-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
Political Hay
Rick Santorum’s Part D Vote
His support of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit is a feature, not a bug.
A lot of conservatives are confused about Part D, the prescription drug benefit that was added to Medicare in 2003, and its significance for Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. Most believe Part D was an unnecessary and wanton expansion of federal growth. Many also take seriously charges made by Mitt Romney’s surrogates that the vote cast in favor of the program by then-Senator Santorum undermines any claim he has to fiscal conservatism. They are mistaken on both points. First, the addition of drug coverage to Medicare was inevitable. The public overwhelmingly supported the concept and the Democrats had repeatedly pledged to make it a top priority when they finally regained control of Congress. Second, Santorum’s Part D vote actually bolsters his credentials as a fiscal conservative.
In 2003, the Republicans had only two real options regarding Medicare prescription coverage: (1) wait until the Democrats regained a congressional majority and pushed through a vote-buying scheme disguised as a drug benefit, or (2) beat them to the punch by enacting an alternative that introduced market reforms to an obsolescent entitlement program. Thus, President Bush stole the issue from the Democrats and, with much wrangling, convinced majorities in both houses of Congress to support option two. Part D was created by the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), which passed in the House with a slim majority that included such notorious spendthrifts as Paul Ryan and was pushed over the top in the upper chamber with the votes of Santorum and 53 other Senators, including several current Romney surrogates.
MMA established a system in which private insurers competed with one another to provide health and prescription drug coverage to seniors. The idea was that this competition would put downward pressure on Medicare costs in general, and the first signs that it was beginning to work came in the area of prescription drugs. Part D went into effect in 2006 and, by 2007, some if its initial critics began to acknowledge its efficacy. The Washington Post, for example, grudgingly admitted that “the new Medicare drug benefit appears to be slowing the growth in national spending on prescription medicines because the drug plans are negotiating lower prices with drug companies.… In the program, private insurers negotiate prices with drug companies as they compete to attract Medicare beneficiaries.”
This result was precisely the opposite of what the program’s critics had predicted, and it made the Democrats very nervous indeed. They correctly saw the success of Part D’s emphasis on the free market and patient choice as a threat to their plans to implement a government-run health care system. These Democrat fears were stoked by the obvious enthusiasm shown by low-income and minority seniors for Medicare Advantage (MA), the primary vehicle through which patients acquire Part D. MA appeals to these patients precisely because its benefits, including prescription drug coverage, are more comprehensive than those of traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Shortly after retaking the reins of Congress in 2007, therefore, the Democrats began casting about for ways to sabotage the program.
An enthusiastic participant in this sabotage was then-Senator Barack Obama. And, as President, he stepped up the attacks by approving Obamacare’s $200 billion cut in the program’s budget. But, despite such skullduggery, Part D has been a huge success. As James Capretta reported last June, “The program has exceeded all expectations… the drug benefit’s costs for the first decade are coming in 42 percent below what was predicted at the time of enactment.” This is why Paul Ryan proposed a Medicare reform package designed to take advantage of the free market dynamics that made Part D a success. The Ryan proposal has since been augmented by features suggested by Democrat Senator Ron Wyden, and their bipartisan plan is now widely considered the most promising proposal for getting Medicare costs under control.
Thus, Santorum’s vote in favor of Part D enhanced his credentials as a fiscal conservative, and not merely because it helped set the stage for the Ryan-Wyden plan. As he put it in a recent interview, “There were some very good things in Medicare Part D, with private sector health care reforms like health savings accounts which I worked hard to get into that bill, and there were a lot of other reforms to the Medicare program. It’s a private sector run health care program — government paid for — but private sector run.” He readily admits, of course, that it was still a tough call for him because the compromise that led to Part D’s passage didn’t include a proper funding mechanism. Politics is the art of the possible, however, so he declined to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and voted for the bill.
And Part D’s subsequent demonstration that free market competition will rein in health care costs is no small thing. Combined with a new study from the American Enterprise Institute showing that competitive bidding “could save Medicare $339 billion over ten years while maintaining basic benefits and without raising taxes,” it provides a powerful argument for repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something like the Ryan-Wyden plan. But Santorum is the only GOP candidate who can make that case in the general election. Do the fiscal purists and Romney shills who insist that Santorum’s Part D vote marks him as a “big-government conservative” really believe that the author of Romneycare can make this argument in a debate with Barack Obama without being laughed off the stage?
