The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed

the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost.

***************

I've often wondered why *anybody* would vote for a bill that prohibited
(!) Medicaid from negotiating with drug companies for the lowest
possible drug prices.

That's a real gift to the drug companies, as well as a budget buster.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed

the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost.

***************

I've often wondered why *anybody* would vote for a bill that prohibited
(!) Medicaid from negotiating with drug companies for the lowest
possible drug prices.

That's a real gift to the drug companies, as well as a budget buster.


What does your post have to do with boating Chuck? I thought just yesterday
you set a rule against OT posts. Can't you live by the rules you set?

On 11 Feb 2005 09:38:52 -0800, wrote:

The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed

the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost.

***************

I've often wondered why *anybody* would vote for a bill that prohibited
(!) Medicaid from negotiating with drug companies for the lowest
possible drug prices.

That's a real gift to the drug companies, as well as a budget buster.

I can't disagree with that. The Army now is getting their hearing aids through
the Veteran's Administration. The Army is not allowed to negotiate with the
companies, but the VA is.

I don't know if the same is true of drugs, but it was kind of interesting. A
doctor at Walter Reed told me this last week.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

JohnH wrote:

I can't disagree with that. The Army now is getting their hearing aids
through
the Veteran's Administration. The Army is not allowed to negotiate with
the
companies, but the VA is.

I don't know if the same is true of drugs, but it was kind of
interesting. A
doctor at Walter Reed told me this last week.

**********

Good lord, John. We agree on something? One of us needs to see a
doctor, right away. :-)


The Medicare reform gives one pause to consider the next target, Social
Security.
Here's the "person of foreign parentage" hiding in the woodpile with
the proposed Social Security "reform": If under the Bush plan, where
the money diverted from private accounts
can only go to a "limited group of securities", won't the enterprises
represented by those securities see their stock prices shoot over the
moon?

Who will pick which lucky companies the billions of diverted dollars a
year will be buying up?
Who will make multiple millions merely by knowing, in advance, which
securities will be "approved"?

Why can't we reform a system without creating a windfall for one
special interest group or another? Reformed shouldn't really mean
"reshaped" into a funnel, with a campaign booster's
open wallet at the bottom. I'm sure plenty of previous presidents from
both parties have done the same thing, but it was and remains wrong.

On 11 Feb 2005 14:47:10 -0800, wrote:

JohnH wrote:

I can't disagree with that. The Army now is getting their hearing aids
through
the Veteran's Administration. The Army is not allowed to negotiate with
the
companies, but the VA is.

I don't know if the same is true of drugs, but it was kind of
interesting. A
doctor at Walter Reed told me this last week.

**********

Good lord, John. We agree on something? One of us needs to see a
doctor, right away. :-)


The Medicare reform gives one pause to consider the next target, Social
Security.
Here's the "person of foreign parentage" hiding in the woodpile with
the proposed Social Security "reform": If under the Bush plan, where
the money diverted from private accounts
can only go to a "limited group of securities", won't the enterprises
represented by those securities see their stock prices shoot over the
moon?

Who will pick which lucky companies the billions of diverted dollars a
year will be buying up?
Who will make multiple millions merely by knowing, in advance, which
securities will be "approved"?

Why can't we reform a system without creating a windfall for one
special interest group or another? Reformed shouldn't really mean
"reshaped" into a funnel, with a campaign booster's
open wallet at the bottom. I'm sure plenty of previous presidents from
both parties have done the same thing, but it was and remains wrong.

The Social Security issue is not the Medicare issue. Unions, teachers
organizations, many, many state retiree systems, and the Federal Government have
been using various fund investments for their retirement systems. My wife has
used the Thrift Savings Plan for years.

The teachers here do not pay into SS. They pay into a retirement fund that gives
them a *much* better return than SS could hope to.

If the system allows for voluntary contributions of 3%, no one stands to lose
much. If the funds selected lose money, the voluntary contributions can be
stopped.


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On 11 Feb 2005 14:47:10 -0800, wrote:

JohnH wrote:

I can't disagree with that. The Army now is getting their hearing aids
through
the Veteran's Administration. The Army is not allowed to negotiate with
the
companies, but the VA is.

I don't know if the same is true of drugs, but it was kind of
interesting. A
doctor at Walter Reed told me this last week.

**********

Good lord, John. We agree on something? One of us needs to see a
doctor, right away. :-)


The Medicare reform gives one pause to consider the next target, Social
Security.
Here's the "person of foreign parentage" hiding in the woodpile with
the proposed Social Security "reform": If under the Bush plan, where
the money diverted from private accounts
can only go to a "limited group of securities", won't the enterprises
represented by those securities see their stock prices shoot over the
moon?

Who will pick which lucky companies the billions of diverted dollars a
year will be buying up?
Who will make multiple millions merely by knowing, in advance, which
securities will be "approved"?

Why can't we reform a system without creating a windfall for one
special interest group or another? Reformed shouldn't really mean
"reshaped" into a funnel, with a campaign booster's
open wallet at the bottom. I'm sure plenty of previous presidents from
both parties have done the same thing, but it was and remains wrong.

PS, Even Harry Reid thought the personalization of a small percent was a good
idea - until Bush suggested it!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:

PS, Even Harry Reid thought the personalization of a small percent was
a good
idea - until Bush suggested it!

