Can't Have It His Way...
Mr. Narcissist (Obama) isn't getting his way with the GOP House of Representatives. They won't give him more money to waste rewarding his friends like General Electric, and Wall Street. No, he's beginning to find out what it's like in the REAL WORLD! Why he may just have to stop spending and borrowing on August 3rd. This is unfortunate for all of us!
Get Ready for HIS Message
Get ready to hear the broken record: "I inherited this mess...", "It was caused by the previous administration...", "Hey, we're making progress, it just takes time."
We've heard it all before. Obama refuses to take any responsibility for any of HIS actions. Instead he points blame to wherever he can because it's never his fault. The economy is a prime example. After 30 months of Obama's policies, America is worse-off now than they were before he took over! And yet, he will not be responsible. His solution is to continue the same failed policies over and over.
Let's face it, we elected a guy who had never done a budget and then we gave him the biggest budget in the world. That's our fault for not hiring someone who was QUALIFIED for the office of President. Obama is NOT A LEADER!
Don't Expect Things To Get Better
If we do not raise the debt ceiling, don't expect that Obama will handle the situation with any degree of competence. He's already shown us that he is incapable. He has no plan for cutting spending. No, he wants to continue borrowing and spending just like he has the last 30 months in office. This is all he knows what to do. He's NOT a responsible person. Look what that's done to America! Things will only get worse. The one good thing is that it should make your decision a lot easier when the 2012 election rolls-around. If Congress forces the government to spend ONLY what it brings-in, times will become harder than they are now. Count on it! But what do we do until then?
Be Prepared
The Boy Scout's motto is "Be Prepared." Are You? It's a long way off to the November elections. Are you prepared for emergencies? Have you stocked-up on your food supply at home? Could you go more than a week without shopping? A month? Three months? How about first aid supplies? What about the basic essentials like soap or toilet paper? How will you communicate if your cell phone quit? Have you even thought about these things? Do you have a disaster survival plan? Have you discussed this with your family? Why not?
Could you help people who are NOT prepared? You had better! There will be many people who are not prepared and will need help. After Hurricane Katrina, we all learned that you cannot count on the government for disaster assistance. Just the opposite. The government actually used the National Guard to unlawfully disarm citizens from protecting their own property. We have to be self-reliant and not to expect to ever count on BIG Government to help. Are you ready? Think about it and take affirmative action. Get prepared for disaster. There is one looming in your near future! Don't be one of those individuals who is looking for a government handout! There won't be any!
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
What A Surprise
House GOPs Cave Again!
If you recall the DEMs couldn't pass any budget while they were in charge of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. Then the Republicans (GOPs) were elected as the majority in the House in 2010. We all expected big changes - didn't we?
Look What We Got Instead
The GOPs caved-in after "negotiating" for last year's so called budget deal. They promised the electorate that they would cut BILLIONS. After the smoke cleared, it wasn't even close to that number. It was a pittance - if anything. They were outsmarted by the DEMs into false promises of cutting and by the DEMs using funny money tricks as their "cuts."
What a Bunch of Suckers
Now the GOP is "negotiating" for the debt ceiling. These talks are for a much higher stake. This will affect future generations for years to come. So look who's in charge - once again - John Boehner. Yeah, Mr. Crybaby!
Boehner is floating around the message that the GOP "will compromise on the debt ceiling" yet again! What a pussy cat! If it isn't obvious yet, the Good-Old-Boys (including John Boehner) are a major part of the problem in Washington! Neither side is willing to face the music - even though we elected them to do so! All they do well is to borrow and spend the USA into its demise. And, what's worse, they don't give a care! No, instead, they play hot potato with our lives and our grand children's lives.
This Incompetence Has to Stop
We need to literally "flush-out" the trash in Washington, DC. It's destroying America. If the GOP raises the debt ceiling based on more DEM promises of future cuts, they have failed us once again. We can no longer trust ANYONE in elected office to represent us.
Watch your Reps voting record. Vote them out in November if they support raising the debt ceiling. They are enemies of the American way of life and must be treated as such.
If you recall the DEMs couldn't pass any budget while they were in charge of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. Then the Republicans (GOPs) were elected as the majority in the House in 2010. We all expected big changes - didn't we?