As Santorum said about Obamacare in a recent GOP debate, “We can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom.” And giving Romney the GOP nomination will be tantamount to taking the issue off the table. This will be particularly devastating if, by Election Day, the voters have been convinced by Obama and the media that the economy is improving. Should that contingency arise, Romney would have nothing left to talk about. If, on the other hand, Santorum is the Republican nominee, Obamacare will still be on the table and he is aggressive and articulate enough to go after the President on the grounds that it is a fiscally unsustainable flop as well as an outrageous assault on our basic liberties. Santorum’s Part D record makes him more rather than less credible on both points.
It allows him to emphasize the cost-controlling successes of market-based programs and compare them to the well-documented increases in health care costs already caused by the ironically named “Affordable Care Act.” Moreover, it permits him to juxtapose the freedom of patient choice encouraged by Part D with the heavy-handed government coercion that is the hallmark of Obamacare. Santorum’s 2003 “Aye” for Part D is a feature, not a bug.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/20/rick-santorums-part-d-vote
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.20.12 @ 7:24AM
Wrap your minds around warped political theology and here it is: If you are a conservative, it's far better to get in early on redistribution of wealth, than to wait for your political opponents to do it.
No matter when or how it is enacted government control of free markets is never conservative and never leads to better deals for the public. It only leads to more power for government.
The concept assumes that consumers are stupid and won't find the best deals without the government.
If someone who supports big government is a conservative so be it, but hokey pokey economics promulgated by the acolytes of big government do not somehow prove that someone is a conservative.
Jack in Wi.| 2.20.12 @ 8:03AM
Santorum is no consevative and his pro-life credentials are shaky at best. Would a pro-life conservative campaign for Arlen Spector and Christie Todd Whitman? Would a prolife conservative who claims to be a devout Catholic be for bombing people who have done nothing to harm us, in total violation of Catholic Just War Doctrine? When the chips are down we can depend on Santorum to do just one thing, sell out.
Dick Nome| 2.20.12 @ 8:28AM
So what the hell do you care?? You aren't a Conservative or a Republican and you don't live in PA. STFU, you are plain ignorant.
fckewe| 2.20.12 @ 10:02AM
Santorum IS a sellout and holding hands with GW Bullshit in his campaign photos is going to be another suicide move. I hope he wins in michigan and Ohio, which will kill both Romney AND lose 35 states for the RED menace.
bob| 2.20.12 @ 11:56AM
It's not his campaign photo you dolt. Besides, the days of smearing Bush are now passe, but keep on wishing dems can still use it to effect. Bush's fault...really?
Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:52PM
Nothing to harm us? The 241 Marine corpses in Beirut would beg to differ.
Jack, you are a traitor.
Clint| 2.20.12 @ 9:26PM
Tell Us About The Israelis Withholding Intel From Us, That They Were Tracking That Yellow Mercedes Truck With The False Bottom And Let Our Marines Get Blown To Hell, You Traitor Bastard Israel Firster Scum,Tool Job.
Old Soldier| 2.20.12 @ 4:06PM
You hit it on the head. The Republicans then and now have no confidence their own agenda - and absolutely no faith in conservatism.
Part D was the crowning achievement of the Dem Lites.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.20.12 @ 7:57AM
Prescription Part D is a voluntary insurance plan that has a premium, deductibles and donut hole structure so that it effectively promotes cost containment in general, and provides a safety net for extreme cases. Unlike Medicare, there are significant disincentives for abusing the system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D
Under Medicare, there is not much disincentive to go to the doctor for any and every minor issue. This basic problem was explained by the great Milton Friedman on how one may spend money.
Friedman explained that there are four (4) ways to spend money. First, you spend your own money on yourself, in which case you are very concerned about the quality and the price. Second is a gift in which you spend your money on someone else. The price is paramount and quality, not so much. The third option is to spend other people's money on yourself, in which case you will have a very nice lunch. And fourth, is you can spend other people's money on other people. Then both quality and price are irrelavent. This is the REAL PROBLEM with Medicare and most of what government does.
And from a practical matter, a hypochondriac can go to the doctor three times a week at his own discretion. At $100 office visit, you can quickly blow through taxpayer money. But Part D requires a prescription. So there is a requiremenet for a doctor to prescribe medication for an expenditure to occur.
jimH| 2.20.12 @ 10:13AM
Ludwig, certainly there is an attempt to provide market like feedback in Part D. But the best you can say about it is that it could be worse. You know quite well that having the government provide this additional money creates even more distortions to a wildly distorted prescription drug market. In an ideal world the government is not a health care provider and there might not even be such a thing as a regulated prescription. It should not be presented by conservatives as a positive good, at best it was a necessary tactical compromise to be removed with the rest of the government healthcare detritus and replaced with true market solutions.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.20.12 @ 10:52AM
I agree Jim. But Medicare and Medicaid go back to LBJ. It is like drug addiction. You can stop, but there is going to be allot of short-term withdrawal problems. We are not going to get there until there is no alternative.
