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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (8047)	11/29/2003 3:55:32 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Welfare Turns Into a Suite Deal under the GOP, corporate titans are lining up for government handouts November 28, 2003 latimes.com COMMENTARY . By Rahm Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel, a Democratic congressman from Illinois, sits on the House Financial Services Committee and the Budget Committee. He was a senior policy advisor to President Clinton. Remember when the "welfare queen" was a woman driving a Cadillac? Today, that character has become a CEO riding in the back of a limousine. The Bush administration and the Republican-led House have taken steps toward providing an unprecedented taxpayer-funded handout to private companies. The energy bill, which passed the House and will be taken up again by the Senate in January, contains nearly $30 billion in such benefits, including $11.3 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies that just had one of their most profitable years on record. That bill also contains $18 billion in federal loan guarantees for private construction of a gas pipeline from Alaska to Chicago; $1.1 billion to build a nuclear reactor in Idaho to produce hydrogen; $95 million to research turning dead turkeys into energy; and funding to construct a rain forest museum in Iowa. This is while Pell Grants - money that sends kids to college - are being frozen for the first time in 10 years. And despite an oft-stated commitment to family values, the Republicans' bill even contains money to build an energy-efficient Hooters restaurant in Louisiana. Now, if Hooters wants to practice energy conservation, fine. But is it really the responsibility of American taxpayers to pay for it? Similarly, the newly passed Republican Medicare reform bill provides billions in federal welfare assistance for private businesses. HMOs and PPOs will receive almost $80 billion in federal subsidies to administer the program. An estimated $139 billion in additional profits will flow directly to pharmaceutical companies. Rather than enabling Medicare to use its market power to bargain for cheaper drugs in classic capitalist fashion, the Medicare reform bill specifically prohibits such negotiations. It also sets the bar so high for federal approval of safe and affordable drugs from Canada that it completely forecloses the free-market competition that might drive down U.S. drug prices by 50%. If an HMO wants to sell insurance, it should. But it should not expect a taxpayer subsidy. If an oil company wants to build a gas pipeline, it should. But it should not expect taxpayers to help. What has happened to the Republican Party that claimed to be the protector of free markets, the true believers in a capitalistic system in which competition would provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number? Judging by the energy and Medicare bills created by a Republican Congress, never has a political party stood for a greater dependency on government handouts for corporate titans. The party that campaigned for years on demonizing welfare has been transformed into a party that espouses the virtues of dependency. I am a Democrat who happens to have worked on ending the broken welfare system and the culture that goes with it. The Clinton administration's reforms were designed to decrease dependence on government and increase personal responsibility. This is a value that now must be instilled in our corporate suites and taught to the captains of capitalism. Just as with aiding individuals on the welfare rolls, most Democrats believe in giving U.S. businesses the tools they need to compete effectively: a solid infrastructure of transportation and water systems, fair trade policies that help to equalize opportunity and, most important, a public education system that can provide American businesses with a well-trained workforce. Government should not seduce companies with public assistance when profit should be their driving force. What today's Republicans have created is a whole new culture of welfare that threatens the very free-market system they claim to champion. It's time to get the new corporate "welfare queen" out of his limousine.