Look What We Got Instead
The GOPs caved-in after "negotiating" for last year's so called budget deal. They promised the electorate that they would cut BILLIONS. After the smoke cleared, it wasn't even close to that number. It was a pittance - if anything. They were outsmarted by the DEMs into false promises of cutting and by the DEMs using funny money tricks as their "cuts."
What a Bunch of Suckers
Now the GOP is "negotiating" for the debt ceiling. These talks are for a much higher stake. This will affect future generations for years to come. So look who's in charge - once again - John Boehner. Yeah, Mr. Crybaby!
Boehner is floating around the message that the GOP "will compromise on the debt ceiling" yet again! What a pussy cat! If it isn't obvious yet, the Good-Old-Boys (including John Boehner) are a major part of the problem in Washington! Neither side is willing to face the music - even though we elected them to do so! All they do well is to borrow and spend the USA into its demise. And, what's worse, they don't give a care! No, instead, they play hot potato with our lives and our grand children's lives.
This Incompetence Has to Stop
We need to literally "flush-out" the trash in Washington, DC. It's destroying America. If the GOP raises the debt ceiling based on more DEM promises of future cuts, they have failed us once again. We can no longer trust ANYONE in elected office to represent us.
Watch your Reps voting record. Vote them out in November if they support raising the debt ceiling. They are enemies of the American way of life and must be treated as such.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Good-Old-Boys Can't Cut It!
Good-Old-Boy Network
It seems that both sides of the aisle cannot find ways to cut spending. This says a lot about who we have representing us in the US Congress. They are part of the old-school borrow and spend politicians. In part, it explains the 18% approval rating for Congress. One side refuses to cut entitlements while the other side refuses to cut military spending. Neither can make the hard decisions that we hired them to do last November.
One Thing for Sure
It's almost certain that the old school politicians will probably end up raising the debt ceiling and OR TAXES! The main reason is that they do not have the intestinal fortitude to face the music and "eat their peas." It's imperative that YOU as a voter and taxpayer remember who voted in favor to do this. No, they would rather make promises to cut spending over the course of the next ten years when some of them won't even be in office. They will have retired and be cruising on a full salary with full benefits and full medical (NOT ObamaCare medical).
The Good-Old-Boys claim that the Tea Party movement is responsible for their lack of agreement. Not quite. The Tea Party wants government to live within their means and not borrow and spend America into the grave. It's always easier to blame someone else then to face reality. We have seen Obama continue to blame Bush over the last 30 months. This behavior will likely to continue through the election cycle. It's never their faults. The other guy did it.
Cut, Cap and Balance
How does increasing borrowing more money lead to spending less money? That's totally ILLOGICAL! It's more smoke and mirrors that postpones the problem over a ten year time frame. This is NO SOLUTION! This is also NOT the answer. It depends on promises being made today. A promise is a wish to a fool! We need hard, firm commitments today!
We need to STOP SPENDING AND reduce government entitlement programs. We need to cut military expenditures. We need to stop devaluing our money by printing it excessively - diluting its buying power and raising prices to exorbitant levels. We need to lower taxes and ensure that EVERYONE PAYS TAXES. No more freebies! We need to eliminate wasteful government programs that cannot show any reliable data to validate their continuation! Project Head Start is a perfect example. Why do these failed public programs continue to receive BILLIONS in funding?
Hell, if we can make a list of cuts, why can't our Representatives and Senators? If they can't cut it, then DUMP THEM in November!
It seems that both sides of the aisle cannot find ways to cut spending. This says a lot about who we have representing us in the US Congress. They are part of the old-school borrow and spend politicians. In part, it explains the 18% approval rating for Congress. One side refuses to cut entitlements while the other side refuses to cut military spending. Neither can make the hard decisions that we hired them to do last November.
One Thing for Sure
It's almost certain that the old school politicians will probably end up raising the debt ceiling and OR TAXES! The main reason is that they do not have the intestinal fortitude to face the music and "eat their peas." It's imperative that YOU as a voter and taxpayer remember who voted in favor to do this. No, they would rather make promises to cut spending over the course of the next ten years when some of them won't even be in office. They will have retired and be cruising on a full salary with full benefits and full medical (NOT ObamaCare medical).
