I've taken a dim view of the state Democrats' hack job website attacking Mike McGavick's Open Mike Tour. A large part of that dim view is based on the pathetic questions posed at the site, which I've already described as the policy versions of "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Take Question #3:
Why does Mike McGavick support President Bush's confusing prescription drug program and how does he intend to help Washington seniors get access to affordable medicines when President Bush and the Republican leadership won't allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies?
Give the Democrats credit, in one question they've packed in every myth about the Medicare Drug Benefit they can find. Too bad all of them are false.
A recent story in the Washington Post highlighting multiple independent studies noted "80 percent of people in Medicare drug plans were satisfied with their particular plan." But that wasn't the first time good news has been heard about the drug plan, though you wouldn't know it from Democrats.
A number of polls in the spring showed seniors overwhelmingly found the paperwork and signup process easy to complete, and that the program saved them money.
Democrats can't even get it straight on how the private sector competition in Medicare is saving money. Not only have costs to the federal government been lower than expected, and premiums for seniors cheaper than initial estimates, but it's happening because of competition, not government mandates. Specifically:
The drug plans competing for Medicare beneficiaries have been able to establish greater than expected cost savings from aggressive price negotiations, very low-cost coverage for generic drugs and less costly brand-name drugs, and other steps to keep drug costs down.
Oh.
The plan is by no means perfect, and no large government program is administered perfectly. But to believe Democrats, the Bush administration and pharmaceutical executives are simultaneously ripping seniors off while stealing the pill bottles out of the their dying hands.
Meanwhile, local Democrats continue to harp on the issue in defiance of recent news and facts. Today's Seattle Times quotes Darcy Burner as saying, "'Every senior we've talked to is completely frustrated with that program.'" Ever wonder why she thinks that?
Most likely because she's been hanging out with people like the Washington chapter of the Alliance for Retired Americans, the same group lauded thus at Horsesass in June when Congressman Dave Reichert wisely chose to pass on a forum hosted by the group:
It's a shame really, because this sounds like it would have been a wonderful opportunity for constituents to engage their representatives on these important issues, in a relatively nonpartisan setting.
Nonpartisan? Hah! Even the densest observer reading through the FAQ's at the Alliance's website, not to mention the list of unions that fund the group, can figure out their agenda. In case it's still a mystery, the main page at the website for information on Medicare and Prescription Drugs leads with, "Part D: What's Gone Wrong...Persistent problems continue to plague the floundering drug benefit."
On a personal note, I've dealt with this group before when I worked for Slade Gorton; at the time it was known as the Council of Senior Citizens . The politest way I can describe them is as a geriatric, slighter less vulgar - though equally rude - version of the commenters at Horse's Ass, plus they're all retired union hacks (meaning they're wildly open-minded).
These are the same people who used to look at me funny when I said most people my age don't rely on a pension for retirement (the idea of 401k's terrified them). If the Kossacks exemplify they new grassroots force in Democratic foreign policy thought, it's clowns like these that represent grassroots thought on Medicare: private companies = bad, government mandated handouts = good, actual policy facts = nowhere to be seen.
Inspiring.
UPDATE: description of the Council of Senior Citizens corrected.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 03, 2006 10:16 PM | Email ThisI've read the lit, Eric. Your side doesn't believe in social programs. They've gotta be axed. Your side believes in concentrating wealth and power. Did I mention tax cuts for the wealthy and massive subsidies for super rich oil companies? More conservative policies that are unhealthy for our nation.
Why even bother writing something like this?
Posted by: mountolympus on August 3, 2006 10:23 PMUh, if we believe in destroying Medicare, why did Republicans pass a drug benefit for which the staunchest fiscal conservatives have given the Bush administration a ton of grief?
Plus, before you characterize my side perhaps maybe you'd like to talk to my side about what we actually believe...instead of believing whatever "lit" you run across in liberal circles. Example: my posts here about Social Security have been about actually reforming the program to keep it intact, not the more radical, libertarian-style approach to disband the it all together and forgo the social compact that is now entrenched in our society.
I don't believe in concentrating wealth and power, I believe in empowering individuals with choices, not top-down government programs. Big difference.
Characterizing my beliefs as "your side" is like me pinning the beliefs expressed at DailyKos or MyDD on you, as if either of our "sides" is some sort of monolith. I might disagree with you, Mount, but I had until now given you credit for being more constructive than that.
Thank You!
Posted by: GS on August 3, 2006 11:50 PMTo anyone who complains about medicare part D, I have a very simple message: I am more than happy to rescind it!
Posted by: David Wright on August 4, 2006 12:06 AMThey'll be sticking with the fierce rhetoric though because the reality is that any time competition is introduced into anything, and especially a formerly big and bulky government program, the results can't help but be good.
The only thing the Democrats have here to console them, is their own complaining.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 4, 2006 07:40 AMIt makes perfect sense that "everyone" they talk to is frustrated with the plan. Say you ask people to rate the plan on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being it's absolutely worthless, untenable, unusable, and 10 being you don't have to lift a finger, everything just happens without thinking or doing.
Anyone rating it less than a 10 must have SOME problem with the system - I mean, they actually have to fill out a form, or do SOMETHING to get their benefit. Thus the system could be "improved", meaning that they must be dissatisfied.
See? Just have to look at it the right way...;)
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 4, 2006 09:13 AMThe Demorat's take over...it's thirty years down the road... they have taxed every penny they can extract from us and it still is not enough. What will they do...what will they ever do?
Can anyone say "positive eugenics,"... as Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood has suggested? Ms. Sanger, hero of the Demorat cause, has advocated eliminating the unfit, the "weeds overrunning the human garden"; the segregation of "the morons, misfits and maladjusted"; and the sterilization of "genetically inferior races." Ms. Sanger also stated that "caring for such weeds, destine to become a burden to themselves, to their families and ultimately to the nation," is not cost effective.
Positive Eugenics looks like the logical conclusion for those that may become "obsolete" in the eye of the DEMORAT'S!!!
Selecting your population properly allows for any answer youso desire.
Posted by: Fred on August 4, 2006 11:50 AMLOL. Yes, Fred. Just talk to Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein right now. Actually, maybe Darcy has taken a cue from their tyrannical playbooks on how to interpret surveys and such.
Posted by: ferrous on August 4, 2006 12:34 PMSo, if you'd like the facts, visit my site at http://www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com...
Yes, I know you want the third alternative of an improved part D benefit, but I'm asking you for a binary judgement between the two policies which have really existed, not a comparsion between reality and a fantasy in which you have wished away all the problems and compromises of the real world. So which do you prefer: the part D benefit that exists today or the no part D benefit that existed two years ago?
Posted by: David Wright on August 4, 2006 03:04 PMhttp://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=251091
I am sure GoPharmawhores shut this down.
PS Does the plan cover any re-attachments for self hating jews like Stephan? I guess he is counting on being one of the converted for the Bushco Armagedon. Thanks George.
Posted by: danw on August 4, 2006 03:22 PMUh, call me a wild-eyed skeptic, but isn't it a bad idea to rely on the federal bureaucracy to evaluate its own performance?
Eric, I'm sure you can do better than this. This report should at least have been laundered through some nominally-independent think tank before being posted on Sound Politics.
Posted by: John A. on August 4, 2006 04:33 PM