Rush's site has some interesting statistics from a Robert Samuelson column in the Washington Times (which I can't find) on the new prescription drug entitlement our Congress has just tacked onto Medicare. It looks like seniors don't even want it.
Robert Samuelson, who is one of my favorite columnists, is in the Washington Times. He's an economist. He says given all of the excitement you think that passing a Medicare drug benefit would solve one of the nation's pressing social problems. It won't, he says pointedly. But you wouldn't know that from politicians in the news media. They treat the elderly’s problems in getting drugs as a major social crisis. You would know it if you'd read a government survey of Medicare recipients in 2002. It asked this question. "In the last six months, how much of a problem, if any, was it to get the prescription medicine you needed?" The answers were, 86.5%, not a problem. 9.4%, a small problem. 4.2%, a big problem. This a government survey of Medicare recipients! And only 4.2% say it's a big problem! And we are creating the largest entitlement in 40 years to solve a big problem for 4.2%, not of the population, but of the Medicare population. Which is why I have been saying lets fix it for those people - 86.4%, it's not a problem. That's why we're not hearing from them on the phones here calling and complaining at me for standing in the way of something they need. It's not a problem. Prescription drugs are not a problem. It is a manufactured Washington politician problem, to advance the expansion of government conceptually and realistically. Now, let's put some numbers to these percentages, okay? Let me give you the percentages again. Numbers are hard to follow on the radio. Medicare recipient survey, 2002, federal government did the work. 86.5% getting drugs not a problem. 9.4%, small problem. 4.2%, a big problem. Medicare has 41 million beneficiaries. Even 4.2% represents about 1.7 million people. We are creating the nation's largest entitlement in 40 years to serve the needs of 1.7 million people. ...One thing the government survey doesn't say is whether the problems of this 1.7 million people reflected high drug costs, doctors' reluctance to write scripts or something else. But most people can somehow afford their prescription drugs. Now, in 1999, about 30% of retirees had insurance from former employers. About 20% had government coverage, mainly from Medicaid and the department of veterans affairs. Another 25% bought insurance, called Medigap or had some other coverage. For the very poor without coverage, pharmaceutical companies provide free or heavily discounted drugs. Nobody designed this. It's a flawed and messy hodgepodge that on balance works, though. It works.
My biggest frustration with the Bush administration is its proliferate spending. Does Bush really think old people are going to start voting Republican if he gives them money? Please. I know a good number of older folks, and their political affiliation is pretty well set in concrete. My grandmother wouldn't vote for a guy with an R behind his name if he was running against the Marquis de Sade - D.
Does Bush really think old people are going to start voting Republican if he gives them money? Please. I know a good number of older folks, and their political affiliation is pretty well set in concrete. My grandmother wouldn't vote for a guy with an R behind his name if he was running against the Marquis de Sade - D.
The answer is no--he is just giving people what they have asked for. But another question needs to be asked of you, Michael. Have you ever heard of FDR and LBJ? The two biggest "money for your vote" peddlers of all time! Interesting they both had "D" behind their name. How do you think those old people had their minds made up? It wasn't because of principle, it was cash on the barrel head.
But... but... the whole point of my post and Rush's article is that seniors don't really want it that much. It's a manufactured issue.
Seniors don't only like Dems because of spending, I don't think... not that I fully understand it, since thy often seem to be nearly totally irrational on the issue.
I don't agree with Rush. It isn't a "manufactured issue".
HERE IS THE ARTICLE:
There are two good Samuelson articles on the issue, but in the Washington Post, not the Times. The one Rush must have referred to is today's article (Nov. 24), aptly titled Medicare as Pork Barrel. His piece in June provides some more information about the plan.
IMO, even if a 'problem' of helping truly needy seniors with large pharmaceutical expenses can be defined, then this bill doesn't solve it.
Dave wrote:
this bill doesn't solve it
You are most likely correct. I can't say I know enough (anymore) about this particular bill to have an opinion about it. I was initially in favor of it, but may have been mistaken. However, I still don't agree with Rush that this is a manufactured issue. He has had quite a lot to say about certain health care issues that he knows very little about.
I am usually in agreement with Rush on most political and social issues, although I think he is a blowhard in love with the sound of his own voice. On this issue, however, he really makes me angry.
P.S.
My initial comment was directed more towards the idea of buying votes by passing entitlements than towards this specific issue.
It seems to me that a better way to tackle the problem with prescription drug prices is NOT to subsidize them with the plan set to pass, but to do something to pressure drug companies AND pharmacies to lower their prices on prescription drugs.
I think one of the reasons for the outrageous prices on a lot of these drugs is that if we, as patients, are prescribed the drugs for our health, we are stuck having to pay whatever the price is. It looks to me like this latest drug plan is a no-win for the consumer/patient.
Heather: The government has no business pressuring any business to raise or lower its prices. That leads to shortages, lost production, waste, inefficiency, and in the long run poorer service at higher prices for everyone.
You also said: "I think one of the reasons for the outrageous prices on a lot of these drugs is that if we, as patients, are prescribed the drugs for our health, we are stuck having to pay whatever the price is."
Uh, yeah... and if I want a new car, I'm stuck having to pay whatever the price is. And if I want to eat, I'm stuck paying whatever the price is. What's your point?