The Good-Old-Boys claim that the Tea Party movement is responsible for their lack of agreement. Not quite. The Tea Party wants government to live within their means and not borrow and spend America into the grave. It's always easier to blame someone else then to face reality. We have seen Obama continue to blame Bush over the last 30 months. This behavior will likely to continue through the election cycle. It's never their faults. The other guy did it.
Cut, Cap and Balance
How does increasing borrowing more money lead to spending less money? That's totally ILLOGICAL! It's more smoke and mirrors that postpones the problem over a ten year time frame. This is NO SOLUTION! This is also NOT the answer. It depends on promises being made today. A promise is a wish to a fool! We need hard, firm commitments today!
We need to STOP SPENDING AND reduce government entitlement programs. We need to cut military expenditures. We need to stop devaluing our money by printing it excessively - diluting its buying power and raising prices to exorbitant levels. We need to lower taxes and ensure that EVERYONE PAYS TAXES. No more freebies! We need to eliminate wasteful government programs that cannot show any reliable data to validate their continuation! Project Head Start is a perfect example. Why do these failed public programs continue to receive BILLIONS in funding?
Hell, if we can make a list of cuts, why can't our Representatives and Senators? If they can't cut it, then DUMP THEM in November!
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Guest Article - Why Progressive Policies Are Bad
Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society’s Moral Character
By Dennis Prager Talk show host
"While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society’s moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse. Here are 10 reasons:
1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I? This is why Western Europeans, people who have lived in welfare states far longer than Americans have, give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status.
The greatest description of American civilization was written in the early 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans — through myriad associations — took care of one another. Until President Franklin Roosevelt began the seemingly inexorable movement of America toward the European welfare state — vastly expanded later by other Democratic presidents — Americans took responsibility for one another and for themselves far more than they do today. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous. As the state grew, however, all these associations declined. In Western Europe, they have virtually all disappeared.
2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme. Conservatives have known this for generations. But now, any honest person must acknowledge it. The welfare state is predicated on collecting money from today’s workers in order to pay for those who paid in before them. But today’s workers don’t have enough money to sustain the scheme, and there are too few of them to do so. As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, and many American states, like California, are going broke.
3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic. The great preoccupations of vast numbers of Brits, Frenchmen, Germans and other Western Europeans are how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state.
4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work. Americans work considerably harder than Western Europeans, and contrary to liberal thought since Karl Marx, work builds character.
5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. In the liberal welfare state, one develops an entitlement mentality — another expression of narcissism.
And the rhetoric of liberalism — labeling each new entitlement a “right” — reinforces this sense of entitlement.
6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation’s currency, and they cannot arrest you.
7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband.
8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men — men who have not grown up — is that the liberal state has told men they don’t have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want.
And here is an example regarding both sexes. The loudest and most sustained applause I ever heard was that of college students responding to a speech by President Barack Obama informing them that they would now be covered by their parents’ health insurance policies until age 26.
9. As a result of the left’s sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend them.
10. The leftist weltanschauung sees society’s and the world’s great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.
None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms “social justice” and “compassion,” and by labeling their opponents “selfish” and worse.
If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful."
By Dennis Prager Talk show host
"While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society’s moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse. Here are 10 reasons:
1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I? This is why Western Europeans, people who have lived in welfare states far longer than Americans have, give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status.
The greatest description of American civilization was written in the early 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans — through myriad associations — took care of one another. Until President Franklin Roosevelt began the seemingly inexorable movement of America toward the European welfare state — vastly expanded later by other Democratic presidents — Americans took responsibility for one another and for themselves far more than they do today. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous. As the state grew, however, all these associations declined. In Western Europe, they have virtually all disappeared.
2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme. Conservatives have known this for generations. But now, any honest person must acknowledge it. The welfare state is predicated on collecting money from today’s workers in order to pay for those who paid in before them. But today’s workers don’t have enough money to sustain the scheme, and there are too few of them to do so. As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, and many American states, like California, are going broke.
3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic. The great preoccupations of vast numbers of Brits, Frenchmen, Germans and other Western Europeans are how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state.