In the meantime, it is important that Santorum's vote is not propagandized as "just like" ObamaCare and RomneyCare. That is all.
W| 2.20.12 @ 12:18PM
Last week there was an article and discussion about how Medicare Part A is mandatory. Part D is not now mandatory. The fear is that it will become mandatory, and the issue is not how well it works, but whether it becomes mandatory.
Vern Crisler | 2.20.12 @ 4:13PM
You know, I support Newt for President, but I don't defend his occasional lurches to the left. Why is it that these Romney and Santorum supporters feel the need to be apologists for bigger government? Can't they just admit their candidate screwed up?
Von Mises Jr.| 2.20.12 @ 9:23PM
I admit it, my friend. I don't like Santorum's position on preferential treatment of manufacturing. I think all businesses should get lower taxes.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.20.12 @ 9:23AM
I remember that fight, in 2003. Prescription Drug Coverage was gonna happen. One way or another. Doing nothing was gonna be a HUGE win for the Left. Look what they're doing with "FREE ABORTIONS FOR SLUTS". Imagine what they would have done with "PILLS FOR GRANMA".
By everyone's account, Part D has been like the building of the Empire State Building. "On time and Under Budget". I'm not aware of any problems. For all of his faults, George W. Bush had this one right. He also tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie. He also wanted Medical Savings Accounts and for people to invest up to 3% of their Social Security in a way THEY wanted to. (Gold. The Stock Market. Securities.)
Those were pretty big deals. Pretty big Free Market Deals. IMAGINE what it would be like, today, if all of these had been implemented.
Do a little homework. Look how things were BEFORE the Democrats took control over both Houses of Congress: 2007. Look how things have DETERIORATED, ever since. Look at the Stability of the Middle East BEFORE the Muslim got the Votes of Peggy Noonan, Elliott Spitzer's B*tch - Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell. George W. Bush KILLED Islamists. Abu Hussain's actions provide them with NEW COUNTRIES to call their own.
Medicare Part D has made it easier for our Elderly to afford Prescription Drugs, in a Free Market Economy.
Obama Care has made it INEVITABLE, that the only Pills our Mothers and Fathers, and Grandmas and Grandpas will ever receive, are PAIN PILLS and PLACIBOES.
I agree with Mr. Catron. Santorum's vote is a Feather in his Cap. Not a Millstone around his neck.
That would be - ROMNEY CARE.
George S| 2.20.12 @ 12:07PM
That's exactly right. Medicare D and portable health savings and retirement accounts are a step away from government control. Which is why Democrats went full bore against them.
It is a step in the right direction, as say, a step in the opposite direction -- RomneyCare which is a laugh riot when it is hailed as a free market solution.
It is politically impossible to rescind entitlements, but plant a poison pill and eventually they can be contained.
Joe D.| 2.20.12 @ 9:45AM
I agree with all of your points, David. However, we Tea Partiers want government out of everything they do not belong in. And this is just one of them. We, people of the US, are leaning too much on the government to help us (run our lives). Our great country as you know was not great because of the government but inspite of.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.20.12 @ 9:59AM
Medicare Part D is just another unfunded mandate living off of borrowed time with the full faith and credit of the Chinese government.
I still don't see how that is conservative in any shape, manner or form since it is simply another example of redistribution of wealth.
rightasrain| 2.20.12 @ 10:09AM
Exactly. When alleged conservatives start spinning huge increases in the entitlement racket as fiscally conservative, we know they only have a nodding acquaintance with conservatism.
AJ| 2.20.12 @ 9:59AM
Santorum is another example of big government being the solution to everything. Of course, he admits that it did not have the right "funding formula" ...isn't that a code word for increased taxes?
As for the posts about RomneyCare maybe they should check out Tommy Thompson's interview with Greta on FoxNews.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/.....t_id=86925
Mr. Thompson says that RomneyCare is nothing like ObamaCare ...
Sorry but if you think Santoruom is fiscally conservative then you need to read his book. He calls himself a "Big Government Conservative".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfYBJf6oFnk
Couple that with his views expressed last week and you have less liberty not more. Except this time, instead of coming from the left it is coming from the right.
Kyle| 2.20.12 @ 10:01AM
How is what Santorum voted for, any different than what Obama passed in Obamacare? Its all government take over crap. Santorum is a nut, and the media just needs to crack him.
fckewe| 2.20.12 @ 10:05AM
The Part D is funded by the people, for the people and the RED mance failure to include it in their violation of public interest during the Gingrich years is just as fraudulent as having male clergy only sitting in hearings about women's rights and healthcare.
