Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (495855)	11/20/2003 9:38:32 AM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769670

Senators tout bill's benefits for rural areas By JANE NORMAN Register Washington Bureau 11/20/2003 Washington, D.C. - Senators who back the Medicare prescription drug bill launched a hard sell Wednesday on its rural health provisions, saying it's the best chance small-town America will ever have to catch up with the federal money going to urban areas. "This is the best thing rural America has ever seen when it comes to improving Medicare equity," said Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Ia. A vote is expected in the Senate before Thanksgiving, and in the House as soon as Friday. Calculations of Iowa's share of the rural money have soared upward. Congressional aides over the weekend had estimated Iowa would get from $300 million to $329 million over 10 years, but by Wednesday, the estimate was $438 million. Aides said the difference is in higher physician payments. Earlier estimates were figured using numbers provided by the Iowa Medical Society, which used a model different from that used by the American Medical Association. The national organization's model now is considered the most accurate predictor of future payments, aides said. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the top Democrat on the committee, said, "This is the last chance for rural America to get significant increases in payments for doctors and hospitals and seniors." Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., noted that every state has at least some rural areas, even those states dominated by cities. Of the $400 billion in the bill, which would extend prescription drug benefits to seniors for the first time, $25 billion over 10 years would be spent to increase Medicare payments to rural doctors and hospitals. The senators handed out a state-by-state list of how much each state would receive from the $25 billion. However, $10 billion included for rural health would reverse a planned cut in all Medicare physician fees. The 4.5 percent cut was supposed to begin in the 2004 budget year. Aides said rural doctors insisted that reversal was needed as much as the increased payments specific to rural areas, and it was also needed politically to gain support for the package. The biggest winner in rural health appeared to be the president's home state of Texas, which would pick up $1.9 billion. Close behind is Florida, home to many retirees, at $1.8 billion. California and New York each would receive about $1.2 billion. For hospitals overall, the largest sum, $6.8 billion, would be spent on eliminating the disparity in funding between large urban hospitals and rural and small urban hospitals, beginning in April 2004. Iowa gains $163 million from that provision. Grassley said senators pushed to have rural money included after it was dropped from the tax-cut bill earlier this year and in the face of opposition from House members representing urban areas. He said the way the complex Medicare reimbursement formula is computed has been "held hostage for too long by powerful chairmen from big cities." dmregister.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (495855)	11/20/2003 9:40:20 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

DEMOCRATS PROTECTING BIG GOVERNMENT Yesterday I told you that the principal reason the Democrats are opposed to this prescription drugs benefit program was because it would eventually cause the immense Medicare system to actually compete with private enterprise system for patients. There was Tom Daschle yesterday chanting "no more lemons" in front of a huge banner proclaiming "Don't privatize Medicare." Democrats absolutely do not want to see any private health care plans compete against Medicare. Bear in mind, nobody will be required to participate in a private plan. The Democrats are afraid, though, that some seniors will. Now if those seniors like their experience with a private plan, they may tell other seniors. They do talk, you know. Then other seniors will join the private plan, enjoy their experience, and tell even more seniors. Democrats are scared to death that these private sector plans may do such a good job competing against the inefficiencies of government that they will see more, then more and then more seniors bailing from Medicare to go to the private sector. Now I want you to think about the last four or five presidential elections. In every single one of those elections you have heard Democrats sound two very familiar themes. In the last days of those campaigns the Democrats will tell senior citizens that the evil Republicans have a secret plan (it's always a secret plan) to destroy Social Security and to destroy Medicare. And every single year senior citizens get the cat food scared out of them and rush to the polls to vote for Democrats just to save their Social Security and their Medicare. Question: How will these Democrats be able to frighten senior citizens with lies about secret plans if the seniors are relying on the private sector for their health insurance? Democrats are the party of big government. Democrats will support any program that increases government power. Democrats can be relied on to oppose any proposal that would reduce the political power that comes with government control. They oppose competition for Social Security, they oppose competition with their precious government indoctrination centers they call schools, and they oppose any threat of competition with Medicare or interference with their plans for socialized medicine in the United States. Do you need more proof of the Democrats love of government and their hatred of the private sector? Just pay close attention to Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean. Just this week he was calling for a massive re-regulation of American business. The economy is growing, businesses are expanding, people are finding jobs ... and Howard Dean wants the government to step in and re-regulate American business. Are these the clowns you're going to support in next year's election? boortz