I just turned 65 and should be as upset as anyone, but I’m not. The AARP supported this bill because they know it is only the beginning. Why should that be. Well, I’m a “depression baby” and there have never been enough of us to demand much at all. My brother, who is 6 years younger is among the vanguard of a group called the “baby-boomers”. They get whatever they want and they are starting to look towards retirement. That is why the Republicans got on the bandwagon. It was that or they’d be run over by the “boomers”. I suspect that some of those that are complaining here are “boomers” letting the world know they are not going to settle for this present bill.
My main problem with the Medicare bill is that as it’s presently structured, it’s an entitlement program for big pharmaceutical companies. Though a Dem, my disagreement is essentially Pubbie in nature – it is not using the money effectively, it’s just throwing money at the problem.
The government will pay for seniors to get meds, but has no bargaining power over the cost of those meds. Does this sound familiar? It does to me. It’s exactly like government scholarship programs, which throw money at the cost of college education, but have done nothing to control the cost of a college education.
Has anyone looked at how fast the cost of a college education has risen lately?
Is anyone naive and/or ignorant enough to believe that the costs of medicines won’t be subject to the same meteoric increases just as soon as the government starts paying?
This bill is ludicrously stupid and badly thought out. The only people for whom it is unalloyed good news is big pharm. They got their moneys’ worth out of their lobbyists this year.
I understand why democrats let Bush get this issue. Because in 2004 they can point out that it does very little to help seniors and that they can fix it. Republicans will essentially have to argue that they are better at big goverment programs than Democrats in order to gain from this issue. However it wont be too hard for democrats to claim that it is just a big giveaway to corporations and they would change it so that it helps seniors.
In simple terms, for the slow of mind:
Republicans who voted against the party leadership were not voting against core party principles.
Democrats who voted in favor of the bill were.
Simple enough to understand, I hope. :rolleyes:
So a Republican could have voted either way and still followed core party principles? These Republican “principles” you speak of are that much in conflict, or so unimportant? Or are you simply using self-defined caricatures of party principles, either way?
Stuff the insults, btw. That’s the sign of a loser, as you ought to know. Now come back when you have a thoughtful argument for us.
What’s new about that, Elvis? The Republicans have always been in favor of double standards – one for themselves, and one for everyone else.
If a Republican criticizes the President, he’s just exercising his liberties in an open society.
If a Democrat criticizes the President, he’s a traitor who supports terrorists.
:rolleyes:
As I understand DSY’s argument, the Medicare bill was not a reflection of Republican core principles. Republicans that voted for it were exercising a strategic choice, or blindly following their leaders; Republicans that voted against it were upholding the GOP’s core principles.
I don’t think I agree with that analysis, but I wanted to point out that he didn’t claim that Republican core principles were on both sides of the issue.
- Rick
I don’t agree with the OP. The bill had some elements that appealed to classic Democratic values (expanded social benefits) and some that didn’t (privatization elements). Everyone gets to decide for themselves how to weigh things. Furthermore, the Democratic Party, like the Republican, is not monolithic - there are people who find themselves closer to the “core” values of the Democratic Party than to the Republican and so identify with and join that party, but may diverge from the rest of the party on various issues. Nothing dishonorable about that.
That said…
Good point, that.
Izzy, have you got anything substantive to add to this discussion? No?
Bricker, you may be right about the GOP not having core principles really involved with this bill - but that flies in the face of the crowing (including in the OP) about this being the first step in the long-dreamed-of dismantling Medicare and, with it, the entire social-welfare state. Perhaps that isn’t a core principle for all of the Republican party, but for the controlling segment of it it certainly is - or it wouldn’t have made it out of conference committee. If this bill doesn’t illuminate what are core party principles (which can include pragmatism), either party’s, and what are simple politically-calculated bromides, what bill would be a clearer example?
Nope, the verdict on the OP remains: Simple partisan yammering.