Medicare Part D

[tikigods 76]

Can someone explain to me why the government would pass an obvious socialist program?

 

TIA

[Voltaire 5,488]

My favorite part is they when they passed it, they never bothering to fund it and so the whole thing is paid for with borrowed money. My second favorite part is how they made sure Big Pharm could fleece taxpayers by charging whatever they wanted and barring HHS from using it's size to negotiate better prices. Another nice thing is that it's a great way to shift expenses the elderly should be paying onto the young because young people should always be drained deep into debt to fund seniors' every need.

[tikigods 76]

My favorite part is they when they passed it, they never bothering to fund it and so the whole thing is paid for with borrowed money. My second favorite part is how they made sure Big Pharm could fleece taxpayers by charging whatever they wanted and barring HHS from using it's size to negotiate better prices. Another nice thing is that it's a great way to shift expenses the elderly should be paying onto the young because young people should always be drained deep into debt to fund seniors' every need.

 

I'm curious why there isn't an outrage to end funding this socialist program like there is against ObamaCare? Shouldn't we all be railing against Medicare Part D to end this fvcking money vacuum?

[tikigods 76]

Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion

 

 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Bush needed to secure re-election so it was OK.

[tikigods 76]

Bush needed to secure re-election so it was OK.

 

Before I can have outrage against ObamaCare to the degree the Republicans on the board have, I need to know why there is no talk about repealing Medicare Part D. As a true conservative who is truly interested in reducing federal budget deficits, I want this program along with ObamaCare repealed.

 

Why no talk of that by the board "conservatives"? I'm guessing they are feverishly scouring the conservative blogs and consulting with the right-winged radio stations before formulating a response. I fully expect a reply with a quote or link to some op-ed piece that is completely devoid of any form of data or research.

[tikigods 76]

A few weeks into the launch of the most sweeping health care reform law in a generation, John Boehner declared that the implementation was a disaster.

 

"The implementation," the Republican leader said, "has been horrendous. We've made it far more complicated than it should be."

Boehner, of course, was talking about the rollout of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit -- known as Part D -- enacted in 2003 by President George W. Bush. He discussed the implementation woes during a Feb. 6, 2006 appearance on "Fox News Sunday," on his fifth day as House majority leader.

 

But did he want to repeal the benefit? No. The future Speaker soberly acknowledged the problems but saw potential in the law and called for improving it. "The good news is that the competition that's being created has lowered premiums significantly below where Congress thought they'd be when we put the bill together, so the competition side is good," he said. "I think the implementation side continues to need to be improved."

 

It was a rough time for the law's proponents. The soft launch was "anything but smooth," according to the Washington Post, marred by at least two delays along with other, deeper problems. Upon launch, the Bush administration admitted to receiving "tens of thousands of complaints by seniors, pharmacists and others" about implementation failures. Health and Human Services vowed to "fix every problem as quickly as possible."

Boehner was far from alone in pushing to fix the problematic law, rather than repealing or dismantling it. And his judgment was vindicated -- the Medicare Part D program turned out to be a success, expanding medical coverage for millions of seniors at a lower cost than many expected. Today it is a fixture of the Medicare program. Fortunately for Bush and his party, Democrats were a willing partner in tweaking and improving the law.

 

Nearly eight years later, Boehner leads a Republican Party that has taken a radically different approach to the troubled rollout of a new, ambitious health care reform law -- this time enacted by a Democratic president. Four weeks into its pre-launch, Obamacare is under the gun for significant problems and glitches, and Republicans took turns excoriating the law during a GOP-led hearing Thursday. But while the Obama administration wants to fix the problems, a united GOP insists that the Affordable Care Act's online enrollment woes suggest the law should be wiped off the books, or at least dismantled piece by piece.

 

What Democrats are now saying about Obamacare -- fix it, don't nix it -- sounds eerily similar to what many Republicans were saying on the dawning of Medicare Part D.

 

"This is a huge undertaking and there are going to be glitches," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) onFeb. 15, 2006. "My goal is the same as yours: Get rid of the glitches."

 

"Rather than trying to scare and confuse seniors, I would hope that we can work together as we go through the implementation phase to find out what is wrong with the program and if we can make some changes to fix it, let us do it and let us do it on a bipartisan basis," Barton pleaded during an Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on March 6, 2006. "We owe that to all of the millions of Medicare beneficiaries."

 

Republican Rep. Nathan Deal, now the governor of Georgia, cautioned critics that "most significant programs" have problems early on, and that's no reason to give up on them.

 

"Like most significant programs, the new benefit has not gone without a few isolated glitches and unexpected problems," he said at the same hearing. "But I believe that if there is anything wrong with the plan, most of it has been fixed and that that hasn't can be fixed over time."

 

"Any time something is new, there is going to be some glitches," Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) saidon April 6, 2006. "No matter what one does in life, when it is something new in learning the ropes of it, it is going to take a little adjustment."