***************************

I am a huge fan of private savings for retirement. Over the years I
have taken advantage of 401K and other programs to build up a cash
reserve for retirement. Last I looked, I think I was up to $219.00 :-)

I *agree with President Bush* (bet you never thought you'd read that
from me).....that individual private citizens need to be more
pro-active in planning for the last 20-30% of life when they will not
be working. I *disagree* with Bush that reducing Social Security taxes
for workers who agree to save the money privately instead will
strengthen the tottering Social Security program, or really provide an
adequate retirement savings for most Americans. The time to retire is
when you can sustain your current lifestyle from passive income, and
without spending into the principal. Folks who do otherwise all too
often wind up "greeting" at WalMart or flipping burgers. Might as well
keep working at a "real" job rather than retire to a mini wage teenie
bopper's gig.

I think that folks in their 50's who aren't saving 20-25% of their net
pay or who don't have a pipeline of income from dividends, rents,
royalties, etc are likely to be disappointed with life in their mid-60s
and 70's. The difference in return between private investment of 2% of
wages and the return that Soc Sec wold provide on that same amount
won't make a huge difference.

wrote in message
ups.com...
JohnH wrote:

I can't disagree with that. The Army now is getting their hearing aids
through
the Veteran's Administration. The Army is not allowed to negotiate with
the
companies, but the VA is.

I don't know if the same is true of drugs, but it was kind of
interesting. A
doctor at Walter Reed told me this last week.

**********

Good lord, John. We agree on something? One of us needs to see a
doctor, right away. :-)


The Medicare reform gives one pause to consider the next target, Social
Security.
Here's the "person of foreign parentage" hiding in the woodpile with
the proposed Social Security "reform": If under the Bush plan, where
the money diverted from private accounts
can only go to a "limited group of securities", won't the enterprises
represented by those securities see their stock prices shoot over the
moon?

Who will pick which lucky companies the billions of diverted dollars a
year will be buying up?
Who will make multiple millions merely by knowing, in advance, which
securities will be "approved"?

Why can't we reform a system without creating a windfall for one
special interest group or another? Reformed shouldn't really mean
"reshaped" into a funnel, with a campaign booster's
open wallet at the bottom. I'm sure plenty of previous presidents from
both parties have done the same thing, but it was and remains wrong.


I can envision a very simple computer system that would randomly distribute
trades amongst the various specialists (assuming we're talking stocks for
the moment). An entire industry would still benefit, but not one particular
firm.

Don't hold your breath, though.

On 11 Feb 2005 18:15:59 -0800, wrote:

John H wrote:

PS, Even Harry Reid thought the personalization of a small percent was
a good
idea - until Bush suggested it!

***************************

I am a huge fan of private savings for retirement. Over the years I
have taken advantage of 401K and other programs to build up a cash
reserve for retirement. Last I looked, I think I was up to $219.00 :-)

I *agree with President Bush* (bet you never thought you'd read that
from me).....that individual private citizens need to be more
pro-active in planning for the last 20-30% of life when they will not
be working. I *disagree* with Bush that reducing Social Security taxes
for workers who agree to save the money privately instead will
strengthen the tottering Social Security program, or really provide an
adequate retirement savings for most Americans. The time to retire is
when you can sustain your current lifestyle from passive income, and
without spending into the principal. Folks who do otherwise all too
often wind up "greeting" at WalMart or flipping burgers. Might as well
keep working at a "real" job rather than retire to a mini wage teenie
bopper's gig.

I think that folks in their 50's who aren't saving 20-25% of their net
pay or who don't have a pipeline of income from dividends, rents,
royalties, etc are likely to be disappointed with life in their mid-60s
and 70's. The difference in return between private investment of 2% of
wages and the return that Soc Sec wold provide on that same amount
won't make a huge difference.

If the amounts are so small, why such a big fight?

I've seen nothing to indicate that ss taxes would be reduced. I believe the
money would still be collected and then transferred to the 'account', just as
the Thrift Savings Plan does for federal workers now.

You didn't mention that the money in the 'account' would be part of a
transferable estate upon the death of the account holder. Right now virtually
nothing gets passed on to an heir.

Remember, the plan is designed not for people in their 50's, but for a much
younger population. I wish I had been investing 3% of my ss money into stock
funds since I began paying ss taxes as 17!

PS. Congratulations on your boy, Dean, getting the job he wanted. I'm sure he'll
do much to help the Democrats.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jim, wrote:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Follow the money

If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration
the
benefit
of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the
cost
of
the
Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that.

You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program
the
president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as
costing
$400
billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through
Congress
in
November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that
its
cost

over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion.
Then,
two
months later, the White House revealed that the program would
actually
cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after
that,
it
became clear that the administration knew all along that the
$400
billion number was fantasy. Internal administration
projections
put
the
10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld
that
information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the
Medicare
benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare
revealed
that
the
administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress
about
the
$551 projection.

And that brings us to today's news. The administration's
Medicare
chief
revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will
actually
cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but
$732
billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83
percent
over

what the administration told Congress when it was selling the
bill --

enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the
wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget
deficit
that
the
administration projects for 2009.

The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats
already
viewed
the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies
and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to
the
New
York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new
projection
for
Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush
administration."
If
the
White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why
should
anyone
believe the administration's projections for Social Security?

A better question might be, why is anyone surprised?

So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those
in
need?
I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs
so
the
people were dependant on the government.

And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance
plan
pushed
by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us?


Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the
numbers
is due
to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10
year'
costs.
Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals
without
a
brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll
chanting
the
erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he
is
clueless.

I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet?

Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental
problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I*
didn't
write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't
comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting
like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder
your
wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as
shallow
and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER
beat
my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If
that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting,
and you should seek help.

Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible
for its
accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by
newspaper folks are
'well researched and verified'.

Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm
personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John.