it's already passed, so why am i suddenly writing about it now? well, it was such a rushed job, i really didn't have much information before this week. over the past few days the more i read about the bill, the worse it seems. i can't even identify a single reason anyone would vote for such a bill if they were serious about improving medicare, let alone provide a new prescription benefit that is at all meaningful. here's one example that by itself undermines the entire purpose of the bill:
the bill would prohibit the u.s. government from negotiating any lower prices with pharmaceutical companies (something that every private insurance carrier does to keep down costs). thus, if the pharmaceutical industry decided to double the amount they charged medicare to make up for the concessions they give to private insurance carriers, the government would not be allowed to protest. the bill, in a sense, is an incentive for drug costs to increase. because even with the new benefit, the u.s. government will only pay a percentage of drug costs for medicare recipients, with the remaining costs paid out of pocket by the beneficiary, such increase will result in more costs being passed on to medicare recipients. as this study by the consumers union suggests, prescription costs for seniors are likely to increase rather than decrease, because the percentage of drug costs paid for by the government under the plan will likely be overwhelmed by the increase in the overall costs of drugs.
obviously this is not an issue that is easily explained to the general public or reduced to simple sound bites. to explain the problems with this bill, you need careful analysis and complicated explanations. which is why the leadership in congress insisted on a quick vote, to be held less than one week after the bill was introduced, even though the drug benefit will not take effect until 2006. if the effective date is two years away what is the hurry? someone, it seems, did not want this bill read too closely before it passed.
