Would the Democrats have created Medicare part D?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If they had been in power during the early 2000s I have no doubt they would have, with only a few changes.  Thus I don't understand why Democrats bring this up as a reason Republicans are to blame for the deficit.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If they had been in power during the early 2000s I have no doubt they would have, with only a few changes.  Thus I don't understand why Democrats bring this up as a reason Republicans are to blame for the deficit.

Coulda shoulda woulda

[Link]

If they had been in power during the early 2000s I have no doubt they would have, with only a few changes.  Thus I don't understand why Democrats bring this up as a reason Republicans are to blame for the deficit.

You know something, I really wish Gore would have won.  Bin Laden would have been killed or captured at Tora Bora and we wouldn't have blown trillions of dollars on Iraq.  Even if part D was paseed (mighty big IF) at least it would have been paid for.  I try not to let myself think about it because I only end up getting pissed off.

A lot of history and politics is ambiguous.  A lot of it is open to interpretation.  I think the Bush years are one of those rare points in history where one man or group of men made a clearly terrible decision that other sane people wouldn't.  That's my problem with the guy.  I don't blame him for the housing crisis or most of the recession.  I do blame him for the Iraq war and the ridiculous tax cuts.  Without those two moves this country would be in an entirely different position.  Its my personal opinion but I doubt Obama would even be president right now were it not for those two ill fated decisions.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Didn't Gore and Lieberman run on opening up Medicare on a premium basis to people from 55 years old? That would seem to be to me far more responsible than Part D, so I have to imagine they wouldn't have.

[Napoleon]

It isn't as if they will get rid of it and that is what matters this many years laater. Still can't get them to end the wars or tax cuts either.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Didn't Gore and Lieberman run on opening up Medicare on a premium basis to people from 55 years old? That would seem to be to me far more responsible than Part D, so I have to imagine they wouldn't have.

How would that have been any less expensive?

[Badger]

Didn't Gore and Lieberman run on opening up Medicare on a premium basis to people from 55 years old? That would seem to be to me far more responsible than Part D, so I have to imagine they wouldn't have.

Oh, and no Bush tax cut.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Didn't Gore and Lieberman run on opening up Medicare on a premium basis to people from 55 years old? That would seem to be to me far more responsible than Part D, so I have to imagine they wouldn't have.

Oh, and no Bush tax cut.

That wasn't part of Medicare D.

[tpfkaw]

Gore had prescription drug coverage in Medicare as part of his DNC convention speech, so yes.

[King]

No.  If the Democrats ever had legitimate power, they would scrap Medicare completely and replace it with your standard, streamlined Western Democracy NHS instead of just adding more levels of bloated bureaucracy.

However, if Al Gore had power, then yes they would have created Part D.  However, Gore wouldn't have cut taxes and not pay for it.

[Sbane]

However, if Al Gore had power, then yes they would have created Part D.  However, Gore wouldn't have cut taxes and not pay for it.

This. The worst part about Medicare part D was not paying for it. Of course we can also argue about the merits of it, but what's really f'ed up is not paying for it and then blaming others when they try to clean up your mess. Sort of like the wars too. Who the hell cuts taxes when they go to war? It's so f'ed up that it's just funny now.

[Likely Voter]

The main critique of the program is how the law forbids the government to negotiate prices. This means the Part D program pays much more than other federal agencies (like Veterans Affairs) for the same drugs. The bill was literally written by the drug lobby, and of course it is just a coincidence that the lawmakers who pushed it through soon left congress for multi-million $ lobbying jobs with pharmaceutical companies.

A dem version of the bill would have cost less and been paid for with taxes (likely on the rich).

[© tweed]

The main critique of the program is how the law forbids the government to negotiate prices. This means the Part D program pays much more than other federal agencies (like Veterans Affairs) for the same drugs.

was hoping someone would bring this up.  such a provision is literally unparalleled in the whole history of the world; as Chomsky puts it, the Pentagon negotiates prices when it buys paperclips.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The main critique of the program is how the law forbids the government to negotiate prices. This means the Part D program pays much more than other federal agencies (like Veterans Affairs) for the same drugs.

was hoping someone would bring this up.  such a provision is literally unparalleled in the whole history of the world; as Chomsky puts it, the Pentagon negotiates prices when it buys paperclips.

Not exactly the same. There are no intellectual copyrights on paperclips -
To negotiate prices there has to be a credible risk for the buyer to walk away. So you have to recognize by doing that you are risking not having newer drugs available to those on Medicaid.

[Marston]

Billy Tauzin is to blame, folks. No one else.

[memphis]

The main critique of the program is how the law forbids the government to negotiate prices. This means the Part D program pays much more than other federal agencies (like Veterans Affairs) for the same drugs.

was hoping someone would bring this up.  such a provision is literally unparalleled in the whole history of the world; as Chomsky puts it, the Pentagon negotiates prices when it buys paperclips.

Not exactly the same. There are no intellectual copyrights on paperclips -
To negotiate prices there has to be a credible risk for the buyer to walk away. So you have to recognize by doing that you are risking not having newer drugs available to those on Medicaid.

Medicare is not Medicaid. And Medicare could very easily negotiate lower prices if the GOP would have let them. The drug companies aren't going to lose the business of millions. It's just another example that demonstrates who the GOP is looking out for. Their shamelessness is only matched by the public's ignorance.

[Sbane]

The main critique of the program is how the law forbids the government to negotiate prices. This means the Part D program pays much more than other federal agencies (like Veterans Affairs) for the same drugs.

was hoping someone would bring this up.  such a provision is literally unparalleled in the whole history of the world; as Chomsky puts it, the Pentagon negotiates prices when it buys paperclips.

Not exactly the same. There are no intellectual copyrights on paperclips -
To negotiate prices there has to be a credible risk for the buyer to walk away. So you have to recognize by doing that you are risking not having newer drugs available to those on Medicaid.

Good point, but you can still negotiate prices if you buy in bulk. And if you are paying full retail, then why not just order it on a case by case basis (ok maybe I am dreaming that a beauracracy will be capable of this) if needed. In the meantime use a tiered basis for giving out drugs, with the cheaper, generic versions being preferred first. And then on the basis of efficacy you can move on to brand name or other options. This is what hospital systems do.