To: Mephisto who wrote (8047)	12/9/2003 4:42:36 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Stalking the Giant Chicken Coop "Today President Bush will sign into law a prescription drug benefit under Medicare that will introduce the first cold drafts of bitter reality to the G.O.P.'s long dream of dismantling Medicare as we've known it." December 8, 2003 The New York Times OP-ED COLUMNIST By BOB HERBERT On July 30, 1965, Lyndon Johnson flew to Independence, Mo., and in the presence of a smiling Harry Truman, signed the bill that created Medicare. "No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine," said Johnson. The growls of opposition in the background were muted. Medicare was a desperately needed program, and it grew to be a wildly popular one. But conservatives were outraged by it. Socialized medicine, they snarled. Un-American. Truman had proposed a health care program for the elderly back in the 40's. It went nowhere. Jack Kennedy pushed it in the early 60's. Same result. It took Johnson's legislative genius and his enormous mandate from the 1964 presidential election to bring the program into being. And even then it wasn't easy. Johnson's biographer, Robert Dallek, recalled that Ronald Reagan " saw Medicare as the advance wave of socialism, which would `invade every area of freedom in this country.' " "Reagan," wrote Mr. Dallek, "predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their `sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in America when men were free.' " Newt Gingrich ranted against Medicare in the 1990's, comparing its operations to "centralized command bureaucracies" in Moscow. And George W. Bush tried to fashion a prescription drug benefit that would require senior citizens to leave the traditional Medicare program before they could get the benefit. After nearly four decades, during which Medicare significantly improved the health and economic conditions of the nation's elderly, this unrelenting hostility can fairly be called an obsession. Today President Bush will sign into law a prescription drug benefit under Medicare that will introduce the first cold drafts of bitter reality to the G.O.P.'s long dream of dismantling Medicare as we've known it. Think of Medicare as a giant chicken coop. Keep in mind that the hostile-to-Medicare Republicans control the presidency and both houses of Congress. Now you decide who the foxes and the chickens are. (Hint: we're not talking about spring chickens.) When Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman got together for the debut of Medicare, they were genuinely concerned about the medical needs of the nation's elderly. "These people," said Truman, "are our prideful responsibility and they are entitled, among other benefits, to the best medical protection available." The bill that President Bush will sign today is a giant windfall for the drug companies, opening up a huge new market with virtually no effort to restrain prices. It will give Medicare recipients a modest drug benefit, but at a potentially dreadful cost. The bill starts the process of undermining Medicare by turning parts of it over to insurance companies, H.M.O.'s and other private contractors. The drug benefit will be delivered almost entirely through private insurance plans. It would have been more efficient and cheaper to deliver it the same way other Medicare benefits are delivered. But that's not the idea. The Bush administration has mastered the art of legalized banditry, in which tons of government money - the people's money - are hijacked and handed over to the special interests. Drug company stock prices soared with the passage of the Medicare bill, a sign that another government vault had been blown open and the big Medicare money was in play. The Republicans are not subtle about these matters. The bill, for example, specifically prohibits the government from negotiating discounts or lower drug prices, and bars the importation of cheaper drugs from abroad. And then there's the "demonstration" project, to begin in 2010, in which Medicare will be forced in several cities to compete against private, profit-making health plans. It will be a rigged competition in that, among other things, the private plans will be heavily subsidized by Medicare money and will be able to cherry-pick the healthiest patients. As one Capitol Hill staffer told me last week: "This is more than the camel's nose under the tent. This is like the head, the hump and everything else." Harry Truman would be beside himself. Copyright 2003 The New York Times nytimes.com

To: Mephisto who wrote (8047)	12/10/2003 2:16:51 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Elderly will have to pay for government's sellout ajc.com With sales projected to top $275 billion this year, Wal-Mart enjoys such a dominant position in retailing that it can all but dictate what price it will pay to its suppliers. And while that power has made the company the target of considerable criticism, defenders of free markets are quick to point out that the company uses that power to drive costs down and wring inefficiencies out of the system, in the process making more goods more affordable to more people. In other words, what's good for Wal-Mart is good for the country. Now, wouldn't it be great if somebody could do something similar to bring down the soaring cost of prescription drugs in this country? Some private health insurance companies have enough market share to insist on somewhat lower drug prices, but nobody wields that power on behalf of most senior citizens, who are most dependent on drugs. That could have changed under the Medicare prescription drug plan signed into law by President Bush this week. Once the law takes full effect, the government will account for 20 percent to 25 percent of prescription drug purchases, giving the government enough market power to negotiate lower prices with a pharmaceutical industry that in many cases lacks competitive pricing pressures. Under that law, however, government is forbidden to negotiate prices. Lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry used their considerable clout with the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress to win a provision that requires the government to pay whatever price the drug companies wish to charge. In other words, the people who complain most loudly that government doesn't operate like a business have now passed a law to ensure that government is not allowed to operate like a business. When the government buys almost anything -- tanks or jets or computers or paper -- it uses its market power and bidding process to get good prices. But when the product in question is made by the politically powerful pharmaceutical industry, with its high profits and many millions of dollars in campaign contributions, that process is outlawed. It is true, of course, that government officials should not be allowed to set prices. In this case, though, government would not be mandating prices through laws or regulations. Instead, like Wal-Mart, it would influence prices solely as a buyer in the marketplace. Like Wal-Mart, it could have used that power to drive costs down and wring inefficiencies out of the system, and in the process make more prescription drugs more affordable to more people. But our elected leaders have refused to let that happen.

To: Mephisto who wrote (8047)	12/30/2003 1:15:57 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Poll: Americans Waver on New Medicare Law Sat Dec 27, 5:00 PM ET WASHINGTON - The American public initially supports Medicare legislation providing help with prescription drugs, but that support fades when presented with criticism of the bill signed into law this year, a poll released Saturday suggests. Asked whether they support "a Medicare bill which among other things provides prescription drug coverage and allows private companies to provide some services," almost two-thirds, 63 percent, said yes, according to the poll by the National Annenberg Election Survey. When those polled were presented with opponents' arguments that the bill won't help seniors that much and cutting costs will eventually destroy Medicare, support faded. After hearings those arguments, only one in five of the total sample, 21 percent, supported it and another two in five said they were unsure. Opposition to the bill weakened when opponents were given the additional argument that cutting costs is essential for Medicare to survive. The poll found that almost half in the sample were unsure about the Medicare bill once questions were raised on either side. During a campaign year, both sides are certain to vigorously debate the measure. The poll of 1,615 adults was taken from Dec. 8-23 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. story.news.yahoo.com