These frauds are gonna get the boot in november.
Joker| 2.20.12 @ 10:07AM
I'm a pharmacist and I lived through the Medicare D debacle. Prices of drugs have literally more than doubled since the initiation of the program and it is because the government is not allowed to control costs. We have socialism with no cost controls which is basically fascism. Everything was much better when people paid for their own stuff. Poor people can come in and get 3 months worth of medicine that costs $5000 and they pay nothing not even realizing what they are getting. Medicare D has always been a sham and always will be a sham.
Farmer| 2.21.12 @ 10:01PM
Joker, If socialism with no cost controls is basically fascism, what is socialism with price controls? What do you believe fascism is exactly?
Daniel Hines | 2.20.12 @ 10:09AM
This story is not factual. The prices of the medications are not 'negotiated.' Also, the behind-closed-doors promises of Obama to Pharma resulted in 'paper' savings, but not actual savings. As a proponent of the right of personal importation, which I and many believe is established by existing law, I submit that the only real competition for Pharma pricing comes from personal importation of safe, affordable brand name medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One Countries whose standards of safety and efficacy and oversight meet or exceed those of the US. 48 million Americans, including many of America's seniors still fail to have their prescriptions filled because of the high prices which are major drivers of our healthcare costs.
Joker| 2.20.12 @ 10:13AM
Importing drugs from other countries that don't have to run a store, pay for electricity, air conditioning, electric, property taxes for a 15,000 foot store, have no regulations that we have here that costs real money to comply with is about like importing all our stuff from china. It will put another 200,000 people out of work and shut down another huge portion of small business that would not be able to compete with foreign companies that have no regulations.
Daniel Hines | 2.20.12 @ 11:14AM
Joker, your response is a joke. The facts: Virtually no drugs are mfg. in the US....US drug prices are the highest in the world, as much as 60- percent higher than other industrialized countries; did you not note that I said 'Tier One ' countries with proven standards of safety and over sight and , that the meds are the same as sold in the US. Don't believe that the pharmacies are the fault, be they in the US or outside the US. And, who mentioned China?
Joker| 2.20.12 @ 10:17AM
Oh PS it already is legal to import your own drugs (up to a 90 day supply) from other countries unless its a controlled substance. You can thank the gangsters on the street for the reason your controlled meds cost so much, selling a bottle of oxycontin 80mg for $5,000.
Daniel Hines | 2.20.12 @ 11:16AM
You state the obvious, I believe. Having worked on this issue for 10 plus years, I can validate your observation about the 90-day supply, but the FDA says 'no,' May I suggest you visit my blog at http://rxforamericanhealth.blogspot.com.
Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:53PM
Exceed those of the US? Where?
Fiscal| 2.20.12 @ 5:57PM
Daniel, the fact here is that you can buy drugs cheaper in other countries because the government controls their prices. That is especially true in Canada. Therefore, buying drugs from other countries will actually force this country into price controls for drugs. Your argument is fallacious.
Wm| 2.20.12 @ 8:23PM
Reimported drugs are loot. They are reimported because foreign governments put price controls on them, and some reimporter is trying to arbitrage the difference. Price controls are a form of stealing and should not be recognized by our government.
JimP| 2.20.12 @ 10:50AM
Perhaps my memory fails me. I don't recall the majority of the public being hot to implement this program. I DO recall the 'Old Folks Cosa Nostra' (aka: AARP et al) being all in favor of a prescription drug plan for retired people which would be paid for by the working, tax paying suckers who had not yet reached 'the golden years'. Do they call them the golden years because that's when greedy retirees collect big time benefits that they never paid for themselves at the expense of younger generations? I digress.
Again, perhaps memory failse me, but isn't Medicare Part D financed by 75 percent federal government money (taxpayers) and 25 percent by beneficiaries through monthly premiums, co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles? Traditional Medicare pays the provider directly vs. Part D which pays private insurers who manage the funds/benefits.
Did 'W' or the GOP make the case for not doing this at all because the greedy old geezers were a bunch of special interest lobbyists exerting too much influence on politicians to give them something at other peoples expense and that the country could not afford it in the long run? Did they argue that the taxpayers were getting shafted if this passed because the majority of them would NEVER get this benefit for themselves? I don't recall that either. But hey, the GOP put lipstick on this pig and saved the taxpayers some money compared to what the Democrats version would have been, and they cut out those greedy doctors who remove tonsils just for the cash so the benevolent, morally superior insurance companies could get the money and put it to much more humanitarian uses.
DC pols, bureaucrats and people with their brains switched on have known since at least the 1970's that entitlements were unsustainable and needed genuine reform because the population was not growing fast enough to keep the ponzi scheme going and could not finance expansion even with a 25% "savings". So what did the GOP do in 2003? This is nothing more than Rockefeller Republicanism. Criticism of Santorum for this is valid IMO. Of course we all know Romeny would have supported this had he been in the Senate, so the entire debate among Republicans is ridiculous and just a distration.
cicero| 2.20.12 @ 11:01AM
Despite all of the yearnings for a true free market, where everyone is self-sufficient, we have to realize that programs like Medicare are going to be with us forever. This is not such a bad thing, and we do pay for it through our payroll taxes. The trick is to make it as close to self-sustaining as possible. Part D seems to be having the effect of lowering the expenditures for medical provision to the elderly. It is much less expensive to treat a malady with pills than with hospitalization. I believe the numbers are beginning to bear this out. If we can combine this with preventive care, and better eating and living habits, which seem to be happening in at least a segment of the population, the programs may be sustainable.
The problem is that we are subsidizing the underclass, and encouraging its perpetuation and stratification. It is the fastest growing segment of the population, as well as the least productive, and practicing the least healthy lifestyle.
WM| 2.20.12 @ 8:25PM
"We" have to recognize no such thing. In fact, the Tea Party Patriots is already talking about getting rid of the entitlement programs over the coming decades. Wealth redistribution programs are fundamentally evil in concept and should be morally opposed.
corvair| 2.20.12 @ 11:45AM
Two points:
1. You could substitute Medicare Part D with Mass Health Care - Romneycare . All the points, motivation, and conclusions apply to both.
2. Santorum has given away the health care issue with his past and recent comments on contraceptives.
bob| 2.20.12 @ 12:28PM
I am a physician running a small private practice that accepts Medicare. I can see the author's point if one has to have Medicare, then the Part D program is better than having let the Dems expand the entitlement. But Medicare may implode from its own weight anyway, just this past week, we narrowly averted a 27% cut to providers (Doc Fix). This is only kicked it down the road until December and continually comes up each fiscal cycle. It's embarrassing and humiliating to "beg" congress to fund us again and again. Like a battered wife continually coming back home. Eventually, congress will have to institute the huge cut, ala Greek austerity (Obmabcare has a $500 billion cut over 10 years built into it), and the Medical community of providers will then be forced to drop Medicare. Those providers that don't will stay in the system that will be so diminished it will resemble the current Medicaid program, with those unfeasible reimbursement rates. Envision Medicaid service and quality but on a massive scale to all, not just the financially disadvantaged as is currently the way it is. Those patients with means will elect to pay for their health care outside of the system (paying Obama fines and taxes for the priviledge) either through private 3rd party insurers, if allowed under Obamacare to even exist, or just with their own cash. This model already exists in Canada et al. I was actually looking forward to the 27% sudden cut, so that I could finally do what I've known in my heart was the right thing for years, drop Medicare-get the monkey off my back, take the hit, lose the patients that will leave based on finances, and keep the ones who will stay based on quality, and build from there. Imagine, free at last!
Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:55PM
G-d Bless you, Bob. That's why I got out of private practice. My guts couldn't take it anymore (IBS).
Nick099| 2.20.12 @ 12:28PM
No problem with Part D and Santorum.
The problem is his latest interview over the weekend deriding pre-natal testing.
His comments were downright scary and will not go well in any election. 15th century morals do not wear well in 21rst century America. No matter what you write, claim or promote. This is America, and Americans do not like extremists of any persuasion...they never have. That is why Conservatism works for everyone and appeals to everyone...while Social Conservatism does not. Just the way it is.
darcy| 2.20.12 @ 3:37PM
I couldn't disagree more. Let me remind you of John Adam's words:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
― John Adams
Our Founders were social conservatives, read that, adherents to traditional morality. Anything and anyone who argues for postmodern ethics, a misnomer for sure, is arguing for a new nation, one that mirrors the hedonistic socialist states of Europe. If that's what you want, then say so. Tell us that you love living in the cesspool that has become American popular culture and sponsored by American political -- leftist, libertarian -- ideology.
Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:55PM
His concern is regarding using it for counseling abortion.
Merry Crystal| 2.20.12 @ 12:41PM
The more things change, …..
60 Minutes, of all places, led off last night with an expose of the sham drugs, like Prozac. Can you say, PLACEBO?
A close college friend, at the U. of Oregon, became a doctor. I saw him in 1975, a mere decade or so later, when he was practicing in Klamath Falls. Why, the healthcare provider had HIMSELF proved to be ahead of his time!
When I met him in a store, seeing him waddling down an aisle, he was nearly as wide as, weighing at least 300 pounds, why, I almost fled at once, in disgust. However, I followed him to his home to visit, seeing his ALSO overweight wife.