Boehner's office denies that the two situations are similar.

 

"Medicare Part D is a sound, popular program that faced some technical problems when it began," an aide to the Speaker, who requested anonymity, said on Thursday. "The ACA is fundamentally flawed, and the problems with the website are just the tip of the iceberg."

 

[drobeski 3,061]

go eat some kale ya moonbat

[tikigods 76]

go eat some kale ya moonbat

 

Good to see you can steal wifi from the local library from your homeless shelter.

[Phurfur 70]

Vote Libertarian!

[tikigods 76]

 

According to the latest actuaries’ report, Medicare Part D will cost taxpayers — beneficiaries pay virtually nothing — $62 billion this year. This figure is expected to rise sharply in coming years to $150 billion in 2019. By 2030, Part D alone will cost taxpayers 1 percent of GDP. In present value terms, Medicare Part D adds almost $16 trillion to our national indebtedness. (That’s how much would need to be in a trust fund today to pay all the benefits that have been promised over and above the trivial premiums paid by beneficiaries.) That is why former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called the unfunded prescription drug benefit “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”

 

[tikigods 76]

Vote Libertarian!

 

It's a tip, dumbass.

 

http://freestateproject.org

[Recliner Pilot 61]

According to the latest actuaries’ report,

 

 

Let's look at who put together this report Tikidumbfukk is using:

 

HONORABLE Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

HONORABLE Joseph R. Biden

President of the Senate

Washington, D.C.

Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of

the Treasury, and Managing

Trustee of the Trust Funds.

/S/

Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor,

and Trustee.

/S/

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of

Health and Human Services,

and Trustee.

/S/

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner

of Social Security, and Trustee.

Seems legit.

[tikigods 76]

 

The growth of state and federal health care programs — including President Bush’s prescription drug plan for seniors — means that today about half of the pharmaceutical market is controlled by government.

 

 

I wonder if the plan was to use Medicare Part D to shift illegal drug use to pharmaceutical drug use? After 9-11, the borders tightened to stop a lot of the flow of illegal drugs into the US. Illegal drug flow slows but drug seeking behavior does not. Shortly after, Medicare Part D is passed to give free drugs to the poor and seniors. Pharmaceutical drug companies see huge profits, as do investors. Doctors are now in control of prescription drugs, paid extra by the pharmaceutical drug makers to push their narcotics, all paid for by the US taxpayer and by borrowing money from foreign countries.

 

 

[tikigods 76]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Recliner Pilot. View it anyway?

 

Why are you in favor of a massive government program like Medicare Part D?

 

Fvcking moonbat liberal socialist.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Link to me saying I was in favor of this, dumbfukk?

 

I am in favor of making you look like a fool.

 

You give us a lot of cut-n-paste here, yet no links.........or so you thought. Hint: When you go to your lefty moonbat blogs and cut-n-paste stuff, and it contains underlined words in blue, it is a link, puddinhead.

 

This one blew up in your face, so it may be time to try another lame fishing trip on another lefty whinefest subject, shithead. This one fayled.

 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Link to me saying I was in favor of this, dumbfukk?

 

I am in favor of making you look like a fool.

 

You give us a lot of cut-n-paste here, yet no links.........or so you thought. Hint: When you go to your lefty moonbat blogs and cut-n-paste stuff, and it contains underlined words in blue, it is a link, puddinhead.

 

This one blew up in your face, so it may be time to try another lame fishing trip on another lefty whinefest subject, shithead. This one fayled.

 

What part of tiki's article do you think is wrong?

 

Is it that Medicare Part D was very expensive and was not paid for by offsetting cuts or revenue increases?

 

Is it that the rollout of Medicare Part D did not go smoothly but now, years later, it is a popular and entrenched program?

[tikigods 76]

What part of tiki's article do you think is wrong?

 

Is that Medicare Part D was very expensive and was not paid for by offsetting cuts or revenue increases?

 

Is it that the rollout of Medicare Part D did not go smoothly but now, years later, it is a popular and entrenched program?

 

He is in favor of it and all of the massive spending and taxpayer burden it creates.

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

Get rid of medicare D, obamacare, and repeal the temporary bush tax cuts and we would be much closer to a balanced budget.

[tikigods 76]

Get rid of medicare D, obamacare, and repeal the temporary bush tax cuts and we would be much closer to a balanced budget.

 

amen, bro.

[tikigods 76]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Recliner Pilot. View it anyway?

 

Holy sh1t did you get your ass handed to you in this thread.

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

Get rid of medicare D, obamacare, and repeal the temporary bush tax cuts and we would be much closer to a balanced budget.

But would healthcare be better or worse?

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

But would healthcare be better or worse?

 

The healthcare would be worse in the short term since less money is being spent. The benefit would come in the long term because with a stronger economy more people could afford health care without government help.

[tikigods 76]

I can't understand why conservatives aren't scream from the high heavens for its repeal along with ObummerCare.

