Buy Your Own Drugs, Grandma

Human Events ^ | 6-23 | Staff Editorial

[The Old Hoosier]

Are We All Socialists Now?

Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson would be proud of what the Republicans who run the federal government are doing now: They are planning to add a massive new element to the welfare state.

Cheered on by President Bush, the Republican Senate is poised to approve a bill adding a prescription drug benefit to the already bankrupt Medicare program. So far, there is no organized resistance to the plan in the Republican House.

This new entitlement is politically shortsighted, pandering to forces that could eventually smother the Republican Party. But worse, it is fiscally and morally indefensible.

In the short run, Republicans figure it will help them in the 2004 elections—particularly in the pivotal state of Florida, which George W. Bush barely won in 2000, and which has a large elderly population. In the middle run, however, the GOP may pay a great price for it at the polls. And, in the long run, it could help precipitate an economic and social crisis unequaled since the Great Depression.

A Fiscal Joke

As the Senate Finance Committee describes it, this benefit will give all 40 million Americans currently eligible for Medicare huge annual subsidies to buy drugs. For a nominal monthly premium of $35, a recipient gets a drug insurance plan with a $275 annual deductible. Between $275 and $4,500, taxpayers will cover 50% of the cost of all drugs that a Medicare recipient purchases.

Above $4,500, the benefit lapses until a recipient has paid a total of $3,700 for drugs out-of-pocket (equal to $5,873 in total drug purchases). From there on, taxpayers will pay 90% of a recipient’s drug costs.

Congressional Republicans estimate this will cost $400 billion over 10 years. The estimate is a joke.

"Since the program is an entitlement, there is no fixed budget," writes analyst Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation. "Moreover, the evidence from both private and public sectors in recent years suggests that future costs are likely to exceed projections. But even if they are accurate, it is not the next 10 years that matter. It is the years after that, when the full force of the Baby Boom generation hits Medicare and Social Security. Within 15 years Medicare already faces a Niagara of red ink. Adding a drug benefit without serious reforms and constraints on future spending means massive tax burdens on generations to come." Butler may be optimistic.

Medicare is already in the red—even if the government sometimes tries to hide this fact with smoke-and-mirrors accounting gimmicks worthy of Enron. In April 9 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Health, Richard S. Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (which runs Medicare), stated the program’s bottom line for fiscal 2003. "Medicare, overall," he said, "is . . . projected to draw a net amount of $87.7 billion from the budget."

Fiscal Armageddon

Over the horizon looms fiscal Armageddon.

The two major elements of Medicare are Hospital Insurance (HI, or Part A) and Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI, or Part B). HI is underwritten by a 1.45% payroll tax paid by all employees and employers (2.9% for the self-employed). By statute, SMI recipients are supposed to pay an annual premium set at 25% of its cost, with taxpayers picking up the other 75%. There are now fewer than four workers per Medicare recipient paying the taxes to cover these costs. By 2030 there will be only 2.3 workers per recipient. (For more info, click here.)

When Social Security and Medicaid (federally subsidized health care for the poor) are added into the fiscal equation for tomorrow’s welfare state it becomes obvious there is no realistic prospect for sustaining that welfare state—even without a prescription drug benefit—unless the government is willing to tax middle-aged working people into poverty.

On July 25, 2001, U.S. Comptroller General David Walker spelled out the problem for the House Budget Committee. "Taken together, the two major government health programs—Medicare and Medicaid—represent an unsustainable burden on future generations," said Walker.

"Assuming, for example, that Congress and the President adhere to the often-stated goal of saving the Social Security surpluses, our long-term simulations show a world by 2030 in which Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid absorb most of the available revenues within the federal budget," he said.

"Absent changes in the structure of Medicare and Social Security," he predicted, "sometime during the 2040s government would do nothing but mail checks to the elderly and their health care providers."

Between then and now, Republicans would find themselves perpetually out-bid by Democrats in their mutual efforts to pander to retired Baby Boomers who had been tutored by government to depend on government.

