Drug benefits for...who?

by Prometheus 6
December 8, 2003 - 8:26am.
on News

Stalking the Giant Chicken Coop
By BOB HERBERT

Published: December 8, 2003

…Think of Medicare as a giant chicken coop. Keep in mind that the hostile-to-Medicare Republicans control the presidency and both houses of Congress. Now you decide who the foxes and the chickens are. (Hint: we're not talking about spring chickens.)

…The bill that President Bush will sign today is a giant windfall for the drug companies, opening up a huge new market with virtually no effort to restrain prices. It will give Medicare recipients a modest drug benefit, but at a potentially dreadful cost. The bill starts the process of undermining Medicare by turning parts of it over to insurance companies, H.M.O.'s and other private contractors.

The drug benefit will be delivered almost entirely through private insurance plans. It would have been more efficient and cheaper to deliver it the same way other Medicare benefits are delivered. But that's not the idea. The Bush administration has mastered the art of legalized banditry, in which tons of government money ? the people's money ? are hijacked and handed over to the special interests.

Drug company stock prices soared with the passage of the Medicare bill, a sign that another government vault had been blown open and the big Medicare money was in play. The Republicans are not subtle about these matters. The bill, for example, specifically prohibits the government from negotiating discounts or lower drug prices, and bars the importation of cheaper drugs from abroad.

And then there's the "demonstration" project, to begin in 2010, in which Medicare will be forced in several cities to compete against private, profit-making health plans. It will be a rigged competition in that, among other things, the private plans will be heavily subsidized by Medicare money and will be able to cherry-pick the healthiest patients.

As one Capitol Hill staffer told me last week: "This is more than the camel's nose under the tent. This is like the head, the hump and everything else."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 10, 2003 - 3:40am.

Sorry. Can't sympathize with the sentiments of this article. To me, it is a bunch of whining seniors who hold in perpetual slavery those two generations younger, my generation. Already I pay a fortune in Social Security, something I will never see. In fact I don't care. I don't want to see it. In fact, I would be willing to continue paying taxes fully aware of that fact if I knew I would be the last to ever have to pay it.Now we have this massive multitrillion dollar committment, and the oldsters and leftists are claiming it ISN'T ENOUGH! WTF! Do they want my left nut also?! This whole thing irritates me so much, this entitlement mentality that cares nothing for those who are forced to pay for this stuff at the point of a gun. I don't think these people get it. SOMEONE has to produce the wealth that makes this theft possible, to make it possible for someone else to squeeze the remaining droplets of time out of a life that under natural conditions would have ended long before, no matter what the marginal costs are. They aren't paying them. The future is paying for it, and sooner or later it will catch up. Simple logic tells us that this madness cannot last forever.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 10, 2003 - 7:49pm.

Your youth explains a lot.

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 1:59am.

I'm sorry, P6, but this is a morally untenable position, that some people must be forced by law- ie by threat of violence and possible loss of life or freedem by the state- to give their time and labor for the benefit of other people. This is slavery no matter how you try to rationalize it. Voluntary, no problem. But once you threaten me with a jail sentence if I don't pay up- and how do they back up the threat of jail sentences if they don't have the power to send in SWAT teams to drag me out of my house, dead or alive, if I refuse to go to jail?- then you are absolutely in the wrong. And some thought feudalism was dead.And on the practical side, this is what the USPS calls a ponzi scheme, and for good reason, has been outlawed when practiced by individuals. This system cannot last. It does not create wealth, it destroys it. It merely takes from one person and gives to another, after filtering through multiple layers of bureaucracy, each layer shaving a little bit off for the rent-seeking politicians and government employees. (If a private charity had administrative costs as high as the government has, no one would donate to them)Of course what's good for government certainly is not good for the people. You thought Enron was bad? Every year Congress commits fraud equivalent to a thousand Enrons. Hell, the Federal Reserve is worse than every corporate scandal anytime this century! Imagine if a company were secretly printing new issues of stock and handing them out to friends and insiders, while the average shareholder takes the hit with a lower-valued stock? That's what the Fed does all the time. Where do you think inflation comes from? Your dollar is worth less every day because the Fed prints more so that the government can keep spending in the red, and wealthy bankers can finance their risky schemes without taking the risks themselves.I don't understand why people to the left have so much faith in government and the effectiveness of coercion.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 7:53am.

Then leave, Brian. Leave the country if you dont like how it operates.

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 5:38pm.

Is this the old 'love it or leave it' argument I used to hear rednecks say?

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 5:43pm.

Actually, if you were willing to recognize a very basic and fundamental human right, the right to political self-determination, that is, the right of political secession, then I would in a heartbeat. But we all know learned in school what happens to people who do try to 'leave it.'There is a movement underway called the Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org). We have already chosen New Hampshire as the Free State. Secession is the ultimate peaceful sanction against government tyranny, and if anyone needs to use it, they have that huamn right.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 7:11pm.

