Republican Medicare bill is a SHAM!

[HARDCORE]

KEITH -

The problem with American Medicine is: Overpaid doctors, overpriced drugs, overpriced medical equipment, overpriced insurance, too many over paid lawsuits, and the unwillingness to acknowledge they are overpaid and overpriced.

Never were truer words spoken!!

VERITAS

[skeeter]

I think it was Wednesday eveing that I happen on to a web site, that had a message board on this new Medicare bill that our "no-gooders" just past. I made several messages with reference to the fact that over 450 AARP members was caneling their membership per hour. As Of this morning, there had been 23641 members call in to canncel their memberships.

Now that remarkable results in just three days... At that rate AARP will memberless in a fews weeks.

[MM38084]

The real truth behind this is the insurance and drug companies had a simple prescription for success. If you want seniors to buy more of your drugs, then buy congressmen. Lots of 'em.

According to the watchdog groups that scrutinize Washington, votes for the bill corresponded closely with how much cash each lawmaker has collected from the HMOs and pharmaceutical manufacturers.


House members who supported the measure received about twice as much money from the health insurers, HMOs and drug companies as those who opposed it. Some have received up to $250,000 for their campaign coffers over the past four years.


Is it any wonder that Congress gave the insurers tens of billions of dollars in subsidies? One reason the bill forces seniors to pay so much in out-of-pocket costs is that lobbyists have so many lawmakers in their back pocket.


If it's true that the health and drug industries will reap a windfall from this new Medicare system, then it's also true that they sealed the deal in the House - where the bill passed by just five votes - by doling out lots of cash. A good investment paid off.


Figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that House Republicans who backed the legislation received an average of $28,000 in contributions from drug companies compared to less than $8,000 for the opponents. Democrats who voted for the bill received an average of $22,000 from the health insurers; Democratic opponents pocketed less than $10,000.


This is how the system works when $400 billion is at stake. The more the special interests spend, the more votes they get. And supporters will be paid handsomely in the coming 2004 election season.


Similar shenanigans were at work in the Senate. Perhaps most unforgivable were the actions of Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who was too busy campaigning for president to cast a vote on the Senate floor. Perhaps Lieberman, who was expected to vote "no," dodged the vote for a good reason - he tops the Senate with contributions of $87,000 from HMOs.


Beyond the Medicare bill, this pattern of paternalism, with the big-money interests leading Congress by the nose, was simultaneously on display when a bloated energy bill passed the House and almost won final approval in the Senate.


The $31 billion measure consisted mostly of tax breaks and subsidies for oil and gas companies, electric utilities and the coal industry. Not surprisingly, those House members who voted for the bill received three times as much money from energy interests as those who opposed it. This disparity exists in the Senate too.


Rather than fashion a bill that emphasized conservation and renewable sources of energy, the legislation, crafted behind closed doors, was packed with $23 billion worth of gifts for the old-school energy industries, plus lots of blatant pork barrel projects to benefit key lawmakers' states.


Despite intense arm-twisting by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, both with close ties to the oil industry, the bill sank under its own weight as even some Republicans complained loudly that it was a giveaway for special interests.


But Bush was ready and eager to sign it. That's no surprise to those who keep tabs on the White House's willingness to give Capitol Hill free reign. The president has emerged as a big spender, with discretionary spending - the portion of the budget subject to limitations - jumping by an astounding 27 percent over two years.


Even if you subtract the Pentagon expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending has far outpaced the track record under Bill Clinton. To be sure, Clinton had a conservative Congress keeping him in check. But there are no checks and balances with the Bush White House - the president has yet to veto a single bill since taking office.


Increasingly, Bush doesn't appear compassionate or conservative.


As for Congress, they're comfy and cozy with their special interest buddies. For our lawmakers, it's the Christmas season all year 'round. They live each day by this simple creed: If you give, you shall receive.

[HARDCORE]

skeeter & MM38084

If true, then does this not finally answer the questioin: "Who do many in Congress really represent?"

