The Difference Between Opposing And Governing
The Washington Post is reporting that the Democrats have suddenly discovered that one of their nebulous campaign promises, so easily stated, is not at all easy to actually implement. Their promise to allow Medicare to "negotiate" lower drug prices (which translates to "price controls" on drug manufacturers) turns out to not be all that great an idea in light of the actual success of the prescription drug benefit plan in driving costs lower already. In other words, there are very strong indications that this program isn't broken.
Polls indicate that more than 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied, even though nearly half chose plans with no coverage in the doughnut hole, a gap that opens when a senior's drug costs reach $2,250 and closes when out-of-pocket expenses reach $3,600. By the latest estimates, 3 million to 4 million seniors will hit the doughnut hole this year and pay full price for drugs while also paying drug-plan premiums.
The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The cost was projected to rise to $45 billion next year, but Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month.
Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, called that a remarkable record for a new federal program.
Initially, he said, people were worried no private plans would participate. "Then too many plans came forward," Reischauer said. "Then people said it's going to cost a fortune. And the price came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said they're low-balling the prices the first year and they'll jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, 'We've got to have the government negotiate lower prices.' At some point you have to ask: What are we looking for here?"
Whether or not you were in favor of this program, the fact is that it is in place now and therefore very difficult to undo. As with all Federal programs they are easier to put in place than to get rid of later. But tampering with the program so soon when there are indications it is working much better than originally thought and at a much lower cost, is a bad idea. The Democrats are running the risk of hurting rather than helping seniors.
And they vote.
By Peejz, Sunday, 26 November , 2006 @ 7:48 am
Must link to this article! I have been talking about the fact that once these big box stores started offering free or very cheap drugs, the prices would come down…
By Gaius, Sunday, 26 November , 2006 @ 7:59 am
Yeah, with Wal-Mart suddenly slashing the prices for generics, the equations changed dramatically.
By Peejz, Sunday, 26 November , 2006 @ 9:31 am
I am in MI, and we have stores call Meijers or Meijer Thrithy Acres..they are offering free to compete against Walmart…with the Meijers plan, all one need do is bring the script in..there is no economic walls put up..the poor and the rich get the drugs for free…Even at $5.00, one can’t sneeze at that deal! This will change the drug industry pricing…it may put the Mom and Pop pharmacies out of business though…
By Arlo, Sunday, 26 November , 2006 @ 11:15 am
So, they put this program in place with really no idea of how much it would cost? Early reports were that it would actually cost 60% more than projected, then that it would cost double and now its something else? These are pretty huge sums; our leaders put in a program like flinging it against the wall and seeing what happens.
Same way they did the Iraq War, “Lets see what happens.”