Dems: Plan Could Hurt Gop At Polls
By Ken Fireman
WASHINGTON BUREAU, Deborah Barfield Berry and Anne Q. Hoy contributed to this story.
November 26, 2003
Washington - President George W. Bush and the Republicans are likely to reap short-term political gains from passage of a Medicare drug benefit - if for nothing else than fulfilling a campaign promise and taking a potentially damaging issue off the table - but the future fallout remains highly uncertain.
Seniors are already skeptical about the measure that achieved final approval yesterday - one recent poll found only one-third favored passage while nearly half opposed it - and Democrats say opposition will grow when elderly voters learn more details.
The difficulty for Democrats is that even if they're right, the main provisions of the measure don't begin to take effect until 2006, well after next year's presidential and congressional elections. Given that timing, both sides are already working overtime to gain command of the debate.
For Bush and his party, the message is simple: The Democrats may have promised to give seniors a prescription drug benefit, but Republicans delivered.
"Year after year, the problems in the Medicare system were studied and debated, and yet nothing was done," Bush said yesterday in a speech in Las Vegas, one of two events on his schedule devoted to Medicare. "Some said Medicare reform can never be done. For the sake of our seniors, we've gotten something done."
The message was delivered even more bluntly during last week's House debate by Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), who taunted Democrats that his party was stealing one of their favorite issues out from under them: "Medicare isn't a Democrat program. You don't own it."
"Good policy is good politics, and this is good policy," said Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman.
Bush's argument is likely to resonate, at least in the short run, according to one health care consultant who is familiar with the politics of the issue. "This is an inoculation strategy: 'I got something done, nobody else got it done,'" said the consultant, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The public will give them some credit for that. It would have been a great detriment to him if it wasn't passed."
But Democrats say that when Medicare recipients begin to explore the nuances of the new program, they will grow disappointed and even angry about its flaws, and sooner or later vent that anger at the ballot box.
"This is not the end of the debate," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). "Seniors are a very significant bloc of votes. ... There has to be political implications that I think are cause for optimism for us."
Among the aspects of the program that could prove troubling, the consultant said, are the prospect that the annual drug coverage premium in some regions may rise well above the initial estimate of $35; that different seniors in different parts of the country may get different levels of coverage; and that some medications may not be covered.
These are on top of potentially unpopular provisions that have already been well publicized, such as the "doughnut hole" that excludes coverage for drug expenses between $2,251 and $3,600 and the experiment that will force Medicare to compete with private plans in six cities starting in 2010.
The poll that found weak support for the measure among seniors was conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. It found that the general public was split down the middle on the bill; among those aged 65 and older, 33 percent favored it and 49 percent opposed it. The poll surveyed 860 people Nov. 19-23 and had a margin of error of 3 percent.
The political director of the survey, Adam Clymer, said he thought it was the general idea of change that was making seniors uneasy about the measure, rather than any specific provision. "Seniors have always been more worried about any change in the system," he said. "They suspect that change will make things worse."
One local Medicare recipient, Stanley Fink, 61, of Centereach, said he was disturbed about several provisions, including one that bans Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for bulk discounts and another that gives $12 billion in public subsidies to private insurers.
"I will vote against anybody who voted for this bill," said Fink, 61, who has multiple sclerosis and is on disability. "When you go into business, you're in business. If you want people to leave Medicare, you have to offer something that they want. How does any business get a new customer? They offer something better."
Harold Krainin, 76, an attorney from Glen Head, said he is apprehensive about any attempt to privatize the health care program because it will "erode the base of Medicare." For him, a candidate's position on the measure will be a key factor in his vote. "It's not the only one, but it certainly is one of the main issues," he said.
Deborah Barfield Berry and Anne Q. Hoy contributed to this story.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc. |