Is this the old 'love it or leave it' argument I used to hear rednecks say?

Similar, but I give more choices:
  1. Love it
  2. Leave it
  3. Do somehing about it
  4. Whine, bitch and moan
    1. Actually, if you were willing to recognize a very basic and fundamental human right, the right to political self-determination, that is, the right of political secession, then I would in a heartbeat. But we all know learned in school what happens to people who do try to 'leave it.'
      That being the case, what is the rational thing to do? Context, dude.
Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 8:09pm.

"That being the case, what is the rational thing to do?"The rational thing to do? I would rather die than live as a slave. If the government wants to kill me simply for wanting to be free, let them. My freedom harms no one, threatens no one, and cost nothing to anyone, I simply wish to live in peace. If the government does not think I should do so, the only way it can prevent me is by killing me. Which do you consider the morally superior position? Mine or the government's?And I am doing something about it. I have joined a group of people who are asserting their right to be free of coercion. Will you, who so vocally objected to taking up arms against a violent dictator, take up arms against me, either personally or by proxy through police, SWAT teams and politicians? There is no difference. Violence is violence. War is war whether waged by armies or by threats of their use. One can commit an act of violence whether they personally commit the act, or whether they hire other people to do it, and it doesn't matter if those they hire wear camouflage BDUs or state trooper hats.And I am not sure what you mean by 'context.' Could you explain?

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 8:16pm.

Here is a nice little overview of my political philosophy, if you care to check it out. It takes about 10 minutes or so to run.http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 9:41pm.

Which do you consider the morally superior position? Mine or the government's?

Actually, I think your analysis is severely flawed. You think of yourself as a slave, which means you have no idea what slavery is. And you say "if" the government this and "if" the government that, then proceed as if the "if" were the case. My problem with your position isn't moral, it's the stark, naked error that you operate under.
Will you, who so vocally objected to taking up arms against a violent dictator
And when have I done that?Don't assume up in here. It ain't safe.

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 10:33pm.

And what precisely is slavery if it is not the lack and denial of freedom to act for yourself and for your own purposes? What is slavery if it is not someone else having a higher claim to your life than you do? Tell me, what is slavery, in your view? Do you think that slavery is a term that can only be applied to a certain set of people at a very thin slice of time in human history? That is a very dangerous thing to say. Do you not think that the draft is a form of slavery? Tell me, in your enlightened view, what constitutes slavery, and how are you in a unique position to know what that is, while I am not?And of the severely flawed analyses and stark naked errors I am operating under, could you perhaps point out at least one, and explain why it is wrong? I go to tremendous lengths to explain where I stand. I am not trying to be vicious, I am not trying to 'win points' in some silly pissing contest. I am merely presenting a rational point of view that I think the whole of humankind will benefit from seeing as well. All I get in reply is that I'm wrong. Would you at least extend teh courtesy of explaining my errors?Did you even bother to go to that link I posted above? It won't hurt you to at least consider another point of view. I am not here to kill you, and I don't come as an enemy.I don't understand what your problem with my use of the word 'if.' I am using a simple logical if-then construction. "If x is the case, then it must follow that y is also true." It is the deductive process.Now, if you SUPPORTED the war against Iraq, it seems a bit odd to post approvingly political cartoons by Ted Rall, don't you think?

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 12, 2003 - 12:43am.

And of the severely flawed analyses and stark naked errors I am operating under, could you perhaps point out at least one, and explain why it is wrong? I go to tremendous lengths to explain where I stand. I am not trying to be vicious, I am not trying to 'win points' in some silly pissing contest. I am merely presenting a rational point of view that I think the whole of humankind will benefit from seeing as well. All I get in reply is that I'm wrong. Would you at least extend teh courtesy of explaining my errors?

Are you actually ready to have a discussion?Anyone who comes in here and floods the zone with a viewpoint that is at odds with mine is either recruiting, preaching or seeking to shore up their own self-doubt…none of which I have much truck with.And I see no need to refute bald assertions with anything more substantial than disdain and dismissal.Slow your roll. Pull in your assumptions:
Tell me, in your enlightened view, what constitutes slavery, and how are you in a unique position to know what that is, while I am not?
Where have I asserted being in a unique position etc.? I haven't even said you can't know. Just that you don't. Check out Anti-Slavery International. See the reality of slavery…now, worldwide. See if you live any way approaching that, with your pampered American butt in front of your computer, whining because you don't want to have any responsibility toward others in your society.
Now, if you SUPPORTED the war against Iraq, it seems a bit odd to post approvingly political cartoons by Ted Rall, don't you think?
I haven't told you my position on the Iraq war. And the cartoon by Rall...look at it again and tell me what it says about the Iraq war.You play the hyper-rational and don't even gather data well.Pull in the snarkiness. You want to talk, fine. You want to flood the place with the unthinking nonsense only a child of America in the 80s could believe, you might as well find somewhere else to post.