SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (2857)7/1/2003 11:56:23 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
... And the House bill vs. the Senate's

Now that both the House and the Senate have passed prescription-drug legislation for the 40 million retired and disabled Medicare recipients, the two bills will go to a conference committee where their differences will be resolved. As with most legislative matters in the Congress, the devil is in the details. Prescription-drug legislation is certainly no exception.
The cost of the prescription-drug benefit in both bills is $400 billion over the next 10 years. Drug coverage provided through insurance policies will not begin until 2006. For 2004 and 2005, all seniors will be given a discount drug card, which congressional leaders estimate will generate savings of 15 percent or more. In the House version, cards for seniors with the lowest incomes will reflect credits for $800, while those near poverty will receive cards bearing credits for $500. Discount cards in the Senate bill will include credits of $600 for low-income seniors. According to both versions, the drug benefit for Medicare patients beginning in 2006 will be voluntary.
Both bills envision two kinds of private insurance to administer the benefit. In the first case, Medicare patients could purchase drug coverage as a separate policy and remain in Medicare's traditional fee-for-service program, which serves about 90 percent of current beneficiaries. The legislation anticipates that drugs-only insurance policies for seniors would be offered by private pharmaceutical benefit managers, or PBMs, which currently administer drug-benefit programs for employer-provided health-insurance programs.
The alternative private-sector approach would come from preferred-provider organizations (PPOs). In order to encourage seniors to join their networks and leave Medicare's traditional fee-for-service program, PPOs would offer drug-insurance coverage, which, like that offered by PBMs, would be subsidized by the federal government. In either private-insurance option — PBMs or PPOs — the drug coverage would be the same.
In the Senate bill, in those regions where no private coverage is offered, the federal government would provide drug insurance; the House bill does not include this option. In an important reform component, beginning in 2010, the House bill would encourage greater competition between Medicare's traditional government-run fee-for-service program and private plans.
Both bills include provisions to hasten less expensive generic drugs to the market and to facilitate the importation of U.S.-made drugs from Canada, where government price controls lower the cost of drugs relative to the U.S. market.
In terms of out-of-pocket expenses, both plans would require a monthly premium of about $35 per beneficiary. That would total $420 per year. Both bills would eliminate or heavily subsidize the premium for low-income seniors.
An insignificant difference relates to deductibles: $275 per year (Senate) and $250 (House). The Senate plan would then pay for 50 percent of drug costs between $276 and $4,500; the beneficiary would have to pay for all of the next $1,300, after which the catastrophic portion of the policy would cover 90 percent of all additional drug costs.
After its $250 deductible, the House insurance plan would pay for 80 percent of drug costs between $251 and $2,000. The Medicare patient would then pay for all drug costs between $2,000 and $4,900, after which catastrophic insurance would cover 100 percent of additional drug expenses. The House bill includes a modest means-tested provision: It would require, for example, those earning $200,000 per year to pay $12,000 in drug costs before their catastrophic benefit begins.
Obviously, each plan would mandate different levels of out-of-pocket costs, depending on the value of prescriptions consumed. The examples below reflect the total costs to the beneficiary, including the $420 annual premium and the deductibles:
•Purchasing $500 worth of prescriptions would cost the Medicare patient $807 (Senate plan) and $720 (House plan). Buying $1,000 in prescriptions would require $1,057 in out-of-pocket outlays (Senate) and $820 (House). For $1,500 in prescriptions, the costs to the beneficiary would be $1,307 (Senate) and $920 (House).
•Medicare recipients who use the 2002 average of $2,300 worth of Medicare prescriptions would pay $1,707 (Senate) and $1,320 (House).
c The maximum out-of-pocket expenses in the House plan, including the annual $420 premium, would be $3,920, which would be reached with the consumption of $4,900 worth of prescriptions. Thus, someone who annually consumes prescriptions worth $5,000, $7,500, $10,000, $12,000, $15,000 or higher would still pay a maximum of $3,920 under the House plan. Comparable out-of-pocket expenses in the Senate plan would be $3,307 (for $5,000 worth of prescriptions); $4,277 (for $7,500 worth); $4,527 ($10,000 worth); $4,727 (for $12,000 worth); and $5,027 (for $15,000 worth).
The figures above make clear that both plans are designed to assure that the annual insurance premium provides extensive coverage against catastrophic expenses.



