondoggle

According to the administration's new budget, the president's Medicare prescription drug bill will cost $913 billion from 2006 to 2015. It's a far cry from the initial estimate – in his 2003 State of the Union, remember, President Bush assured the nation his plan would cost just $400 billion. Immediately after his legislation was rammed through a reluctant Congress, in a classic bait-and-switch, the administration admitted the cost would be closer to $534 billion from 2005 to 2014, although it "never offered a detailed breakdown of that estimate." Here's a look back at the history of this misguided legislation.

THE PROBLEMS: The first stage of the law – the introduction of prescription drug cards – has been a bust with seniors. Why? The system is confusing, with 73 different cards all covering different medications. And once seniors have signed up for a specific card, they are locked into it, even though the drug companies are allowed to change prices as often as once a week. And the discount isn't guaranteed. In fact, to offset the potential loss in profit, drug companies jacked up the price of medicines over the past year an average of 7.4 percent, "or more than three times the 2.3 percent rate of general inflation in that period." Finally, studies have shown seniors can find cheaper drugs without using the cards.

THE COSTS: The Medicare bill may not have been good for seniors, but it was huge boost for the pharmaceutical industry and corporate interests. The White House, for example, blocked efforts to allow Medicare to use bulk purchasing power to negotiate cheaper drug prices. On top of that, the Medicare program will give corporations $89 billion to "discourage" employers from dropping retirees from their plans. The loophole: corporations receive the subsidy even if they cut support for pensioners…and many are taking the money and running. (The AARP recently sued the administration over this provision.) Also, the nonpartisan CBO said billions have been added to the cost of the bill because of excessive payments to private insurers and HMOs.

THE THREATS: Before the Medicare legislation passed in 2003, the chief Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, knew it was going to cost a lot more than the White House was promising. But the administration, desperate to hide the true cost of the bill, threatened to fire him if he told the truth to any key lawmakers on the Hill. Foster alerted the White House five months before the vote that the Medicare drug bill was likely to carry a hefty price tag of $551 billion. But 13 conservatives in Congress had promised to block any bill over $400 billion. Thus, the White House told Foster he would be fired if he did not keep quiet, bury the estimates, and publicly assert the bill would not cost more than $400 billion until after the legislation passed.

THE TRICKS: Conservatives relied on a whole bag of dirty tricks to ram the Medicare legislation through Congress. The vote on the bill was scheduled to last the typical 15 minutes; when conservatives realized they didn't have the necessary support, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) kept the vote open for an unprecedented three hours, from 3 to 6 a.m. Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) used that time to strong-arm bleary-eyed Republicans who had voted against the bill, demanding they switch their votes.

THE BRIBES: Last year, the House Ethics Committee publicly criticized Rep. DeLay for trying to bribe a House member reluctant to endorse the Medicare bill for his vote. DeLay offered to endorse the son of Rep. Nick Smith, who was running to replace his father after he retired, in exchange for Smith's vote on the Medicare Reform Act. According to the committee, DeLay told Smith that if he voted for it, "I will personally endorse your son. That's my final offer." Smith did not vote for the Medicare bill and his son lost his bid for the Republican nomination to succeed him. The Republican in charge of the Ethics Committee that voted to censure DeLay, Rep. Joel Hefley (R., CO) was subsequently removed from the committee and replaced with a DeLay-friendlier face.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/s ... H&b=100480

:cough:malpracticeinsurancepremiumsandstupidlawsuits:cough:

Gee... original estimate was $400bn, after it was passed it was jacked up to $535bn, now we're approaching $1t. How can we possibly blow this much money? Or mis-manage this much money?

Hell, I think we need a 4th branch of government, a bunch of accountants, to stand up at the right time to whoever and say "you do realise you have absolutely no money for this, right?"

:cough:drugcompaniesspendingthirteenpercentofrevenuesonadvertising:cough:

--PunkDavid

How else am I supposed to determine what treatment I need? A doctor? Pfft.

The whole concept of people wanting to reimport drugs from Canada outlines who's really doing the dis-service to the country here. You have to reimport them... which means you already exported them... which means Why the hell does it cost less to send something here to there back to here again than it does to go to the corner drug store?

I was shocked that never came up in the campaign.

No reason to be shocked at all. When both parties are in favor of the way something is currently operating, you won't hear it.

The current excuse it that drug companies need to recoup their expenses from testing and countries such as Canada have limits on how much a prescriptive drug can cost. Therefore, we here at home get to foot the bill.

Exacta-mundo.

Fuckin' politicians.

You mean Bush's estimates were wrong?!? He understated (some would say intentionally low-balled) the costs by $500 billion? I'm shocked.

Considering Bush's track record for estimating costs (i.e., Iraq war, Medicare), it amazes me that anybody (liberal, conservative, or martian) would trust Bush to re-enigineer Social Security.

Wait...I actually agree with IEB on something? Of course, for slightly different reasons...but still...

What's that slightly different reason?