[Reality 3,121]

I can't understand why conservatives aren't scream from the high heavens for its repeal along with ObummerCare.

Probably because as bad as med part D is comparing the 2 is just stupid but, you knew that and just felt like fishing.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

The healthcare would be worse in the short term since less money is being spent. The benefit would come in the long term because with a stronger economy more people could afford health care without government help.

Have you ever been hospitalized for a couple days or had a major operation? Or taken meds chronically? Most people wouldn't be able to afford it.

[tikigods 76]

Probably because as bad as med part D is comparing the 2 is just stupid.

 

Comparing them is stupid? Clearly you must be a libturd who loves his entitlement programs.

 

They are both giant money pits, but you knew that and avoided the actual question.

[Reality 3,121]

 

Comparing them is stupid?

Yes, I stopped reading here.

[tikigods 76]

Yes, I stopped reading here.

 

Liberal hack.

[Reality 3,121]

If Obamacare only costs us $62B a year after 10 years of implementation I will consider it a phenomenal success.

 

Yes, my standards for anything the Government touches are that low.

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

Have you ever been hospitalized for a couple days or had a major operation? Or taken meds chronically? Most people wouldn't be able to afford it.

 

I do believe that government should provide social welfare programs, but where to draw the line is the question.

 

If the US started going an additional trillion in debt a year to solely pay for healthcare, then in the short term the poor would certainly have better care, but probably at a detriment to the long term future of all american citizens.

 

I am not sure how much the government should help on health care, however in my personel opinion the amount of help that we provided in the early 2000's was a good balance between debt and social services.

[tikigods 76]

I do believe that government should provide social welfare programs, but where to draw the line is the question.

 

If the US started going an additional trillion in debt a year to solely pay for healthcare, then in the short term the poor would certainly have better care, but probably at a detriment to the long term future of all american citizens.

 

I am not sure how much the government should help on health care, however in my personel opinion the amount of help that we provided in the early 2000's was a good balance between debt and social services.

 

It's like state forced retirement systems. Why should I be forced to pay into a system if I don't want to pay into it? Why can't I have control of my own retirement and invest it as I please? Social Security will never be privatized because the government likes dipping into it and using it to pay for things they can't afford, like Medicare Part D. The amount of borrowing the Feds do is mind blowing. Something needs to happen and it needs to start with these entitlements.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I do believe that government should provide social welfare programs, but where to draw the line is the question.

 

If the US started going an additional trillion in debt a year to solely pay for healthcare, then in the short term the poor would certainly have better care, but probably at a detriment to the long term future of all american citizens.

 

I am not sure how much the government should help on health care, however in my personel opinion the amount of help that we provided in the early 2000's was a good balance between debt and social services.

Healthcare spending was about 14% of GDP in 2000, as opposed to 18% now. Which is still a lot larger than other countries with better healthcare metrics. It's another topic, but this is an interesting summary: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

Healthcare spending was about 14% of GDP in 2000, as opposed to 18% now. Which is still a lot larger than other countries with better healthcare metrics. It's another topic, but this is an interesting summary: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

 

As you show it is not an issue of too little money, we should be able to cut our spending on healthcare while still increasing quality.

[penultimatestraw 473]

As you show it is not an issue of too little money, we should be able to cut our spending on healthcare while still increasing quality.

The problem is the government runs healthcare in all those countries...

[drobeski 3,061]

tiki has a clip on pony tail and a prius

[Phurfur 70]

As you show it is not an issue of too little money, we should be able to cut our spending on healthcare while still increasing quality.

If the US Government is involved history has proven that is impossible!

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

The problem is the government runs healthcare in all those countries...

 

I only have my phone for internet access, but I assume that all the countries with socialized medicine and high quality care all have a much lower population than the US.

 

Having a smaller population reduces the bureaucratic nightmare with a nationalized system.

 

Also, I believe all of this extra money dumped into healthcare in the last decade takes us further from a nationalized system. We are taking money and dumping it into private companies which increases their power and ability to buy lobbyists.

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

If the US Government is involved history has proven that is impossible!

 

 

History shows the opposite, I see america as the greatest country on earth. We have done everything from win the space race to lead the world economy among thousands of other great accomplishments.

 

You have a strong hatred of america and it shows in your posts.

[Phurfur 70]

History shows the opposite, I see america as the greatest country on earth. We have done everything from win the space race to lead the world economy among thousands of other great accomplishments.

You have a strong hatred of america and it shows in your posts.

The past is gone we face today. Waving a flag and saying America is great is not what made us great in the past.

 

1. We can't even get a man to the space station on our own.

2. Capitalism let us dominate the world economy and as we change to socialism we are losing that.

3. We are $17.3 trillion dollars in debt.

 

I do not hate America but I am saddened by what it is turning into, a bunch of lazy entitled losers with no purpose in life. I remember a great America you will never know.