By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
September 6, 2000
George W. Bush unveiled his prescription drug plan yesterday, which would cost something like $15.8 billion per year for the next ten years. In Bush's announcement he noted, "Medicare is an enduring commitment in our country. It must be modernized for our times. ...We trust you to make decisions for your families," Bush told the Scranton audience. "You can choose a basic health care plan that meets your needs, or you can choose a little more of a Cadillac plan for your needs."
Under the Bush plan, the entire cost of monthly premiums and co-payments would be paid for individuals who make $11,300 or less, and for couples that make $15,200 or less.
The Gore plan, on the other hand, would cost the taxpayer $25.3 billion per year for the next 10 years. According to the Gore website, his plan would "offer a prescription drug benefit to all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. The Gore-Lieberman benefit would cover half the cost of prescription drugs up to $5,000, provide catastrophic coverage for those with extremely high prescription costs and charge no deductible for this coverage. In addition, their plan would cover all premiums and co-payments for low-income Medicare beneficiaries."
Now, it is obvious that a plan to provide free prescription drugs to "all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries" is a plan to help the rich. Both the Gore and the Bush plans would give aid to the elderly poor. The extra nearly $100 billion dollars in the Gore plan would provide free prescriptions to the well-heeled elderly, thereby providing them with additional funds for their extensive travel.
It is, if you will pardon my borrowing a phrase from Bill Clinton, a welfare plan for the rich. And who gets to pay for it? Young working people, most of whom cannot afford the premiums for health care for themselves, that's who.
Somehow, the Washington Post, CNN and the N.Y. Times seem to have overlooked this obvious point. Apparently they just don't believe their friend Al Gore would do such a thing and therefore haven't pointed it out to their readers.
Mike Allen of the Washington Post points out in today's papers that the Bush program "would subsidize premiums and co-payments to varying degrees" for those making $14,600 or less and couples making $19,700. It would also provide catastrophic coverage for drugs costing more than $6,000 a year for any senior, regardless of income.
An estimated $40 billion in the Bush plan would restore cuts to the reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that were slashed in the past four years by the Congress. It would seem to me, as a person of Medicare age, that the first order of business in helping seniors have the medical treatment and prescriptions they need for their health to somehow make sure that doctors and hospitals will BE there when they are really sick.
As a result of those slashed reimbursements, increasingly seniors who need to be in the hospital because of illness, or operations, are not allowed to stay in the hospital. As I have pointed out before, the surgeon who replaces a worn-out hip for a Medicare patient receives less reimbursement for the job than a mechanic receives for replacing a worn-out transmission in the car the Medicare patient is driving.
Gore also says he would "expand health care coverage to every child and to millions of adults by building on the existing Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). They would expand CHIP to cover children living at 2.5 times the federal poverty level -- about $41,000 for a family of four." He points out that 85% of the children eligible for CHIP are "themselves living without health insurance."
This, George Bush observes, is not news. "Eight years ago, Bill Clinton and Al Gore promised Medicare reform," Bush said. "Four years ago, they did the same. This is a patient country, but our patience is wearing thin. This is not a time for third chance. It is a time for new beginnings and new leadership.
Again, the major difference in the two candidates has a lot to do with who makes the decisions. The Gore plan is, of course, merely a new version of Hillary Clinton's plan to socialize 17% of America's economy - the medical industry.
"We trust you to make decisions for your families," Bush told a Scranton audience. "You can choose a basic health care plan that meets your needs, or you can choose a little more of a Cadillac plan for your needs." Bush emphasizes that his "Prescription for America" includes: "individual choice, modernization, prescription drugs, quality care" and the need for "bi-partisan solutions." His "prescription" is modeled after a bi-partisan bill introduced by Tennessee's Republican Senator Bill Frist and Louisiana's Democrat Senator John Breaux. Republicans in the Senate may try to pass Bush's proposal before they adjourn again for the election.
According to Gore, "Bush still leaves millions without coverage." He doesn't explain exactly why that would occur, since those not covered would have the private funds to purchase prescription drug insurance if they wanted it. From the Al Gore website we note the following effort to refute Bush's comments:
Bush's Charge: Gore plan would impose price controls and hamper the discovery and development of life-saving new medications.Gore Response: Gore plan does not impose price controls at all; instead, Medicare would contract with private pharmaceutical benefit managers - the same ones large private insurers use - to negotiate prices' earn bulk discounts, and implement this meaningful new benefit.
So, what Gore is saying is that a Washington bureaucrat would take over what private Insurers are now doing. The choice seniors appear to have in this debate is whether they prefer a Washington Bureaucrat making decisions for them or an Insurance Company executive.
Somehow it all reminds me of the big education debate. What we have at the present time in the way of Education run by Washington Bureaucrats in Congress is the Washington, D.C. school district. It currently has the highest cost per pupil in the nation and the lowest of the nation's SAT scores. Do those past 65, who by law today are REQUIRED to be Medicare patients, really think that a socialist medical program administered by Washington Bureaucrats, paid for by a dwindling pool of younger workers, and designed by politicians is going to provide medical care when we actually need it?
If they do, they are living in a dream world.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
