What put us in debt was tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts over the past 30 years. That, and the interest on those cuts, accounts for over $10 trillion of our $14 trillion debt.
If we were only 14T in debt we wouldn't have near the problem we now have.
But your paragraph reflects total confusion over the meaning of the numbers. You can't just add up all the tax cuts and say, "Okay, there's your deficit". Because, as we know (empirically, from cuts made under JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush) tax cuts often cause economic growth, which causes increased revenue. And tax higher tax rates often interfere with economic growth.
It has done a decent job. But the VA, which covers about the same sort of things, pays less than 60% for the same drugs due to its ability to bargain directly with the drug companies, which was specifically prohibited by Congress.
This is one of the most frequent misdirections made by the Left when it comes to health care. It is true that VA is able to acquire the drugs in its particular formulary on the cheap. But the problem is that VA's forumulary only covers something like 120 of the top 200 drugs prescribed, where Part D has to cover about 170 of those top 200. It also overlooks the fact that the most expensive drugs are far more heavily covered by Medicare (e.g., cancer medications).
More importantly, the government cannot "negotiate" ANYTHING. It simply sets price controls. Just as it has done in the market for physician and hospital services. And what is the consequence of that? Increased prices for those who are NOT on Medicare. There is a very good reason for prohibiting government to "negotiate" these prices -- it doesn't "negotiate", it simply says, "This is what it is". It just isn't a reasonable comparison.
In addition, the consequences would be disastrous. You would have a curtailment of R&D on drugs that treat the aged, since drug companies couldn't be adequately compensated. You're running a drug company and you have a choice of developing a prostate or lung cancer treatment vs. a treatment for childhood leukemia. Which are you going to do?
Finally, the claim doesn't even make economic sense. While comparisons of selected medications abound, they are SELECTED medications, as VA uses a subset of what Medicare uses. They just aren't directly comparable.
What we're really talking about here is whether Medicare should be permitted to install price controls on drugs. And as we know, price controls just don't work -- the result is a totally convoluted market -- just like we now have as a result of Medicare Parts A & B. Where costs are shifted to private insurance, with the resultant out of control insurance premiums.
The Bush solution was about as close to ideal as one could have developed: Allow Part D insurers to go into the market place -- where they have as much clout as could be gained without the power of price controls -- and let them cut the best deals they can. The transactions are arms-length (rather than strong-armed) and are not injurious to the market forces that encourage R&D and allow marginally profitable but useful drugs to continue to exist.
Yours is what we call a "liberal talking point". Unfortunately, it is devoid of thought or supporting rationale. |