America would become a socialist country—with an increasingly aggrieved and impoverished bloc of people struggling to pay the taxes to cover the Social Security, drug bills and other medical costs of other people’s grandparents.

Conservatives believe freedom is a moral imperative—for old and young alike. Bloating the welfare state today with a new prescription drug benefit will diminish American freedom now, and could help extinguish it in the future. Republicans who call themselves conservatives should fight the plan, not help push it through.

[supercat]

This is all the US Constitution authorizes congress to act on:

Congress also has the power to enforce the prohibition against slavery, to enforce the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, and IIRC to prohibit the importation of intoxicating into any state in contravention of the laws thereof.

[Riverman94610]

I understand your consternation but Bush and the GOP are making the right move politically.To not introduce their own presciption drug plan would allow the Dems to put their plan,twice as costly,into the realm of public discourse.Then we would get the same tired argument that the Bush is "insensitive"to older Americans and give Kerry,Dean, et al an issue to run on.
Call this move by Bush a "pre-empitve strike".

[The Old Hoosier]

I understand your consternation but Bush and the GOP are making the right move politically.

Like the editorial says, it makes good short-term sense. But in fact it will hurt the GOP politically down the line when we are forced to raise taxes to pay for it. This is a runaway train that no one will be able to stop.

[Destro]

We should be doing 2 things--since Federal money helps fund much medical research-- have patents that last a certain amount of limited reasonable years. If the drug costs more to develop than the recoup costs will allow in the patent enforced years then don't develop the drug or change your drug development policies and priorities. Let the market decide what can be produced for the greater good. Drug costs are artificialy high because of the monopoly that develops because of patent extensions. Make it 15 years and let the generics in after.

Secondly, increase the co-payments based on incomes. Make it more of an insurance program rather than an entitlement. The lower the income the lower the co-payment.

[Sir Gawain]

America...It was fun while it lasted.

[JmyBryan]

Of course, nothing from the WOD people about this. Wouldn't giving this stuff away free increase abuse?

Drug Reactions Linked To 100,000 Deaths

April 15, 1998
CHICAGO (UPI) - More than 100,000 hospital patients may die each
year from bad reactions to medicines designed to help them.

Canadian researchers say adverse drug reactions may rank as high
as the fourth as a leading cause of death in the United States.

Scientists also say the problem has been underestimated and doctors and hospitals need to increase their reporting of such reactions.

Neuroscientist Bruce Pomeranz says, "There are 100,000 deaths a
year in the United States from properly prescribed, properly administered drugs. That's a very astounding number."

He says, "On top of that, there are 2 million 200,000 severe injuries a year. That's even more astounding. It's a huge, huge number of serious drug reactions."

In a study in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, Pomeranz and a research team from the University of Toronto pooled data from 39 studies on dangerous drug reactions published between 1966 and 1996.

They estimated that in 1994, 2.2 million hospital patients had serious drug reactions and that as many as 106,000 people died from them.

This figure would put adverse drug reactions just behind heart disease, cancer and stroke as a cause of death.

The researchers also made a more conservative estimate of about
75, 000 deaths, which would still make it the sixth leading cause of death.

Pomeranz says, "Up to now, nobody had any idea the number was so
big."

He says the frequency of these events was consistent through the
decades, "which was surprising because drugs have changed considerably over the years."

In another, unpublished study, Pomeranz suggests that the problem is a global one. A review of data from 22 countries has shown "the same picture as the U.S." he says.

The scientists define adverse drug reactions as reactions to drugs that send or keep patients in the hospital, or that lead to permanent disability or death. The researchers did not count reactions caused by
mistakes made by doctors and patients, drug abuse or intentional overdose.

But, he says, he is hoping that increased awareness of the problem will lead to more monitoring, and more participation in programs to report these reactions to the FDA. Doctors currently underreport drug reactions, he says, and he does not know why.

Dr. David Bates of the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard
Medical School in Boston, says that the rate of ADRs, about 6.7 percent in the study, is similar to what he has found during his five years
investigating the issue.

