A conservative view on the Medicare bill

by rcentor on December 9, 2003

While many conservatives have criticized the Medicare bill as being too costly, others have supported it. This columnist does a nice job of emphasizing his positive opinion. Making Medicare Reform Work

Conservatives like to point out that only a small percentage of seniors have a problem paying for prescription drugs. In fact, I was one of the first researchers to report that information. But let me also be the first to share some other relevant information: The percentage of seniors with extremely high drug costs is rising rapidly.

According to a study in the journal Health Affairs, the percentage of seniors with the highest share of drug costs increased nearly 600 percent from 1997 till 2000 — and their percentage of the total senior population continues to grow by about 60 percent a year now.

That is the reality that our nation is facing, and the reality that this bill is meant to address. As medical progress continues, more and more seniors are going to be taking an increasing number of new drugs that will increase drug spending and make more seniors consumers of high-cost medicines.

And that is the reality that physicians understand. We all know that we really do have major financial problems with drugs that could benefit patients significantly.

Critics of the bill fail to note that most of the $400 billion will go to cover the costs of low-income seniors with no coverage and the growing portion of seniors that are in the high cost category. And for the first time in history, Medicare costs are shared by seniors according to their income. And that is true whether the money goes to sustaining existing private drug coverage or providing it through the more dubious stand-alone programs the bill seeks to create.

As I have blogged previously, one feature of this bill that I like is that those with greater need get the greater benefit. Many seniors will not like these adjustments. However, given the huge cost of Medicare, it seems only fair that those with get less help than those without.

As we continue to digest this huge bill (knowing that it will require tweaking each year), we should read various supporters and critics to better understand our positions.

viagra
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen

{ 4 comments }

Matthew Holt December 9, 2003 at 3:35 pm

OK, so this bill does actually get poorer seniors a partial drug benefit, even if it only improves matters for about 15-20% of seniors at huge cost in bribes to the rest of the health care system, paid for by the taxpayer.

But what is “conservative” about stopping purchasers of drugs from bargaining for better pricing? Do conservatives believe that Walmart shouldn’t bargain for better pricing from its suppliers?

And then of course what is “conservative” about increasing the deficit to be paid for by younger taxpayers? A real conservative (called Maggie Thatcher in the UK) reduced taxation, eliminated the deficit and paid down the debt, and managed all that without dismantling the unversal coverage of the national health service. The fake “Conservatives” we endure in the US have a lot to learn.

Alwin Hawkins December 11, 2003 at 6:45 am

Matt, that’s simply not true. Anybody who has followed the news of the NHS for the last few years has seen the problems that came with the Thatcherite reforms. They’re still dealing with them: the scramble for intensive care beds when needed, the long waiting lists (and the problems that came from trying to legislate ‘reforms’ without putting more money into the system), and the issues of getting appropriate care (chemotherapy, for example) to patients in a timely manner.

Some of this info is widely available to the public (the BBC has covered some of it extensively) and some of it flows through mail lists with focuses on certain clinical areas. The UK will be digging out from their health care mess for awhile yet, and it won’t get a lot better without a major cash infusion.

Matthew Holt December 12, 2003 at 7:55 pm

Alan. Sorry, you have to parse my words more carefully. And my name’s not Bush so don’t accuse me of lying! (Grin)

I did NOT say Thatcher had improved the NHS (she actually did spend more money on it than the previous government as she claimed in the 1983 election, but it all went into court-mandated nursing salary increases in the early 1980s, and not into patient care, which as you say got more and more squeezed over the 1980s).

What she DID do was run a budget surplus and in 1987-8 the British government paid down some of national debt. And at the same time maintained the universal coverage/access system underlying the NHS–which is still freely available to all Brits and foreign residents. You may argue that the care they had coverage for/access to wasn’t as great as you might like, and you might also argue that the UK should spend more money on health. I’d agree with you. But I didn’t say she’d fixed that. (And by the way those problems are as old as the NHS which was set up in 1945!)

But for all her foibles Maggie did NOT borrow money from future generations and give it off in tax giveaways to the rich (she cut services and spending while she cut taxes for the rich and middle income people). Nor did she remove universal health coverage from the social contract. American “conservatives” just did the former with the 2 big Bush tax cuts and the $500bn increase in the deficit. They are now working on removing what little universal guaranteed coverage we do have (which is only for those over 65 or the very very poor now).

The Republicans in charge now are fake conservatives (or neo-cons). Love her or loathe her Thatcher was the real article

alwin December 12, 2003 at 8:30 pm

I dig where you’re coming from now, Matt. And I absolutely agree with you: combining tax cuts with entitlement increases is a recipe for disaster. It was for Regan (who left one helluva mess for the folks who followed to clean up) and it will after George W. leaves office.

Lady Thatcher was, indeed, the real deal when it came to conservatism in government.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: