Michael Kinsley: The Republican War on Grandparents

[Shelor]

The hideous complexity of President Bush's prescription-drug program has reduced elderly Americans—and their children—to tears of bewildered frustration. The multiple options when you sign up, each with its own multiple ceilings and co-payments; the second round of red tape when you actually want to acquire some pills; the ludicrously complex and arbitrary standards of eligibility, which play a cruel and pointless game of hide-and-seek as they lurch up and down the graph paper like drunks: Suddenly a mystery is solved—so, this must be what he means by "compassionate conservatism."

Thus Bush's only major domestic accomplishment in six years as president has not achieved its intended purpose of cementing the affection of senior citizens for the Republican Party. Many Republicans are sobbing with frustration, too. It is one thing to put aside your principles and spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society if it is going to help you to win elections (so you can pursue your dream of smaller government). It is another to sell your soul and not get anything for it. No one looks more foolish than a failed cynic.

But, look on the bright side, say the Bushies. The wretched thing does seem to be restraining drug prices and costing the government less than it was supposed to. The current cost estimate is only $678 billion over 10 years. That's down 8 percent from the previous estimate of $737 billion. Cool. But when the prescription-drug benefit was enacted in 2003, it was supposed to cost $400 billion over 10 years. As disenchanted conservative Bruce Bartlett retails in his new book about the Bush presidency, delicately entitled "Impostor," there was a mini-scandal and an official investigation when it came out that the administration was hiding its own estimate of $534 billion. When the dust settled, that figure had become $557.7 billion. Who believes any of these numbers? Do you? I will bet anyone a month's supply of Lipitor, collectible in 2016, that the 10-year bill will be more than $678 billion. Any takers?

What's shocking about this, more than the numbers (hundreds of billions of dollars are hard to fathom), is that Bush's drug benefit comes without even a theory about how it will be paid for. Even after nearly three decades of Republican abracadabranomics, this may be a first. A transparently phony theory at least pays tribute to the hypothesis that money doesn't grow on trees. Not even to bother coming up with a phony theory is an arrogant insult to democracy. It raises "because I said so" to a governing philosophy.


http://www.slate.com/id/2136886/?nav=tap3

[FloridaPat]

1. There were posts that drug prices are up 4-10% because of this.

That was yesterday. And now I have a new word in my dictionary - abracadabranomics. That sums it up quit nicely.

[xchrom]

2. ''abracadabranomics'' -- i want to use that -- alot!

i have senior parents -- and this whole medicare thing has effected all of their medical bills -- it seems that payments for doctors visits have slowed considerably because of the mayhem caused by the prescription drug screw up -- so now doctors offices are calling about services rendered that their insurance always covered before -- and of course when mon calls to find out what's going on -- she can't!

they always claim to be ''working on it''.

the whole damn thing is a mess.

[greekspeak]

3. Have "abracadabranomics" submitted that to Wikipedia?

You should!

[applegrove]

4. Whoever has the best information in the market wins. That is how

capitalism works. Look at how they played with info during Katrina. Look at how they play with information re: this bill. Look at how Bush went around the country and tried to sell SS without any specifics?

This Bush WH wants to play "market" games where only they win.

Truth of the matter is that a well functioning market depends entirely of "perfect information". The closer all parties are to great information - the better the markets work.

Don't ever let a neocon tell you they are for markets. They lie.

[rodeodance]

5. "because I said so"

.....What's shocking about this, more than the numbers (hundreds of billions of dollars are hard to fathom), is that Bush's drug benefit comes without even a theory about how it will be paid for. Even after nearly three decades of Republican abracadabranomics, this may be a first. A transparently phony theory at least pays tribute to the hypothesis that money doesn't grow on trees. Not even to bother coming up with a phony theory is an arrogant insult to democracy. It raises "because I said so" to a governing philosophy.

[WhiteTara]

6. what do you call murder of a particular age group?

Grandparentacide?