He says, "I was surprised at the large number of deaths."

He adds that it is important to view these results with caution, because the study design, in which the researchers combined data from several small studies, may not produce accurate results.

In an accompanying editorial, Bates says, "These data suggest that health care practitioners may miss or pass over many ADRs (adverse drug reactions) that occur, even among fatal events."

Bates says, "Routine systems to detect these reactions find only a small percentage of them." He says hospitals need to develop better
systems to monitor the frequency of these reactions.

He says patients also need to be made aware of these problems, and should know when they are feeling something that may signal a drug
reaction that they should report to their doctor.

Bates says that new drugs may improve the situation, as pharmaceuticals that have the benefits, but minimize the risks.

In a statement, Alan F. Holmer, the president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group, says that the study "should not be taken out of context."

He says, "The public should be confident that the benefits of medicine far outweigh the risks and should contact their doctor or pharmacist with any questions."

Pomeranz says that his intention was not to scare people away from taking their medicines.

He says, "This is not to say that drugs don't have wonderful benefits."

Copyright 1998 UPI. All rights reserved.

[Sabertooth]

Even less than really astute people should be able to figure out that when a majority of Americans want something, their public servants will enact it...

Here is how you get things done.

First you convince a substantial majority of American voters to your views... That is it. Then just sit back and watch it happen.

Flag me when you see an article indicating that President Bush plans to remove a significant number of Illegals from within our borders, since that is the preference of a substantial majority of Americans.

It's pretty clear that President Bush does what he thinks is right, even when he's abyssmally wrong. Anything the President poses as "compassionate conservatism" is a rather accurate red flag. The President believes, somehow, that Illegals (other than terrorists) are good for the country, so he ignores the will of the people. The President also believes in more spending and bigger government, so he panders to the moochier yearnings of the people. Hence this prescription drug abomination.

Whatever he does, Bush believes in it, which makes him strangely trustworthy.

[EGPWS]

I don't think so either. But that doesn't mean we should start creating huge, new entitlement programs that will dramatically increase spending and require new taxes down the line.

My thoughts exactly! If some conservatives leave the ranks of Dubya' supporters where does that leave us? With another bill clinton that's where.

Dubya' has outsmarted AND outperformed his Democrat opponents time and time again! If he doesn't continue to do so we WILL have another Democrat President in '04. This would not be good for the country.

I find it amazing that with what has transpired since Dubya' has become President that some don't see the gains achieved because of his Presidency!

[Thank You Rush]

Thank you for that. I was about to paw through a pile of printouts to find that quote and you saved me the trouble. I never did have the author's full name and I certainly appreciate getting that information.
This senior citizen (still working) does not want to see this bill passed; reformed with waste and fraud stopped in their tracks, yes!
Aren't they even considering the drain on the younger generations? I don't want younger people taxed to pay for "my" anything! I can only hope Bush knows what he's doing and will snooker all the demoncrats in the end!
I like the man far too much to chastize him now. He plays a very good hand of poker, so let's wait and see how this plays out!

[AAABEST]

You are the quintessential politically ignorant right wing citizen.

Get bent tator-boy, you and your socialist "apologize at all costs" weirdos.

I don't need a sophomoric lesson on how it's OK for your figurehead/mascott to shake us down to please certain voting blocks. Despite your goofey and patonizing attempt to give us a lesson in civics, we live in a republic not a democracy. The only lessons you need to be giving with your simpleton outlook is to a special ed class in Sweden.

To take money from those who need it and give it to others as a bribe (who DON'T need it) is as MORALLY BANKRUPT as it is indefensible. Now go sell your crap to someone who'll buy it. That mound of dung you just posted got you on my moe-moe list.

