TRACKING DICK GEPHARDT

In case you missed it, here is my latest piece in the American Spectator.

posted by David 11:53 AM

. . .

FISKING HARKIN

I’ve started to wonder if there aren’t quite a few good things in the recently passed Medicare Prescription-Drug Give Away bill, given the hissy fits that Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, the Des Moines Register editorial page, and the rest of their lefty cohorts are having. Granted, just because your enemies don’t like something doesn’t automatically mean it is a good thing. But, you at least have to raise an eyebrow and go “hmmm…”

Anyway, representing the Iowa portion of this collective conniption is none other than Senator Tom Harkin. In the hallowed pages of the Register, Harkin writes:

In the final days before Congress adjourns for the year, the Bush administration has rammed through what it calls a "prescription-drug benefit" bill. Don't be fooled. The real aim of this bill is to privatize Medicare.

And your aim Senator is to expand government and create universal Canada-style health care. Don’t worry, Senator, we’re not fooled.

Iowa seniors I talk to are very clear: They want to keep their traditional Medicare. They want affordable, reliable drug coverage. And they want cost containment. Under this bill, they lose out on all three counts.

Those would be the seniors that jam the Democrat-friendly Iowa union halls for Harkin’s occasional town meeting. The ones who think government should spoon-feed them from cradle to grave. Surely a representative group.

This bill will privatize Medicare, forcing seniors into private plans. If there are two private health plans in a given geographic area, seniors who want drug coverage will be required to join a private plan.

You mean seniors will get a voucher from Medicare to join a private plan? OH NO!!!! The world is coming to an end! That sounds like that terrible food stamps program where people are “forced” to redeem their food stamps at a local grocery store. They can’t buy their food directly from the government! What an awful concept, requiring those sucking on the government teat to make choices based on the free market.

To get folks to swallow the bitter pill of privatization, the bill's sweetener is a prescription-drug benefit - which is expensive, complicated and laughably inadequate. The deductible is $250, and annual premiums come to at least $420. So seniors will have to pony up $670 to receive even their first dollar in benefits. After the deductible is met, the government will pay 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250. At that point, the government will pay nothing until the senior reaches a catastrophic level.

This scheme is guaranteed to leave seniors feeling ripped off. A typical senior with $5,000 in annual drug costs will pay nearly $4,000 out of pocket.

Here’s a better idea, Senator Harkin: Let those seniors with $5,000 in annual drug costs pay exactly $5,000 out of pocket. That is, let those folks who want drugs pay for them themselves. Why should Joe Taxpayer foot the bill so the wealthiest demographic group in our society—a group that spends more each year on entertainment than they do on prescription drugs—can have more discretionary income? Oh, that’s right. You’ve never exactly been the taxpayer’s best friend, have you Senator Harkin?

Millions of seniors will be worse off under this bill. Many will lose retiree health benefits, which are typically much better than this Medicare proposal.

That’s what happens when the government starts giving away “free goodies” Senator. The private sector is always looking for way to cut costs, and why pay a cost when the government will pick it up for you? That would have happened with any such drug bill, including one you would have favored, Senator.

Many more could pay more in premiums and deductibles than they will get in benefits.

Again, why is it that seniors shouldn’t have to pay for their own drugs?

How did we arrive at this mess of a bill? What began as a straightforward effort to add a drug benefit was hijacked by corporate interests. It became a Big Money crusade - behind closed doors - to experiment with privatizing Medicare, exposing seniors to the volatility of HMOs and the drug industry.

This is a flagrant example of the special interests triumphing over the interests of ordinary people. Under Franklin Roosevelt, we had the New Deal. Under Harry Truman, we had the Fair Deal. Under George W. Bush, we have the Big Deal: The bigger you are, the better the deal.

This bill will provide billions of dollars in subsidies - call them bribes - to private HMOs. And it will ensure billions more in profits to drug companies. The bill actually prevents the government from negotiating lower drug prices for seniors. It speaks volumes that, on Wall Street, drug- and health- industry stocks are surging on the news of this bonanza.

You mean corporate America was trying to get its fingers into another government-subsidy pie? Well, Goshen to Christmas! Who woulda thunk?! I’m sure if the Democrats had a hand in writing it, there would have been nothing in it at all for labor unions and trial lawyers. If you believe that, there’s this bridge...

And while Harkin is in this flight of high principle and outrage about well-connected businesses getting payback in a government program, would it be too unsporting of me to point out that the Energy Bill that Harkin has recently supported contains some pretty nice mandates for ethanol producers? Would it be too unsporting of me to point out that ethanol is made from corn and it’s just a coincidence that Iowa is a big corn state? It would be too unsporting? Well, I’m very sorry.

There is an ancient principle in medicine: First, do no harm. This bill does grievous harm. It offers a devil's deal: In exchange for a miserably inadequate drug benefit, it will destroy Medicare as we know it. For the first time, it will cap overall Medicare spending, and that eventually will mean benefit cuts, means testing and significant reductions in reimbursements for doctors and hospitals.

You mean government will be limited in how much it can spend? Well, hallelujah! Sounds like government is finally following the principle of do no harm.

Let’s also remember the Democratic definition of a “benefit cut.” It does not mean “I got $150 last year, but only $100 this year.” It means they we’re going to increase spending by 8% next year, but now they’re only going to increase it by “only” 6 or 7%.

Means testing, as in those seniors who can afford to pay more should pay more? What, exactly, is so bad about that Senator Harkin? After all, you believe in that principle when it comes to taxes—or have you jettisoned your support for a “progressive” income tax? If we means test what the government takes from individuals, it seems only common sense that we do the same on what government gives to individuals.

As for significant reductions in reimbursements, it’s already happening Senator Harkin. That’s what happens with government programs. When people perceive that they are getting something for free, they demand more and more of it, until the government is struggling to find the resources to pay for it. Then the government either has to tax everyone into oblivion, or it has to cut costs. But never mind, you wouldn’t care anyway, Senator.

Indeed, House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, a California Republican who is the chief architect of this bill, makes no bones about his conviction that seniors should pay more for their health care and for prescription drugs.

You mean seniors should pay for their own drugs and health care? Well, I’ll be! What an idea! What…wait, haven’t I been here before?

He seems to believe that most seniors live in Beverly Hills and shop on Rodeo Drive.

Spare me the poor-downtrodden-seniors-eating-dog-food crap! You don’t have to be one of those wealthy Hollywood moguls who donate to your campaign, Senator Harkin, to afford health care. Like I noted above, seniors are the wealthiest group in our nation, and most can afford their own health care. Bills like this one aren’t about meeting seniors’ needs; it’s about meeting their votes.

It is shameful that Congress was rushed into this mistake. The drug benefit doesn't go into effect until 2006. It was wrong to force a vote on Monday on a 1,100-page bill that senators got on their desks Saturday morning.

And how many mega page omnibus budget bills have been rushed to your desk over the years Senator? Did you have the same concerns about those, or did it not really matter because you knew they were going to increase government spending?

Congressman Leonard Boswell and I refused to go along with this stampede.

Again, spare me.

Seniors want politicians and ideologues to stop messing with Medicare.

And the rest of America would like you to get your sticky fingers out of their pocketbooks.

And they correctly fear that privatization of Medicare is the first step toward privatizing Social Security as well.

God willing, Senator Harkin. God willing!

posted by David 9:46 AM

. . .