4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work. Americans work considerably harder than Western Europeans, and contrary to liberal thought since Karl Marx, work builds character.
5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. In the liberal welfare state, one develops an entitlement mentality — another expression of narcissism.
And the rhetoric of liberalism — labeling each new entitlement a “right” — reinforces this sense of entitlement.
6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation’s currency, and they cannot arrest you.
7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband.
8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men — men who have not grown up — is that the liberal state has told men they don’t have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want.
And here is an example regarding both sexes. The loudest and most sustained applause I ever heard was that of college students responding to a speech by President Barack Obama informing them that they would now be covered by their parents’ health insurance policies until age 26.
9. As a result of the left’s sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend them.
10. The leftist weltanschauung sees society’s and the world’s great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.
None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms “social justice” and “compassion,” and by labeling their opponents “selfish” and worse.
If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful."
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Obama Committed a Crime in the WH
Obama Violated Federal Law
There is a law on the books that does not allow the uses of federal property to make political pitches or for fund raising events. However, this is exactly what Obama did with the help of the DNC in the White House. To be more exact, he video taped a political commercial in the Map Room. Using an official government office to conduct or solicit political contributions is AGAINST THE LAW!
Eric Holder Was Notified
Our Attorney General (Holder) was notified in writing and it appears that he has accepted the White House lame excuse that the Map Room is part of the "residence" making it a "perfect legal venue and that ample precedent exists for filming campaign materials on White House grounds." (The law makes it illegal to use ANY government property for this purpose).
Don't Expect Much
We already know that we can't expect much from Attorney General Holder. His past performance gives reason to believe that he will ignore these violations - just like he did when he dismissed the case against the Black Panthers caught on video tape harassing voters. He is also not cooperating with the Congressional investigation into the ILLEGAL sale of firearms to the Mexican Drug cartels. So with this attitude, why expect him to enforce the law?
What's Next?
Obama makes a mockery of the White House, the office of the Presidency, and his powers. So far, Holder is letting him get away with it. How about a raffle to raise money to lower the debt? Oh, that's right, Obama has NO PLAN - he just threatens to veto plans others create or punish senior, veterans, and the disabled. Isn't this video nothing more than selling access to the White House?
Why hasn't this been challenged and prosecuted? Why?
There is a law on the books that does not allow the uses of federal property to make political pitches or for fund raising events. However, this is exactly what Obama did with the help of the DNC in the White House. To be more exact, he video taped a political commercial in the Map Room. Using an official government office to conduct or solicit political contributions is AGAINST THE LAW!
Eric Holder Was Notified
Our Attorney General (Holder) was notified in writing and it appears that he has accepted the White House lame excuse that the Map Room is part of the "residence" making it a "perfect legal venue and that ample precedent exists for filming campaign materials on White House grounds." (The law makes it illegal to use ANY government property for this purpose).
Don't Expect Much
We already know that we can't expect much from Attorney General Holder. His past performance gives reason to believe that he will ignore these violations - just like he did when he dismissed the case against the Black Panthers caught on video tape harassing voters. He is also not cooperating with the Congressional investigation into the ILLEGAL sale of firearms to the Mexican Drug cartels. So with this attitude, why expect him to enforce the law?
What's Next?
Obama makes a mockery of the White House, the office of the Presidency, and his powers. So far, Holder is letting him get away with it. How about a raffle to raise money to lower the debt? Oh, that's right, Obama has NO PLAN - he just threatens to veto plans others create or punish senior, veterans, and the disabled. Isn't this video nothing more than selling access to the White House?
Why hasn't this been challenged and prosecuted? Why?
Monday, July 18, 2011
Guest Article - Obama Attacks MediCare
Posted By Tait Trussell in the Daily Mailer-FrontPage.com
"President Obama wants to severely wound the most successful government entitlement program and thereby undermine freedom of choice while putting at risk new biopharmaceutical research.
Even though he and many Democrats won’t face the reality of the foreboding bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security entitlement behemoths, Obama wants to make mincemeat of the prescription drug plan for seniors. That plan is known as Medicare Part D. What makes it so noxious to ultra-liberals is that it employs the power of the marketplace, “not top-down central planning,” as Grace-Maria Turner, president of the Galen Institute, puts it.