To: calgal who wrote (2857)7/1/2003 11:56:56 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
The politics of prescription drugs ...
At 2:38 a.m. Friday, the House passed a prescription-drug benefit for seniors by a razor slim vote of 216-215 — but it was a lot closer than that. Republican leaders had to use Herculean efforts to get the bill passed at all. After the vote had been open for 15 minutes, 20 Republicans were registered as no votes, with one other voting present. In a chamber split on party lines by 229-205 with one Democrat-leaning independent, so many defectors would have spelled doom for this major piece of President Bush's legislative agenda. To give whips more time to twist arms and cut deals, the vote was held open for an extraordinarily long 45 minutes, finally culminating in passage by one vote. Despite this nail-biter, it is still an uphill battle before prescription-drug subsidies become law.
Much of the opposition to the Republican legislation came from conservatives. Although a few stood their ground on a principled argument that the new entitlement would be an unnecessary expansion of the size of government, 25 of the initial GOP opponents held up passage in an effort to push a plan to bring cheap drugs into America from Canada. As one staffer told us, "These conservatives almost killed a deal to help seniors pay for their medicine in favor of a scheme that would make [their prescription drugs] more dangerous." This scheme, known as reimportation, would allow U.S.-manufactured drugs to be resold to Americans by Canadians. They are cheaper across the border because pharmaceutical companies have to meet price controls in Canada's socialized system. Aside from the problem of giving a nod to Canadian health care, House leaders are against this provision because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says it cannot certify the safety of drugs once they have left the country, partly as counterfeit medicines could be sent over. As a condition to get her and a few others to switch their votes on Friday, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson extracted a promise to have an outright vote on reimportation in a couple of weeks.
In a strange way, the close vote in the lower chamber actually strengthens the bargaining position of its leaders when they negotiate with senators in conference. As one House leadership aide told us, "There is absolutely no wiggle room in the House because there are no votes to spare." While the Senate's prescription-drug bill sailed to passage by a vote of 76-21, it did not contain many of the House reforms that take Medicare in a market-oriented direction. If there is any hope for final passage, the Senate — which traditionally does not tend to yield much to the House — will have to accept many of these reforms. In fact, we're told that a final bill might not even make it to the House floor if the competitive measures are stripped away in conference. And for good reason. Friday's close vote had 19 Republican nays, and approximately a dozen more on the fence. If a final bill is watered down, that nay number will grow in step.
Republican leaders narrowly avoided the disastrous defeat of a legislative big-ticket item last week. This was partly because the intensity of opposition within the party was not fully realized. It was also because House Democrats were unified to obstruct the bill, with only nine going against the party line and voting for it. One political wild card for final passage is whether Democratic leaders will continue to obstruct — and if they can maintain party discipline if they choose that course. If a passable product comes out of conference, it is possible that many Democrats will decide it is bad idea to go into next year's election having voted against a popular drug subsidy for seniors. The big question is if conservatives will come to the same decision



To: calgal who wrote (2857)7/1/2003 11:57:19 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
URL:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/stahler/stahler1.asp



To: calgal who wrote (2857)7/1/2003 11:57:40 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Stocks post best quarter in years

By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The stock market yesterday ended its best quarter in years, extending a rally that added as much as 27 percent to major indexes from lows touched in March.
A debate is raging on Wall Street over whether stellar gains since the bottoming of most major indexes March 11 represent the beginning of a bull market or another trap in a 3-year-old bear market.
Upbeat stock analysts point to barriers broken this spring by the Standard & Poor's 500 index, which had its best quarter since 1998, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which posted its best quarter since 2001. They say ground has been broken for further gains as long as the economy and earnings keep improving.
"Investors may actually be eager to open their financial statements for the second quarter" after years of watching their stock funds shrink with each quarterly statement, said Steve B. Young, chief investment strategist at Banc of America Capital Management.
The Dow surged above a 10-month trading range more than a week ago before sliding back as the market consolidated in the last week, Mr. Young noted. Yesterday, the Dow ended down three points at 8,985 — leaving its gain for the quarter at 12.4 percent and its gain since March 11 at 18.3 percent.
The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index posted even more impressive gains of 21 percent for the quarter and 27 percent from the March lows. The Nasdaq ended down two points at 1,623 yesterday.
Some skeptics question whether the markets can rise much further, given the uncertain economy, but Mr. Young said stocks are likely to become more attractive. Investors have stowed away more than $2 trillion in money-market accounts and are receiving low returns.
"There may still be support for higher stock prices," he said.
Prudential Securities says it also believes that the record amounts of cash in bank deposits and money-market funds will provide fodder for another bull market, though it may not be as long and robust as the record 1990s bull run.
The Wall Street firm notes that most of the stock-index benchmarks have held, even with last week's setback. The S&P 500, for example, broke through the 965 ceiling of its trading range on May 30 and ended at 975 yesterday.
Ed Yardeni, Prudential's chief investment strategist, said stocks have room to grow, despite historically high valuations, because of extraordinarily low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve, tax cuts and increasing disposable incomes.
"For continued market appreciation to happen, we need to get the economy growing," Mr. Yardeni said.
But he is optimistic that American consumers will redouble spending in coming months as they receive an estimated $65 billion in tax cuts and rebates that further increase disposable incomes.
Even before the tax rebates hit consumers' mailboxes in the next few weeks, disposable incomes have increased at an unusually high rate of 5.5 percent — fully two percentage points above the growth in incomes before taxes are deducted, Mr. Yardeni noted.
Consumers also have as much as $200 billion in cash taken out of their home equity through mortgage refinancings, he said. That money also is available to spur growth in the economy and stocks.
"Consumers have never been more liquid," Mr. Yardeni said, estimating that many have as much as a half-year's household income sitting in cash deposits.
Small businesses also are poised to add to economic growth because of newly enacted tax deductions allowing them to write off $100,000 a year in technology and other investments, he noted.
A slump in business spending has been blamed largely for the anemic economic growth rates of recent quarters, he said.
Many analysts, however, are skeptical about the market upturn. They note in particular that the technology-stock rally is justified by small increases in orders and earnings.
"A sustained bull market is not a sure thing," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist with Wells Fargo & Co. "This could be another bear-market rally."
While Mr. Sohn is optimistic about a recovery, he says the economy continues to reel from the collapse of the 1990s stock market bubble and overspending on technology.
"The economic imbalances of the go-go '90s are so serious that it will be awhile before the economy gets back on its feet," he said.
Paul Gulden, manager of the Pax World Growth Fund, says he believes the tech-stock rally will endure, but the winners will not be the big names of the past. He says a new generation of firms will build on achievements in the Internet and medicine.
"We are concentrating less on the tech stocks of the last bull run and more on the survivors of the Internet bubble and newer companies that may have major growth potential," Mr. Gulden said.
But many of the old-line tech firms, he added, will continue to post decent growth rates.
Standard & Poor's questioned whether the run-up in biotechnology stocks was justified, asserting in a note to clients that investors' enthusiasm was reminiscent of the era of "irrational exuberance."



