Posted on 08/02/2002 7:56:40 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
Oklahoman Editorial: Prescribing Trouble
2002-08-02
REPUBLICANS in the Senate long have suspected Majority Leader Tom Daschle preferred keeping prescription drug coverage for America's seniors as a viable election-year issue to actually doing something about it this summer. This week's legislative melee, during which the Senate rejected four prescription drug proposals, seems to support the claim. The Senate will begin its recess for the hot month of August having expended a lot of hot air on the subject, but that's about it.
The blame game already has begun, and we wonder if that isn't what Daschle, D-S.D., and his allies wanted all along. Democrats need campaigning issues, and rather than settle on a reasonable, market-oriented approach to help the country's neediest seniors, they insisted on the usual Washington solution: create a new federal program costing billions and billions of dollars.
They got nowhere, and now they're pointing fingers at Republicans. As is to be expected of the minority party, the GOP lays the issue at Daschle's feet, questioning his ability to manage the chamber. It fits. The House of Representatives passed a prescription drug bill in June, and the White House supports helping seniors.
Then there's Daschle's Senate. "It's going to be pretty hard to try to blame it on somebody else when you're in charge and you don't get it done," said GOP leader Trent Lott of Mississippi. Indeed, four plans died for lack of consensus, which under Senate rules means 60 votes. They ranged from the creation of one of the largest entitlements in U.S. history to one that mirrored the House bill.
Republicans were right to reject creation of a new entitlement under Medicare. It would cost nearly $600 billion over 10 years and cover every senior, even those who already have coverage through a private retirement plan.
The GOP proposal, like the House version, would have helped seniors buy drug coverage through private insurers. Its cost would've been roughly half of the liberal alternative. It died, as did a couple of variations in-between. As it is, the best the Senate could do was send more money to the states to help prop up Medicaid programs.
The larger issue remains. Prescription drug coverage for millions of America's seniors is needed, but the solution need not be grafted onto Medicare, which has enough troubles of its own. The House is on the right track, creating choice for seniors and thereby bringing market forces into play.
If Senate Democrats truly want to help seniors, they'll deal with the House and President Bush on such an approach. First they'll have to shelve a scorched-earth strategy on the issue. If they don't they could be the ones burned in November.
Gridlock is my favorite politician.
Daschle has become someone I cannot even bear to listen to. When I see his lying face, I change the channel. Without the media protection, the RATS would be voted out of office in droves.
I hope they can turn this around on Daschle, but I lack faith. I think I'm going to watch Rather tonight, just to see his leftist spin on the issue.
"Today in Washington, a Republican minority in the Senate repeatedly stymied legislation intended to help sick and dying seniors attain the medicine they need to stay alive. Attempting to prevent this seeming genocide, Senate Leader Tom Daschle..."
There is the commercial I would run:
[Black Screen, White lettering] XX Million seniors don't have prescription drug coverage. [voiceover]George Bush and the Republican house approved four different plans that would give Seniors the prescription drug coverage they need.
[next frame, Daschle's ugly mug][voiceover]But one man has lead Senate democrats in blocking all four plans by requiring 60 votes rather than the Constitutional 51.
[next frame, George Bush on right with caption "wants prescription drug coverage for seniors";Daschle on left with caption "blocked drug coverage for seniors][voiceover] It's simple really. Vote republican and get prescription drug coverage for seniors.
[voiceover]Vote for democrats and get posturing, obstruction, and no drug coverage for seniors.
************
And I am not even in favor of free drugs for bluehairs.
You'll recall during clintons' term, there was a bi-partisan panel set up to address health care issues, with John Breaux (D LA) as the chairman. The panel came up with a solution and presented it to clinton.
In a nutshell, clinton rejected the proposal. Why? Because it would have fixed the problem, and removed healthcare as a campaign issue.
It's the same with everything the dems bitch and moan about. They cannot have a fix to the problem, as a fix would then remove the issue.
Need I bring up jjackson and asharpton along the same lines?
accused George Bush and Dick Cheney of slaughtering seniors by manipulation of Harkenburton stock prices causing obcenely profitable pharmaceutical companies to cease production of life-saving drugs for the elderly.
[next frame, Daschle's ugly mug][voiceover]But one man has lead Senate democrats in blocking all four plans by requiring 60 votes rather than the Constitutional 51.
[next frame, George Bush on right with caption "wants prescription drug coverage for seniors";Daschle on left with caption "blocked drug coverage for seniors][voiceover] It's simple really. Vote republican and get prescription drug coverage for seniors.
[voiceover]Vote for democrats and get posturing, obstruction, and no drug coverage for seniors.
VO: You are already paying for Congress to have the best health coverage in the world, perhaps voting their coverage out would make them work harder for you.
Sponsor: Sen Breaux, John B.(introduced 2/15/2001)
Latest Major Action: 2/15/2001 Referred to Senate committee.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Title: A bill to amend the Social Security Act to establish a Medicare Prescription Drug and Supplemental Benefit Program and for other purposes.
Just use the search engine with the terms "prescription, Breaux", it is the first one on the list, the full text is there.
Daschle forces 60 votes on everything, but the reason 60 votes are needed on this is that the Socialists want a plan bigger than the budget provided for-- so it takes 60 votes for passage. All he needed to do was abide by the budget (which allowed for $300M I think) and only 51 votes were needed. No one would be stupid enough to filibuster this.
Why? Not by the government it isn't. They might as well call expanding Medicare entitlements the Expansion of the Intergenerational Embezzlement Scheme for Votes of 2002.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.