November 11, 2005

CONSERVATIVES AGAINST AMERICANS (via Robert Schwartz):

The Party of Sam's Club: Isn't it time the Republicans did something for their voters? (Ross Douthat & Reihan Salam, 11/14/2005, Weekly Standard)

THE PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. Bush has three years yet to run, but this season of scandal and disillusionment is an opportune moment for conservatives to start thinking seriously about the post-Bush era--and particularly how to fashion a domestic policy from the wreckage of Bush-style, big-government conservatism. Thanks to the abiding weakness of the Democratic party, Republicans haven't yet paid a political price for insider-friendly appropriation bills, Medicare boondoggles, or the smog of semi-corruption rising from the party's cozy relationship with KStreet.

If you don't recognize that prescription drug coverage under Medicare was just as important to the base and Americans in general as any element of the Contract with America you oughtn't comment on politics.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 11, 2005 11:43 AM
Comments

Even if someone doesn't concede the point on prescription drug coverage, the "Medicare boondoggles" were the price of Health Savings Accounts, a significant reform.

It's really kind of funny when the recently graduated Ivy League Keyboard Corps of Cadets begins to lecture us all on what the rest of America thinks. :)

Posted by: kevin whited at November 11, 2005 12:13 PM

Kevin:

All anyone was talking about at the Yale-Harvard tunk was how little interest they had in whether the rest of the country could afford prescription drugs....

Posted by: oj at November 11, 2005 12:22 PM

Good luck to the average Medicare recipient when he or she tries to decode the prescription drug coverage brochures being sent out at taxpayer expense. Beautiful colored pictures of the glorious rainbow of racial types we geezers come in and very few facts.

I set up a spreadsheet to compare the various plans and the best I could do was to save perhaps $99.00/annum and even that I'm not sure about because there was some differences between the prices quoted by the insurers and the actual prices paid at the pharmacy. Each said their quotes were the correct ones.

Didnít want to take the time to dig deeper because I think itís probably a good rule of thumb that only those at the bottom of the income barrel will benefit which is okay with me, except I suspect this will be a golden opportunity for the unscrupulous to fleece some of the poor old folks the program is alleged designed to help.

Posted by: erp at November 11, 2005 2:05 PM

If you don't recognize that prescription drug coverage under Medicare was just as important to the base and Americans in general as any element of the Contract with America you oughtn't comment on politics.

That would include your buddy Robert Samuelson.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at November 11, 2005 4:33 PM

Matt:

Yes, he should stick to economics.

Posted by: oj at November 11, 2005 4:38 PM

Economics is inherently political.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at November 11, 2005 6:18 PM

By which I mean to say that there's no such thing as an economist who does not have political opinions.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at November 11, 2005 6:20 PM

Quite wrong?

We were quoted a premium of $45.89 per month, $100.00 annual deductible.

Actual costs at the local pharmacy: $1,673.12; projected costs through this program: $1,573.81, for a possible savings of $99.31 per annum. There was some question as to whether one of the drugs was covered so the savings might be further reduced.

Please identify where I went wrong.

Posted by: erp at November 11, 2005 7:42 PM

erp:

Yes, you'd save personally as will most all.

Posted by: oj at November 11, 2005 10:08 PM

oj. If you say so.

Posted by: erp at November 11, 2005 11:13 PM
« WHY THEY DON'T HAVE AN I.D. CONTROVERSY (via Robert Schwartz): | Main | WHO CONTROLS CA?: »