Ok, I'm pretty ignorant on this, so let me explain what I understand, and you all correct me.
The prescription drug plan...
It is expensive. It costs tons of money. It is a huge entitlement. However, as writen, it provides the opportunity for seniors to join private health plans, instead of the "fed. only" medicare plan that has been in place for years. In otherwords, the new plan, though focused on prescription drugs, has language than my result in the phasing out of the old medicare plan.
So, even though it costs a lot now, it should, in theory, replace a completely socialist program with government subsidized, private sector- promoting, plan.
Since competition is involved, costs should decrease over the years, and government expenditures will decrease.
Now, I admit that I have not studied this. I dread the thought of reading legislation. I'm relying on what I hear/read in the news.
Is this "liberal" plan really a wolf in sheep's clothing?
Any way you look at it, its just another socialist drain on the productive portion of society.
Noone is entitled to anything other than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
things the government provides that are not needed and are in fact burdens:
-public transportation
-Bicycle lanes
-welfare
-socialist security
-any medicare, drug plans, etc
-public schools
-public housing
-and probably 100 other programs that I haven't even thought of yet
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Yeah, but that's not my question. is Bush trying to do away with the social program as best he can by pushing it toward privatization, or do I just misunderstand the policy?
I don't understand the whole program. I do know that it pisses off liberals to no end, so GW might be doing something right.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
OK, I've done some reading, and I think I understand why Bush pushed this plan (not saying I agree with it here). Dems made prescriptions for seniors an issue around the 2000 election. Bush did some issue stealing by having and passing his own plan. His plan has two fronts. One is to provide cheaper drugs for seniors. Whether this plan can do that or not is debatable. The second front is to give medicare participants the choice to go with an approved private plan, much like insurance many people get at work.
If this second front works out, more and more people will abandon traditional medicare for the reformed, privatized medicare. The goal is to remove government control over the program and use market forces to drive down costs. Will this work? I kind of doubt it, but I think I understand his motives. They fall along the lines of conservative motives (reduce government control), but its mostly playing politics, trying to beat democrats at their own game. Think about it. If seniors relied on the free market instead of government controlled medicare, then the Democrats have lost some of their precious control over a segment of the population.
However, privatized or not, medicares still a government funded program (your money and mine). The free market always seems to be tainted when the government puts money into it.
I guess it's up to you to decide if Bush's health plan is a baby-step in the conservative direction, a sell-out, a blatently liberal move, or whatever.
Bush's prescription plan