To: calgal who wrote (2857)7/1/2003 11:58:15 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Edwards blocks GIs' loan break

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, is single-handedly blocking Senate action on legislation all but unanimously supported by the House to ease the student-loan burden for soldiers fighting overseas.
In April, the House voted 421-1 to pass the HEROES Act, which essentially would defer student loans for soldiers called into action. The only dissenting vote was cast accidentally by one of the bill's sponsors.
The bill is stalled in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee under a "secret hold," said Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican and chairman of the committee.
Senate tradition allows members to lodge secret, or "anonymous," holds against a bill and block it indefinitely.
Supporters of the bill, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, were mystified for months that anyone would hold up such popular legislation, but couldn't pinpoint the culprit.
"It's frustrating when something has such overwhelming support and then it gets held up like this," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. John Kline, Minnesota Republican.
Mr. Gregg and Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, became so frustrated that last month they wrote a letter telling a colleague that the bill "has been held up in the Senate and is unlikely to pass" in its current form.
In their letter to Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, Mr. Gregg and Mr. Graham asked that their HEROES proposal be slipped into the defense spending bill in the Armed Services Committee, which Mr. Warner leads.
Capitol Hill speculation about the secret hold eventually centered on Mr. Edwards, one of four senators seeking the Democratic nomination for president.
"Apparently, presidential politics got involved," Mr. Kline said.
One Republican staffer on the Senate education panel said Mr. Edwards is holding up the bill so that he can take top credit for passing it later.
"Edwards likes this issue and he wants to see his name on it," the staffer said.
Mr. Edwards and his office initially denied responsibility for blocking the bill at all.
"I just talked to Senator Edwards," Mr. Graham said as he stepped off the Senate floor last week. "He said if he has a hold on it, he didn't know about it. He didn't even know about the bill."
Told last week that everyone involved with the legislation adamantly said that Mr. Edwards put the hold on it, Edwards spokesman Mike Briggs replied, "They're adamantly wrong."
Yesterday, however, Mr. Briggs acknowledged that his boss was stalling the bill.
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
As written, the HEROES Act would extend key elements of current law, which gives the secretary of education the authority to waive student-loan payments for soldiers fighting overseas. The law expires Sept. 30, and the new bill would extend those provisions until 2005.
"This is not a controversial issue," Mr. Kline said. "I wish I could say I thought of it, but it's been passed many times before without any problem."
This internal battle comes while anonymous holds are under growing scrutiny for inviting abuse and fostering political cowardice.
"It's like guerrilla warfare," said one Senate staffer trying to move along the HEROES bill.
The "hold" tradition began as a way to give senators more time to evaluate legislation before voting. In recent decades, it has become a tool for covertly blocking legislation.
Senators sometimes use a hold publicly, to gain attention on unrelated matters.
In May, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, introduced a bill that would require senators to publish their reasons in the Congressional Record within two days of lodging such a hold.
Mr. Wyden told colleagues at a hearing last month that his bill "would bring the anonymous hold out of the shadows of the Senate."
"It would ensure that the awesome power possessed by an individual senator to stop legislation or a nomination would be accompanied by the sunshine of public accountability," he said.
The Grassley-Wyden proposal drew broad praise.
"I believe that holds are an affront to the Senate, the leadership, the committees and to the individual members of this institution," said Sen. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican and chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee.
As for HEROES, Mr. Kline is determined to see his bill pass.
"It's not fair that [soldiers] suffer an added financial or educational hardship," he said. "They shouldn't have to mail in their student-loan payments from Baghdad."