[alloysteel]

The program should be re-written almost immediately upon signing to include a "means-testing" for drug purchases for persons on Medicare. Somebody, a few years ago, hit upon the brilliant scheme of taxing Social Security. That is essentially a means test. If you have too many resources, your Social Security may be subject to Federal income taxes, up to 85% of the gross amount of Social Security payable. If the gross income from all sources is high enough that the maximum rate applies to your Social Security income, then the drug benefit is unnecessary. And it may be scaled back proportionately, until the full benefit only applies to those who are in the lowest bracket, i.e., none of the Social Security stipend is subject to taxation.

Or may means testing only be applied in some cases, and not in others?

[csvset]

J. Randy Forbes, (R-4th District), the richest Virginian in the House of Representatives, ran campaign commercials bemoaning how much his momma's medications cost. Go figure.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Ditto. I don't live on my computer I work for a God Blessed living and I do not have the time so I am grateful for breaking news, of recent it has gone mad, with people posting whatever... in breaking news.

[Duramaximus]

"America would become a socialist country—with an increasingly aggrieved and impoverished bloc of people struggling to pay the taxes to cover the Social Security, drug bills and other medical costs of other people’s grandparents."

The party is just beginning. The mindless stampede of politicians trying to "out-Democrat" the next guy is creating a socialist utopia out of the United States.

Doesn't anyone realize that health care costs in this nation are skyrocketing because of two distinct issues?

1.) Deadbeats, welfare queens, druggies, illegal aliens, etc., who survive by living off the public dole, and are sucking this nation's health-care system dry.

2.) Lawyers, and their class-action lawsuits, are the cause of ever-increasing malpractice insurance costs. These costs are passed on to the consumer, me and you. These lawyers are padding their future with monies garnered from insurance settlements, lawsuits, etc.

The solution is really quite simple:

1.) Let the human dredge living on welfare, who leach off the system at taxpayer expense, know that if they need medical care they must work for it. It is called workfare. They can clean the streets, parks, toilets, etc., or even be sublet to private industry to perform needed tasks.

If you are not a citizen of this nation, you receive nothing. Go home!

Institute a policy where welfare mothers must allow a birth-control device to be implanted, which ever device is safe today, prior to receiving welfare, WIC vouchers, food stamps. If they get pregnant again, then too bad, no extra welfare payments. Get pregnant a third time... sterilization.

Ok, some will say this is a tough stance to take, if not cruel. I say that it takes a tough stance to overcome a problem that is out of control.

2.) Now the legal problems, or as I refer to it as the "scum-sucking lawyers". Simple solution.. Tort reform. They had best prove their lawsuit, or reimburse the other party for their troubles.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

I thought the moderators made sure breaking news was breaking news.

[The Old Hoosier]

There's one other possibility.

I think most people here agree with the idea that we should not allow drug re-importation. I sympathize with that view. However, I'm trying to come to terms with the concept from a different angle.

Shouldn't Americans make the Canadians pay for their socialist system by buying up all the drugs they price-control? As it is now, we are paying for everyone's drug research in the entire world. Why should we? Those Euros and Kanucks are free-riders, and we are paying much more for our drugs because of their price-control systems. Meanwhile, they are insulated from the real consequences of price controls because Americans keep paying higher prices to fund R&D.

If we were to start re-importing, then the Kanucks and the Euros would be forced to end their socialist systems, ease their price controls--or else suffer both drug shortages and the end of new cures, along with us.

I have no sympathy for the drug companies--if they had simply refused from the beginning to deal with the socialists, by refusing to sell under price-controls--then we wouldn't even have this mess.

Now they will finally have a real motive to fight price-controls.

How does that sound? Any thoughts?

[Double Tap]

Despite your goofey and patonizing attempt to give us a lesson in civics, we live in a republic not a democracy.

That is a fact that too few around here seem to understand any more. Thanks for posting it though.

[EGPWS]

The President also believes in more spending and bigger government, so he panders to the moochier yearnings of the people.

I disagree! He understands that it is becoming a way of life for people in this country after 40 years of liberal control. The people call the shots in this country and he understands that it would be political suicide to attempt to change peoples attitudes overnight.