One must love the politics of entitlement, where the true colours of both sides of the American political spectrum really come out (i.e., they're all closet socialists who need an ass-beating before breakfast daily.) The Republican bill for the provision of prescription drugs to American seniors has been endorsed by senior advocacy group AARP and, while it faces some challenges in Congress, will most likely pass with flying colours now that it's got the geezer vote.
Medicare, our most bloated and wasteful federal program, is set to spend $ 400 billion in fiscal year 2004, up almost 20% in just four years. The prescription drug bill is designed to address the bizarre notion that somehow this is not enough for American seniors, and should it meet President Bush's requested budgetary guidelines will add another $ 40 billion per year to the figure.
Supporters of bill claim that the bill encourages private competition with Medicare, and that this will help to utilise market pressure to keep the cost of Medicare to the American taxpayer down (yes, they are spending $ 40 billion per year to save money!) But this is where the real error of the logic behind this bill comes in, because it does not move into the free market at all -- except in the twisted sense in which politicians tend to view the market. The oddly dichotomous definition of what constitutes a "free market" can be seen in two key aspects of the bill:
First, the bill provides a $ 12 billion "incentive" subsidy to the managed care industry, in order to encourage them to participate. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, the airline industry was granted a $ 15 billion bailout -- to help offset what was arguably the worst disaster to airline travel in its history. While the suitability or lack thereof of that largesse is a topic for another time, it is noteworthy that one industry's "disaster relief" is another's "incentive." Further, such subsidies serve to seperate consumption from cost and therefore run counter to market forces, not with them -- because when consumption is seperated from cost, the law of supply and demand is compromised irreparably.
Second, the bill leaves in effect the ban on the import of Canadian prescription medications, which can often be obtained more cheaply than American. If the federal government is concerned enough about the ability of American seniors to obtain affordable prescription drugs, why do they persist in placing this obstacle in the way of what must surely be thousands if not tens of thousands of Americans -- senior and otherwise -- who would avail themselves of lower-cost drugs north of the border, if only they were allowed to do so?
The GOP might be selling something with a label on it that says "competition," but the bill that is being introduced to Congress this week is anything but that under the surface -- in fact, with a $ 12 billion subsidy to private careholders, $ 40 billion per year added to Medicare-related expenditures, and a prohibitive ban on a solution to the very problem which the bill claims to address, it reads more like another step twards socialised medicine than away from it. And with the force of the special interest poster children the AARP behind it, the bill is almost certain to pass -- just another day in politics, another direlection of duty and breach of the limits of power of government.
Phaedrus
Medicare, our most bloated and wasteful federal program, is set to spend $ 400 billion in fiscal year 2004, up almost 20% in just four years. The prescription drug bill is designed to address the bizarre notion that somehow this is not enough for American seniors, and should it meet President Bush's requested budgetary guidelines will add another $ 40 billion per year to the figure.
Supporters of bill claim that the bill encourages private competition with Medicare, and that this will help to utilise market pressure to keep the cost of Medicare to the American taxpayer down (yes, they are spending $ 40 billion per year to save money!) But this is where the real error of the logic behind this bill comes in, because it does not move into the free market at all -- except in the twisted sense in which politicians tend to view the market. The oddly dichotomous definition of what constitutes a "free market" can be seen in two key aspects of the bill:
First, the bill provides a $ 12 billion "incentive" subsidy to the managed care industry, in order to encourage them to participate. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, the airline industry was granted a $ 15 billion bailout -- to help offset what was arguably the worst disaster to airline travel in its history. While the suitability or lack thereof of that largesse is a topic for another time, it is noteworthy that one industry's "disaster relief" is another's "incentive." Further, such subsidies serve to seperate consumption from cost and therefore run counter to market forces, not with them -- because when consumption is seperated from cost, the law of supply and demand is compromised irreparably.
Second, the bill leaves in effect the ban on the import of Canadian prescription medications, which can often be obtained more cheaply than American. If the federal government is concerned enough about the ability of American seniors to obtain affordable prescription drugs, why do they persist in placing this obstacle in the way of what must surely be thousands if not tens of thousands of Americans -- senior and otherwise -- who would avail themselves of lower-cost drugs north of the border, if only they were allowed to do so?
The GOP might be selling something with a label on it that says "competition," but the bill that is being introduced to Congress this week is anything but that under the surface -- in fact, with a $ 12 billion subsidy to private careholders, $ 40 billion per year added to Medicare-related expenditures, and a prohibitive ban on a solution to the very problem which the bill claims to address, it reads more like another step twards socialised medicine than away from it. And with the force of the special interest poster children the AARP behind it, the bill is almost certain to pass -- just another day in politics, another direlection of duty and breach of the limits of power of government.
Phaedrus