It was there that I got an insider’s take at American doctoring. He told me what his job entailed. Seeing sick people, every workday, he surely was worn down so much that eating became an outlet for his OWN stress.
His job---people came to him for help, so his first task was to diagnose their “illness”. As he related, though, in essence he was a middleman.
One of his most demanding jobs was seeing all the drug company salesmen, as they kept coming to “educate” him about what pill to use for what disease. And so it’s gone on, ever since, n’est pas?
Last week, in the therapy pool at the YMCA, a 61-year-old retired police officer, on disability, very overweight, having already suffered a heart attack, had to go and comment to me (jealous, no doubt) about how lean I was, saying I must have a good metabolism. Hooked, I was! No, my automatic reply was---I EAT RIGHT.
What followed wasn’t pretty! I didn’t hold anything back.
Now, the poor guy was already bodily SCARED STRAIGHT, so he claimed to want to lose weight, and did tell about the changes he’d already made---like using stevia in place of sugar for sweetner. However---
He was the perfect poster “boy” for most ill-informed, aka brainwashed, fat, sick and AGING Americans. It’s ALREADY too late for him! He’s the physical AND mental gathering of elements AND ideas that 61 years of immersion in DRUG “therapy” lawfully yields.
Yes---in order to turn around his withering unto death bodily choice, nibbling at the edges of dietary “reform” is utterly futile. Let’s do the math.
Over sixty years of sucking down mal-nutritious “foods”, and he thinks he can undo all that in a “diet” of a month, a year? No!
He actually, in this life, anyway, only has one best case path---a radical fast, for as long as it takes, that eases into an eat-to-live vegan diet: until death. Even in his dire condition, with all of his organs certainly damaged from so much abuse, right diet is his only possible way to reverse SOME of the suffering tissue.
But, come on! He STILL wants to have his cake and eat it too. That’s America! He---and the USA---STILL doesn’t get it, that he is HIMSELF choosing the suicidal path.
As I was slipping into dreamland last night, from nowhere this came into consciousness---
Live LIGHTLY a long life, or
Die HEAVILY a short life.
In the first life-affirming fork, a diet consisting of super foods, a “minimal-maximal” intake, follows the laws of physics as closely as possible. Under-eating only the BEST ingredients plants have to offer, loving your animals by NOT eating them---that’s the ticket to a long and healthy life.
And, STILL, most people choose the second fork, valuing their sense of taste above their mental abilities. Here’s the simplest from-my-own-youth proof---mom and dad ALWAYS emphasized “eat your salad”. And, of course, when escaping their company, it was GO FOR SWEETS and other junk food!
And, face it---to quickly or slowly adopt a habit of HEAVY junk foods is to literally choose to DIE, while living. What a pathetic choice!
America the pathetic---sucking on drugs!
Maybe, in a couple of hundred years, if/when the land of the free survives, and overcomes its addictions to PILLS, the survivors will look back at today’s unevolved humans as we do at the poor fools in the middle ages who were ignorant of the need for plumbing. Letting waste products run free surely was STUPID!
Taking pills certainly is NOW a deadly, for some, branch of the evolution tree---a DEAD END.
JimP| 2.20.12 @ 1:42PM
Come on. Spare us the sanctimony. You should be pleased with all the above. Haven't you figured out yet that the quickest way out of the entitlment debacle looming just over the horizon is for we Baby Boomers to die SOON? Placeboes and portliness are the fastest way to getting entitlements back in the black- or at least manageable. With Boomers dropping like flies from clogged arteries, bogus medicine and viagra induced comas the younger generations will have at least some hope. Why do you think ObamaCare included Death Panels as part and parcel to the "savings"? We Boomers need to be gone ASAP because with 75 million of us collecting entitlements and living to the present life expectancies there is literally no hope for the younger generations getting out from under being taxed into serfdom in order to support their parents and grandparents generations.
Of course the GOP could grow a pair and run on Ryan's plan or one like it, but that isn't likely to happen. Look at how they have savaged Gingrich who despite his own apostacies to conservatism brought about genuine conservative reforms. The GOP doesn't want any of that kind of reform. The GOP prefers phony debates about Part D being 'conservative' vs it not being conservative.
Drunken Sailor| 2.20.12 @ 2:28PM
Your brilliant! Your self-sanctimonous vegetarian rant has convinced me of the error of my ways. Forget the fact that we have the teeth of a omnivore, those canines must be like our appendix. Utterly useless. I shall make a appointment with my dentist post haste to have all my teeth pulled and dentures manufactured with the teeth of a herbivore. I will free my animals, throw away my leathers, burn my house down and live as one with the forest.