Another reason the prescription drug program gets under Obama’s thin skin is that it was George W. Bush’s idea and was enacted in 2003 under the Bush administration. It is so irritating to lefties because it “is providing unprecedented access and cost savings on medicines to over 29 million Medicare beneficiaries,” according to a July 2011 analysis by the Battelle Memorial Institute. Battelle is the largest international research and development organization. It is based in Cincinnati.
“Enrollees are overwhelmingly satisfied with their coverage” with an 84 percent satisfaction rate. However, the Part D plan was controversial when first enacted — It was feared its costs would exceed early estimates as is typical of federal government programs. Instead “average beneficiary Part D premiums in 2011 are 43 percent below original projections. The average monthly Part D coverage will be $30 in 2011, far below the $53 forecast originally, and an increase of only $1 over the 2010 average premium of $29,” said the Battelle study. A fact almost unheard of in these times of soaring health costs.
Medicare Part D offers subsidies to seniors which they can use to buy prescription plans from private companies, which compete for their business. The private plans have varying costs and work in ways from which seniors can choose. And they cover a large number of different drugs as needed by seniors. “The competition,” Turner explains, “create more choices for seniors with plans constantly forced to balance costs with providing the broadest coverge possible.”
The number of people enrolled in Part D has been rising steadily, from 11.6 million in 2005 to 27.6 million last year. Typically, the insurance companies offering prescription drug coverge plans negotiate with drug companies and pharmacies for the lowest prices. By getting bulk discounts, they can get lower prices for the drugs.
Price controls on medications is a public-policy threat, according to Kenneth C. Frazier, president and CEO of Merck & Co, pharmaceutical company. In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal July 13, he wrote Part D “is a successful program” which has allowed seniors “to have comprehensive drug coverage at a cost that is 50 percent below initial projections.” He cites the Battelle study showing that each job in the biopharmaceutical industry supports about 5.95 additional jobs in the economy. So each job lost has a large impact. He said the policy proposed by the Administration and some in Congress would result in 130,000 to 260,000 lost jobs, as cited in the Battelle analysis.
Beyond direct unemployment in biopharmaceutical companies, the Battelle analysis declared, “the biopharmaceutical sector is the foundation upon which one of the United States’ most dynamic innovation and business ecosystems is built…and acts as the funnel and distribution engine for getting life-saving and quality-of-life therapeutics to the marketplace,” Battelle added.
A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report said such a policy as proposed for Part D “could reduce the amount of funds manufacturers invest in research nd development of new products. Reducing investment in research will slow medical progress in Alzheimer’s, cancer and other conditions.”
Part D, it said, has avoided the type of government-imposed access restrictions common in Medicaid. Beneficiary choice among plans and the availability of a range of affordable options are key components of Part D, promoting both affordability and access to medicines.
A Lewin Group study found that in 2011 the Part D plans with the highest and second highest enrollment covered 99 percent and 94 percent, respectively, of the drugs most often prescribed to those 65 or older. So said the health research organization.
“In short,” wrote Grace-Maria Turner in Forbes, “the President’s plan will cut investment in research and development. In the longer term, the diminished incentive for success will have companies thinking hard about whether it’s worth it to invest $1.2 billion to bring a new drug to market when the government may set prices below their costs of development and production.”
Part D enrollees are permitted to change drug plans annually so they can maintain prescription drug coverage that fits their medical needs and pocketbook. Those who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid—about 9 million seniors—may change plans any time, unlike Medicaid where beneficiaries typically are restricted to the particular state’s preferred drug list. Imposing Medicaid-like price controls on Part D could raise cost for seniors–the same effect as a tax hike. Applying the Medicaid rebate rule to Medicare Part D would also likely mean higher prices for consumers at large, some economists predict.
A policy that threatens big job losses as well as Medicare beneficiaries’ access to life-saving drugs should be dismissed outright."
"President Obama wants to severely wound the most successful government entitlement program and thereby undermine freedom of choice while putting at risk new biopharmaceutical research.
