The Republicans said they were going to pass a prescription drug benefit for medicare – finally people would get the coverage they needed. But, as usual, the Republicans sat down with the drug companies and the big medical firms and drew up a law that would satisfy donors to their campaigns, and not the people who ultimately need the program – the citizens.
Now the fake law passed by these guys is having a real effect: disaster.
The federal government won’t repay states that are making emergency purchases for hundreds of thousands of poor, sick people whose new Medicare drug coverage isn’t yet working, Medicare officials say.
Instead, those states must recoup the money from the private plans that began providing drug coverage Jan. 1 on behalf of Medicare.
Medicare administrator Mark McClellan said the new Medicare legislation was clear: “Under this program, we don’t have the authority to pay states directly. People are in Medicare drug plans, and it’s the Medicare plans that are supposed to pay for the medications.”
That could create an administrative nightmare for the states that stepped up to safeguard the health of low-income elderly and disabled people whose Medicare coverage hasn’t materialized because of administrative problems and poor planning by Medicare officials.
Now, those states will bear the cost of filing hundreds of thousands of claims with the dozens of private drug plans that provide Medicare coverage within their borders.
“That’s going to be very complicated,” said Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, chairman of the National Governors Association, who was disappointed by the news.
“We’re doing the federal government a favor. We’re in essence loaning them money while they get their problems worked out. … Now we’re going to not only become the bank, but the collection agency? Next, we’ll be manufacturing the drugs and selling them,” he said Tuesday.
>> Josh Marshall: “Bamboozlepalooza all over again”
>> “Save my grandma”
>> White House Prescription For Medicare Woes: Another PR Campaign
>> “PART D, AS IN DEBACLE”
Related
John McCain Wants To Cut Medicare And Medicaid
The “Meaning” Of Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Plan
Mitt Romney’s Health Care Plan: Tax Cuts For The Rich
I admire Bush for his relentless approach to his decisions. He’ll be
damned before he’ll take another look at a decision and amend it.
“By god that square peg is gonna fit in that round hole if I have to
use an 8# sledge hammer!”
He and his cabinet are traveling around the country (with money that
could be used to assist those who are falling through the net of
incompetence and graft)to promote this pathetic cover story of
Medicare reform. I like George when he is relentless for the right
thing.
I always get the sense that George would be a good neighbor. He’d be a lot of fun at family cookouts. I’m sure he’d be glad to lend me his chainsaw when I needed it, and I’m sure he wouldn’t be fussy if our dog wandered into his yard every once in a while. But I’m very much afraid that this being president business is way over his head. Everything he touches seems to turn to disaster. That makes me sad.
Who knows, randy, that senior citizen may be you
Hehe
I think disaster is in the “eye – deology of the beholder.”
Clinton was somehow able to come out shining on the stage with every new idea. No matter how unworkable, how inefficient, how expensive, everyone thought it was just “mahvelous”.
Why should Bush try a new idea, which is now all of 18 days old (not counting holidays and weekends), and be subject to blurbs like
>> Josh Marshall: Bamboozlepalooza all over again
>> Save my grandma
>> PART D, AS IN DEBACLE
He and his cabinet are traveling around the country (with money that
could be used to assist those who are falling through the net of
incompetence and graft)
Everything he touches seems to turn to disaster.
All in 18 days. 18 days.
Even Reagan used to get 21 days to a month, before they went off on him.
The plan is a disaster and should be repealed. How many more years until it’s 1 worker for every retiree? I can’t wait to have my very own senior citizen to support.
I’m going on my third career — I hope to be out of Graduate School by 2007 (age 62). I’ll probably work until I’m dead. I’m not bragging, but if there was a tag attached to my diaper that said, “Make sure this kid retires with a pension,” it got removed. Do you still have yours?
I figure I’ll be working until I’m 70, for the shear fun of it.
nursepam, since you answered the question you asked me, why did you post it?
When you’ve got a better Medicare plan, let’s hear about. Just because LBJ threw a stick into a hornet’s nest in 1965, now you want to blame Bush for being unable to fix what’s been in free fall for 40 years.
And how do you now how “blessed I’ve been” — I don’t have a “bootstraps” story to tell… It’s just dumb luck. I’ve had plenty of hard times in my life. Years with benefits, years without.
How’s this:
I’m not eligible for Social Security, unless i work another 5 years — from now! And I’m nearly 60!
All right, so I’m not the “Richie Rich Republican” you thought I was, am I?
That’s right: No bank account, no CD’s, no IRA’s, no Roth’s — no house, one 11 year old car — nuthin’
By your measure, I should be a Democrat…
What about those folks who aren’t as blessed as yourself Frank? And don’t say it’s all because of your hard work.
My patients didn’t choose to be schizophrenic. My friend did not choose to contract multiple sclerosis. And my grandmother worked until she was 85. She lived until 92. She was a professional woman with 2 masters degrees who owned a home and had a pension plan. But she would not have made it without social security and medicare.
Yes the system needs to be fixed. No it isn’t all the fault of Bush and the republicans. But medicare D is a mess. And real people, through no fault of their own, will suffer. All because the Bush white house pushed through a shoddy plan without an appropriate period of implementation.
Your mind is easily boggled. You’ve never heard me say it was a good system. It has never been improved by either a Democrat or a Republican, since my wife got involved in it in about 1990
Frank;
Didn’t you say you and your wife were on Medical or Medicaid?
Your principled stand against the people who caught you in the
healthcare net boggles the mind.
Do you think republicans got you the ‘bad system’ which enables
you and your dependents to receive free health care? It contin-
ually amazes me how many americans vote republican when it
goes so clearly against their economic interests.
STOP THE PRESSES! A Government program can’t solve everyone’s problems overnight?!?
Color me shocked…
I wondering why this isn’t an excellent example of what happens when you add more governmental bureaucracy into a system?
It’s only in the “economic interest” of those who get someone else to pay for them. It’s easy to vote for additional entitlements for yourself when someone else will pay for it, isn’t it?
I understand perfectly…every time the government gets bigger things get worse.
JWG, Farris;
Obviously, context is a meaningless concept to you.
Cleo, the President of the United States is not the nation’s Chief Financial Officer. If we had left the original system of government alone, there would be far, far less need for this macro – and micro – economic management, that has created the disaster we call the national economy…
JWG: 2 points. First, Blue states tend to be donors to the federal system. They put more in then they back. Red states are receivers. They take more than they give. So, actually, the blue states continually vote to “give entitlements to others”. Not that I like blue state/red state mentality, but there it is. So, basically, you don’t get a point there.
Second, all the periods of greatest growth have been during progressive policies. We are a powerhouse because of progressive policies. And so is every other economic powerhouse in the world. Name one country whose econmy is rocking based on lassiez faire (or however you spell that french shit).
Name one country whose economy is rocking based on laissez faire
I’ll name two: Hong Kong and Singapore
Second, all the periods of greatest growth have been during progressive policies.
Now, you prove that one. See you later.
This kind of analysis doesn’t tell us who is receiving the aid and who they voted for. Furthermore, Red/Blue is only based on the presidential election, but the congressional makeup is different. Likewise, state legislatures cannot be determined by looking at the red/blue divide.
Er…I’m not sure who you think is an “economic powerhouse,” but the European nations are struggling.
The group that did the analysis comparing Red/Blue to tax burden/subsidy, The Tax Foundation, explains the disparity:
I “get the point” about taxation and federal spending very well. I also understand that most people will always vote for a program as long as they don’t have to pay for it. So when we shout, “Make the rich pay more,” we are guaranteed more government, more bureaucracy, and more inefficiency.