Idiot!
albert constantine jr| 2.20.12 @ 5:23PM
Some times it is better to die young and over weight than to live forever amongst the meddling diet police and food fascists.
Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:57PM
Prozac is NO placebo. Thanks for playing.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.20.12 @ 2:32PM
And now we have another hill to climb to become conservatives.
First, it was reach across the aisle.
Now, it's get there before the opposition or you might not get credit for big government.
David| 2.20.12 @ 2:47PM
With regard to Paul Ryan's Plan, which so many believe is a serious, valid, workable bunch of proposals to get us out of our fiscal mess, GINGRICH AND ROMNEY REJECT IT!!!
SANTORUM EMBRACED IT!!!
Old Soldier| 2.20.12 @ 4:10PM
Too bad he embraced nothing of the sort while a sitting Senator.
JimP| 2.20.12 @ 4:15PM
Doesn't this just show hypocrisy or phoneyness of some kind on Santorum's part? In other words, 'He's for big government healthcare spending before being against it via Ryan's plan' or something to that effect. What are people to believe? Is Santorum "just another RINO" like some say Gingrich is? Is being for Medicare Part D essentially any different than being for RomneyCare or ObamaCare? All are funded by taxpayers and administered by government. Making distinctions among these plans is like being just a little pregnant, isn't it? These are legitimate questions IMHO, and you know the Dems will make hay from these inconvenient facts come this fall. I'm not trying to pick on Santorum, BTW. All the candidates have some baggage of this kind. Romney, of course, being the out and out worst of them all.
Only the Bushes can save us./sarc
David| 2.20.12 @ 2:49PM
Corvair, you obviously do not know what Santorum's positions are with regard to the relationship between government and contraceptives.
Old Soldier| 2.20.12 @ 3:57PM
"A lot of conservatives are confused about Part D"
No, we understand it very well. Money travels from my paycheck, through a monstrous government program, and into the veins of oldsters.
I hated the idea then, I hate it now. Instead of working on lowering spending and flattening taxes - the liberal Republicans, including Santorum (and Gingrich from the sidelines) decided it was their job to massively expand the welfare state before the Democrats did it for them.
What kind of pathetic loser mentality is that? Let's provocatively surrender before the battle!
Santorum would make a perfect French General - and a horrible American President.
David| 2.20.12 @ 4:02PM
Santorum may not be perfect, but he is certainly more perfect and more able to beat Bam Bam than any of the other 3 candidates still in the race.
Old Soldier| 2.20.12 @ 4:09PM
The biggest challenge this country faces is $16 Trillion deficit that grows by $1.5 Trillion a year. So we are going to roll-out a fiscal liberal social conservative? Seriously?
David| 2.20.12 @ 4:06PM
Instead of simply making broad and general critical statements about Santorum and the others for their support of Part D, please give me specifics as to why it was bad to finally get some free market principles going in the healthcare system. Why is it bad that costs have come in UNDER what was projected? Why is it bad that we can now use free market ideas when making our case to repeal Obamacare, and use Part D to support our arguments?
JimP| 2.20.12 @ 4:54PM
So 'Hoorah for Rockefeller Republicanism' is what you are arguing. If that's what you want then bring on the Bushes.....again. No one does Rockefeller Republicanism like them, except maybe Romney- who also dabbles in some venture capitalism and a lot of private equity investing: aka- leveraged buyouts, a la Gordon Gekko (see AmPad for example). Of course having some ethics questions about AmPad and other private equity acquisitions of Bain Capital makes me a socialist/communist, but nevermind that for now.
It was bad because it was an expansion of government. Period. Conservatives understand that expanding government is a bad thing. It was an especially bad thing at the point that Medicare Part D passed (2003) because Baby Boomer retirements were just about to begin: and since there are so many Boomers, and so few-relatively- in the following generations, ANY expansion of entitlements was at best irresponsible policy. But it did play well with the greedy geezers already collecting their gold plated benefits that Boomers and mostly others not yet retiredwould have to pay for. Now thanks to Part D and all the other entitlement BS the retirement age is going to go up and sooner than you think. If you are not already retired or about to be, plan on working until you drop to pay for these indulgences so that greedy old b@$$t@rd$ could live high off of your hog until the collapse comes. We will all be Greeks soon.
WM| 2.20.12 @ 8:29PM
Outsourcing the execution of statism to the private sector is NOT a "free market idea," moron.
