OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUSHES TO SOCIALIZE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN
This website has never supported socialized medicine in any form. Nor have we ever supported the unsustainable expansion of government entitlement programs.
Whether originating from Republican or Democratic administrations, we oppose entitlement expansion. How come? It’s simple: A bankrupt country (one that’s $17.5 trillion in the red, actually) shouldn’t keep making promises it can’t keep – especially when the “problems” government purports to be solving keep getting worse with each new escalation of government’s “solution.”
And so while we have criticized U.S. President Barack Obama’s colossally misguided socialized medicine law, we have also written frequently against the George W. Bush-led extension of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare (the so-called “Part D” expansion which took effect on January 1, 2006).
Neither expansion strikes us as consistent with government’s core functions …
Of course while we oppose Medicare Part D on principle, we strenuously object to recent efforts by the Obama administration to remove many of the “market-based” components of the program and replace them with the sort of price controls and de facto health care rationing that we see in other entitlement programs.
While funded by taxpayers (i.e. the part of “Part D” we object to), the program is at least structured around the free market principles of choice and competition. In other words even though it is subsidized, the payouts flow through a market-based delivery system – not one in which government bureaucrats choose specific medications, physicians or treatment plans.
That has made Part D one of the few government programs to come in below its anticipated price tag – 45 percent below if you believe the number crunchers at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Surprisingly, this rare government “success story” (again, if you believe taxpayers should be in the business of subsidizing this benefit) is being targeted by Obama. According to a proposed rule change introduced by the administration in January, much of the choice and competition that keep down the costs of Part D would be eliminated.
Specifically, Obama’s rule change would limit the number of plans offered under the program – a move which the American Action Forum (AAF) estimates would force 14 million seniors to have to switch to different, costlier plans. The net cost associated with those changes? An estimated $10 billion.
Clearly cash-strapped Americans and tapped out taxpayers can’t afford that sort of hit …
In response to GOP-led opposition, the Obama administration has temporarily tabled this rule change – although it’s clearly not taking it off the table. In fact most observers believe the plan is to make a major push on its behalf after the 2014 elections.
Again, we oppose government-subsidized entitlements on principle. We’re not against a reasonable safety net for society’s least fortunate, but such benefits must be narrowly drawn, tightly regulated and implemented via market-based delivery systems – not centrally controlled bureaucracies.
Oh, and most importantly that health care safety net must be sustainable … otherwise we wind up with a society that incentivizes dependency – which of course only exacerbates the problem and adds momentum to the downward spiral.
We have long opposed entitlement expansions like “Part D,” but we also oppose Obama’s efforts to strip the program of its market dynamics – a move which would send costs soaring at a time when Americans can least afford to shell out any additional money (on anything). We also support GOP efforts to extend market-based delivery systems to other Medicare entitlements – although we do not believe such such reforms should take the place of a long-overdue reduction (and redefinition) of America’s broader unsustainable entitlement problem.
18 comments
Don’t you mean Medicare Part D?
Through 2012, Medicare Part D added $318 billion to the national debt (see “General Revenue” on Page 111 in the 2013 Medicare trustees report). That same report projects that Medicare Part D will add $852 billion to the debt over the next 10 years.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/medicare-part-d-republican-budget-busting/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Part D wasn’t a bad idea, but it helps to actually pay for something when you pass it. Bush and the GOP didn’t do that with the wars or their rampant spending, so of course they didn’t want to do it here, either. But man oh man, guess who claims they can fix the deficits!
You’re full of $#!t and cliché. Like the NYT…
We would have retired the debt five times over, and paid for Part D, if not for the total disaster of Obama-nomics.
And the wars were Congress’ idea. Congress lined up to vote for wars, Ds and Rs. because we had to clean up the mess made by Clinton’s neglect of evil and dangerous people (see 9-11)…Clinton governed by the the idea that we could not prosecute war criminals, because of the liberal due process bull-S#!t….and Clinton’s irresponsibility, preference to boff interns and neglect…
The Bush wars were about mostly about putting hundreds of billions of dollars into the back pocket of Cheney’s employer, Halliburton. If there was no oil in Iraq Saddam could have rounded up millions and slaughtered them and Bush would have done nothing.
The war was Cheney’s idea. Bush went along with it, and they sold it to congress with lies and bad intelligence.
Well since Benghazi is now the Republican battle cry, Now , Monica, it’s a fun game for stupid people. Get used to 8 more years of Democratic control.10 Years, to be exact. May be 30 or 40. Your debt comes from you. Too bad your money went into smoke. Like Iraqi women ?
Bush alone made the choice. Too simple.
Who is this “WE” you keep mentioning?
It allows FITS the opportunity to say one thing one day, and something else another.
You’re talking Republican, right ?
He has a mouse in his pocket, or a gerbil up his ass. Maybe both.
First, “part D” is a Medicare plan-has nothing to do with Medicaid.
Second, 35% of the costs associated with the “Part D” plan is nothing but profit for the PBMs that administer the plan. (George W did pay back his backers, the PBMs and brand name drug manufacturers, beyond their wildest dreams) Actual providers could actually be paid a reasonable fee for their services and the government could save huge amounts of money if this indeed was a single payer plan. If you don’t believe this, look at the shareholder reports for Catamaran, Express Scripts, or CVS/Caremark.
Anyone who refers to anything in the USA as ‘socialized medicine’- closest that we have is the VA system – and doesn’t know the difference in Medicaid and Medicare shows his ignorance of the entire subject.
Americans pay more for healthcare than the citizens of any other nation, and for our money we have a mediocre health care system. Our people receive substandard health care by first world standards. The Republican plan is to double down on our current system. They have no plans to make it better.
Jan, if what you say is true, about our “mediocre” health care system, why does the world rush to our shoes when they get sick? Now that Panacea, oops, Obamacare is the law, why do we still pay more? I thought the ACA was going to fix all that!?!
I don’t know why anybody would rush to our “shoes” when they get sick. Maybe they have a foot fetish?
Shores, shoes, does… I’m still learning the whole swore, we uhh, swipe thing.
Italy? Don’t they have National Hearth Car thar?
not one in which government bureaucrats choose specific medications, physicians or treatment plans.
Read more at https://www.fitsnews.com/2014/05/07/battle-medicaid-part-d/#x1zAbHoeQTwXGS6j.99
Vote for more Republicans, it’s too funny. They will save you,.