Even though he and many Democrats won’t face the reality of the foreboding bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security entitlement behemoths, Obama wants to make mincemeat of the prescription drug plan for seniors. That plan is known as Medicare Part D. What makes it so noxious to ultra-liberals is that it employs the power of the marketplace, “not top-down central planning,” as Grace-Maria Turner, president of the Galen Institute, puts it.
Another reason the prescription drug program gets under Obama’s thin skin is that it was George W. Bush’s idea and was enacted in 2003 under the Bush administration. It is so irritating to lefties because it “is providing unprecedented access and cost savings on medicines to over 29 million Medicare beneficiaries,” according to a July 2011 analysis by the Battelle Memorial Institute. Battelle is the largest international research and development organization. It is based in Cincinnati.
“Enrollees are overwhelmingly satisfied with their coverage” with an 84 percent satisfaction rate. However, the Part D plan was controversial when first enacted — It was feared its costs would exceed early estimates as is typical of federal government programs. Instead “average beneficiary Part D premiums in 2011 are 43 percent below original projections. The average monthly Part D coverage will be $30 in 2011, far below the $53 forecast originally, and an increase of only $1 over the 2010 average premium of $29,” said the Battelle study. A fact almost unheard of in these times of soaring health costs.
Medicare Part D offers subsidies to seniors which they can use to buy prescription plans from private companies, which compete for their business. The private plans have varying costs and work in ways from which seniors can choose. And they cover a large number of different drugs as needed by seniors. “The competition,” Turner explains, “create more choices for seniors with plans constantly forced to balance costs with providing the broadest coverge possible.”
The number of people enrolled in Part D has been rising steadily, from 11.6 million in 2005 to 27.6 million last year. Typically, the insurance companies offering prescription drug coverge plans negotiate with drug companies and pharmacies for the lowest prices. By getting bulk discounts, they can get lower prices for the drugs.
Price controls on medications is a public-policy threat, according to Kenneth C. Frazier, president and CEO of Merck & Co, pharmaceutical company. In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal July 13, he wrote Part D “is a successful program” which has allowed seniors “to have comprehensive drug coverage at a cost that is 50 percent below initial projections.” He cites the Battelle study showing that each job in the biopharmaceutical industry supports about 5.95 additional jobs in the economy. So each job lost has a large impact. He said the policy proposed by the Administration and some in Congress would result in 130,000 to 260,000 lost jobs, as cited in the Battelle analysis.
Beyond direct unemployment in biopharmaceutical companies, the Battelle analysis declared, “the biopharmaceutical sector is the foundation upon which one of the United States’ most dynamic innovation and business ecosystems is built…and acts as the funnel and distribution engine for getting life-saving and quality-of-life therapeutics to the marketplace,” Battelle added.
A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report said such a policy as proposed for Part D “could reduce the amount of funds manufacturers invest in research nd development of new products. Reducing investment in research will slow medical progress in Alzheimer’s, cancer and other conditions.”
Part D, it said, has avoided the type of government-imposed access restrictions common in Medicaid. Beneficiary choice among plans and the availability of a range of affordable options are key components of Part D, promoting both affordability and access to medicines.
A Lewin Group study found that in 2011 the Part D plans with the highest and second highest enrollment covered 99 percent and 94 percent, respectively, of the drugs most often prescribed to those 65 or older. So said the health research organization.
“In short,” wrote Grace-Maria Turner in Forbes, “the President’s plan will cut investment in research and development. In the longer term, the diminished incentive for success will have companies thinking hard about whether it’s worth it to invest $1.2 billion to bring a new drug to market when the government may set prices below their costs of development and production.”
Part D enrollees are permitted to change drug plans annually so they can maintain prescription drug coverage that fits their medical needs and pocketbook. Those who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid—about 9 million seniors—may change plans any time, unlike Medicaid where beneficiaries typically are restricted to the particular state’s preferred drug list. Imposing Medicaid-like price controls on Part D could raise cost for seniors–the same effect as a tax hike. Applying the Medicaid rebate rule to Medicare Part D would also likely mean higher prices for consumers at large, some economists predict.
A policy that threatens big job losses as well as Medicare beneficiaries’ access to life-saving drugs should be dismissed outright."
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