JustanObserver | 2.20.12 @ 5:55PM
Here is the bottom line, regardless of all this "who's more conservative" nonsense: Rick Santorum couldn't even come close to holding his Senate seat in Pa., and has NO CHANCE to be elected president. If nominated, he will lose an Electoral College landslide. Please, you GOP primary voters, don't saddle us with another four years of Obaminable. Romney is the only one in your field who could win a national election, and however not conservative you may think he is, he is a helluva lot more clueful than the clown in the White House now.
Fiscal| 2.20.12 @ 6:00PM
Daniel, the fact here is that you can buy drugs cheaper in other countries because the government controls their prices. That is especially true in Canada. Therefore, buying drugs from other countries will actually force this country into price controls for drugs. The drug companies charge us more BECAUSE we have NO PRICE CONTROLS. Your argument is fallacious.
Don't get me wrong, I would prefer a free market. But markets today are global, and when most all Tier 1 countries have price controls on drugs, there can be no global free market. Again, buying drugs across borders only supports government price controls.
WM| 2.20.12 @ 8:31PM
This column is an example of poor intellectual integrity. Either you are opposed to the principle of wealth redistribution, or you are not. If you are, you do not rationalize a wealth redistribution program. Ever.
Nite| 2.20.12 @ 8:37PM
Ask the Seniors how they feel about Medicare part D. It was finally possible to get some prescription coverage and they pay for it, plus co-pays, plus a cost of the program. If Republicans want to win the election they need to quit bashing any benefits for Seniors and helping us keep our safety nets. Obama is doing enough to us in Obamacare.
Old Soldier| 2.21.12 @ 7:56AM
I truly don't care about the Seniors. All the Seniors I know are either rich, or retired because the government gives them free stuff (in exchange for voting the right way), or a combination of both.
I care about my kids and their bleak future.
JimP| 2.21.12 @ 8:12AM
The Feds (ie: taxpayers) are paying 75% of this benefit, so don't act like retirees are paying their own way on this. They aren't. I am very near the present retirement age and I have no sympathy for what I consider a group of greedy, selfish geezers who only care about themselves and the country can go down the tubes as long as they get thei gold plated benefits that someone else pays for. To he!! with your "safety nets", let's save the country. You did prove my point by your comment though, so 'thanks' for that.
David| 2.20.12 @ 8:49PM
Justinobserver, as I have said many times, it is fruitless to argue about who is more conservative between Santorum and Gingrich. It is clear from all conservative groups that Gingrich has a voting record SLIGHTLY MORE conservative than Santorum. Not enough difference to argue about.
No one in their right mind would even suggest that Romney is a conservative. The repub base will stay home if Romney is the nominee.
What is important are the very public positions the candidates have taken since leaving office.
On that score, Santorum wins hands-down.
POST American| 2.20.12 @ 10:27PM
"Notice again, as the REAL campaign
approaches, the REAL issues 'disappear'."
---With cancer rates, diabetes and bizarre
neurological disorders, and sterility
skyrocketing, thanks almost exclusively
to the cancer viruses in those
'wonder-full' Salk POLIO shots
-------the cumulative effects of decades of
GMO ---CHEM-trails -----adulterated
air and water ---and other shots
---------------------UH---------------------
shouldn't we be directing our energies
to what's --BEHIND--- 'Big Pharma'?
(ie capstone EUGENICS)
Bijou | 2.21.12 @ 5:28AM
Campaigning in Ohio, Romney accused Santorum of helping congressional Republicans spend money “like Democrats.’’ The former Massachusetts governor said he would cut the federal budget in part by giving control of Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps back to the states.
JimP| 2.21.12 @ 8:17AM
That's Newt' plan. Glad Romney at least can recognize a good selling point-although much too late. Obama was going to cut the deficit in half and GHW Bush said no new taxes. I wish I could believe Romney, but I don't.
sirbourbon| 2.21.12 @ 8:25PM
First off Mr.David Catron, Medicare is pure socialism, 99 44/100th pure D socialism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
Medicare is in the hole to the tune of $80 TRILLIONS -- all unfunded!
Santorum was a fool for voting for an enhancement to LBJ's dirty dealing scheme - Medicare. LBJ placed big government between the doctor and his patients with this evil "Medicare" act in 1965.Along comes George "Dubya" the village idiot and created Plan D to further expand LBJ's scam and he persuaded "conservative" Santorum to vote for more d****d Socialism!"
How dare you play games with us by trying to paint Santorum as an angel when his votes in congress for Planned Parenthood, 5 TIMES did Santorum team up with the thieves in congress to raise the NATIONAL DEBT!
Santorum voted to hand communist dictatorships US tax dollars. He voted to redistribute America's wealth to foreign governments, and you expect us to believe your disingenuous article by portraying the socialist senator as a modern day Adam Smith!
You should be ashamed of yourself.