NEED WE ASK?

VERITAS

[Keith_Hixson]

Before we become to critical of our elected officials. Often times congress represents the traditions of the past rather than the reality of the present.

When I became a city councilman back in 1978 I found out that so much that needed to be done was not allowed because of established rules, regulations and laws. The lattitude we had to do develop priorities and establish goals was very limited. The state and federal government had what is to referred to as "unfunded mandates" that our budgets were pretty well established for us. Mandate = requirement = had to be done! Unfunded = you take it out of the local budget. EVERY local politician gripes and complains about one thing UNFUNDED MANDATES. Well it is my guess that between the Supreme Court, The Excutive Branch, and Past rules and regulations that when a young congressman gets to Washington D.C. he finds out that his idealistic thinking is soon doused with a very large dose of reality that real change in government takes years and years not just the election of a new congress or administration.

Soo..... before I become too critical I always remember my experience as a councilman, mayor, and hospital board member and realize that often times good men are harnessed by the past. Also, in defense of moving slow, quick unthinking change can cause real problems. I have seen some dumb law pushed through that I knew was dumb at the time but someone with a little clout succeeded and a year later we would resend the law. So slow is sometimes good.

Tradition!, "fiddler on the roof" is powerful, very powerful indeed.
And tradition isn't all that bad at times. Congress and goverment is married to tradition!

Keith

[HARDCORE]

KEITH -

When I became a city councilman back in 1978 I found out that so much that needed to be done was not allowed because of established rules, regulations and laws.

"You just outlined the entire problem!" When something don't work, you fix it or expire under it's mass - that (I thought) was the American Way!?



VERITAS

[Keith_Hixson]

Anytime you have a Democratic, Representive form of government eventually the bureaucrats rule. We blame politicians and they are the ones who create the programs but its the pencil pushers who implement the programs. That is why I am not overly critical of politicians in general because the mistakes of (for example) 9 -11 - 01 were mistakes within the organizations of the FBI and CIA and not necessarily either Bush's or Clinton's fault. Politicians for the most part from the President on down to local mayors just don't have the time and energy to do micro-managing, but when some pencil pusher blows it, its the President, Governor or the Mayor who ultimately will get blamed, even if he had nothing to do with the decision.

Try for change when needed. Try to make sure the pencil pushers are doing the will of the elected officials. But go easy on the individual politicians because often the problem was not created by them. Though they may have the power to eventually make change, change does take longer than most of our patience.

Keith

[HARDCORE]

KEITH MY FRIEND -

What ever happened to "The Buck Stops Here" (Harry S. Truman)?

Granted, bureaucratic pencil pushers are a gaggle of goofs, who's talents rest at the bottom of the well of power. But unfortunately, their mistakes quickly become our pain and suffering!

However, if the man (or woman) at the top is naught but a powerless figurehead, then the people of this great nation of ours are being short-changed!

So whom do we blame, pray tell - the horsemen of the apocalypse, fate, or maybe fortune perhaps! Nay, the blame rests right at the top of the feeding chain, for with feast, also comes accountability for all of those who reside at one's feet, and that includes those oft-time useless, grossly egotistical pencil pushers, who wield that implement like a poisoned dagger!

"A general is always responsible for his lieutenants!" He can not eat only the cream and the cherry, he must also digest the cake, even when that cake is rancid!!

VERITAS

[Keith_Hixson]

The Buck stops here. Every politician should understand that when things go wrong the buck does indeed stop with them. I've had to face bad decisions by the city administrator, police chief, and director of public works. Good people who made minor errors in judgement Yep the buck stops with those willing to take the responsibility! And I think more politicians should stop blaming and take the heat.

But, what I was trying to say is: "some bureaucrats do stupid things and even though the buck stops with the politician, give them a little slack because sometimes they weren't the ones making the initial decision."

Keith

[HARDCORE]

Ah yes Keith, but who gives the people who suffer with these stupid decisions any slack?

In the end, it is usually the people who pay the tab!!!

VERITAS