Not One Law Republicans Passed Has Helped America In Over Forty Years

[kpete]

December 2, 1970 was the last time a Republican created something that benefits the greater good of society. Seriously, it’s been over forty years since any Republican has successfully enacted legislation that is based on scientific data, also known as reality. Richard M. Nixon created the EPA in 1970 which marks the last time the party behaved responsibly by utilizing data from climate scientists and attempting to clean up our environment. Their actions ever since have been an attempt to pollute indiscriminately.

Everything the GOP stands for is rooted in religiously-based discrimination of some sort. Whether they are quashing the rights of women, the poor and minorities or relinquishing the rights to drink clean water and breathe healthy air, the GOP is always on the wrong side of history. They claim trickle down economics is the magical way the job-creator fairies instinctively share their wealth. Profit-gorging corporations care only about their coveted bottom line: earnings for the shareholders. They are not concerned with the middle class, as companies like Walmart have created the working poor as the new normal. The laws they’ve passed are unimaginably awful.

...................


Without even touching on the denial of racism and sexism, one can see very clearly how rooted in fantasy and lies the Republican platform has become. It is fashionable to disregard evidence, fact and data to promote the agendas of large corporations who care nothing for the citizens of this country. With 5/9 of the Supreme Court on board to sanction deception to the American people, we are truly in a situation where everyone MUST pay attention or our country will go the way of theocracies like Afghanistan. Income inequality will only worsen as our situation on this planet becomes more perilous with increasing weather disasters. Politics is local, and electing Democrats who are not religious shamans would be a great step in the right direction in this 2014 election year.

MORE:
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/not-one-law-republicans-passed-has-helped

[Nye Bevan]

1. You don't think Medicare Part D (passed into law in 2003) is generally a good thing? (nt)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. I don't seem to remember it being thought of as a particularly good thing at the time

there was serious (and questionable arm-twisting) being done right up through its passage, the roll-out was botched (which Republicans want to forget when criticizing ACA over its roll-out), it gives more money to big pharma, it created the "donut hole" (which has been closed thanks to ACA). Oh and it wasn't paid for either (which the Republicans are all so concerned about now-making sure everything the Democrats propose is paid for down to the last penny). Maybe there is something "good" about it but I'm not sure what it is. I'm nowhere near old enough to use it either at the moment so I'm really not very familiar with it.

[former9thward]

3. Are you in favor of repealing it since it is so bad?

Seniors I know all seem to like it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Educate me on what is good about the program?

Is it helpful? Does it deliver an actual good service to Medicare recipients? Does it help control costs?

[former9thward]

6. It delivers prescription drugs at a much lower price.

Frankly that is all I know from seniors who have talked to me about it. I am not at the age that I have any personal experience and I haven't bothered to do any real research on it since it is not a topic that interests me a lot. I don't know if it helps control costs or not. I am going to assume there are many DUers who have experience with this. Maybe they can give their comments pro or con.

[Major Nikon]

20. Lower price to whom?

Certainly not to the taxpayer. Part D was written by and for the pharmaceutical industry.

[former9thward]

21. To seniors.

The ones paying. Do you favor repeal?

[daleanime]

25. I 'favor' single payer....

[former9thward]

27. I favor peace on earth but that has little to do with the topic.

Either Part D was good or bad. If it was bad then you must favor repeal unless you like seeing bad laws on the books.

[daleanime]

36. If there is something better....

how is that not relevant?

[Bandit]

49. It is both good and bad

It makes it illegal to bargain for better drug prices or to allow drugs into the USA from other countries to save money. It does provide some relief for seniors for prescription drugs but at good expense and takes the job from the government and puts it into private insurance hands. The Government can do the job better and cheaper but Republicans would not allow that.

[Major Nikon]

33. I'm in favor of fixing it

Those who may think the GOP deserves credit for the legislation conveniently forget that the political pressure for the bill had been building long before Shrub ever became presidunce. The GOP just so happened to be sitting on the helm at the time and they used that to leverage an enormous windfall for the drug companies. Part D costs the taxpayers an extra $50 billion per year simply because the government is forbidden from negotiating drug prices. To put that in perspective we spend just a little more for the entire VA (which can negotiate drug prices).

[former9thward]

35. The question was whether it was a good or bad law.

Not whether it was perfect. It is a yes or no question. Should that law, as written, have been passed at that time? If not then it should be repealed no matter who favors it.

[Major Nikon]

40. The question was whether Republicans deserve credit for it or not

Unless you are a drug company, it's a bad law.

[former9thward]

41. So seniors who favor it just don't know what is good for them.

They are not drug companies. Why is it that no Democratic candidates have campaigned on repealing a bad law?

[Major Nikon]

42. You're assuming that if the law hadn't passed seniors would never have gotten anything better

I find that to be a poor assumption and empty rhetoric. It's kinda like saying all the Democrats who voted against it must hate seniors.

The political pressure to pass a bill was overwhelming and would have happened one way or another. If the GOP hadn't passed a bill, they would have been voted out and a better bill would have taken its place.

[sinkingfeeling]

29. No it doesn't. It only shifts the cost of the drugs to the taxpayers. Remember

how the GOP fought against adding bulk purchasing power to Medicare?

[former9thward]

31. So you favor repeal even though seniors like it?

[sinkingfeeling]

32. I didn't say that. I said it did nothing to control the cost of drugs.

[former9thward]

34. The whole topic is whether Part D is a good or bad law.

That was it. People are trying to avoid answering that question by moving the goalposts to completely unrelated topics.

[sinkingfeeling]

37. Just because something is labeled 'a bad law' doesn't mean the only solution

is to repeal it. I think Part D and Medicare in general could use some improvement. Kind of like the ACA needs improvement.

[pangaia]

45. It is better for people who need drugs

than what was in existence before it was passed.
That said, it could be much, much better if it were possible to negotiate prices with drug companies.

[former9thward]

47. Well I certainly agree with all of that.

[pangaia]

50. Whew!

Not a lot of people agree with much these days.
I was just expressing my opinion that I didn't feel it is a yes or no.

[packman]

19. I wonder about that also

On the surface, Part D appears to be a plus and Bush was pillared for it by the Dems in much the same way Repukes are hammering away at Obama on the ACA. True, it has its faults but it was a step in the right direction. The only thing I found distasteful was those who shepherded Part D Thur congress went on to well paying jobs in big pharma companies, which makes me suspicious.

From Wikipedia:

"Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[28][29] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage."

[ProSense]

7. It was an opportunity to expand Medicare,

"You don't think Medicare Part D (passed into law in 2003) is generally a good thing?"

...which was instead used to inextricably link the program to private insurers, taking away its bargainging power and creating the donut hole.

Krugman, 2005:

A Serious Drug Problem

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There was a brief flurry of outrage when Congress passed the 2003 Medicare bill. The news media reported on the scandalous vote in the House of Representatives: Republican leaders violated parliamentary procedure, twisted arms and perhaps engaged in bribery to persuade skeptical lawmakers to change their votes in a session literally held in the dead of night.

Later, the media reported on another scandal: it turned out that the administration had deceived Congress about the bill's likely cost.

But the real scandal is what's in the legislation. It's an object lesson in how special interests hold America's health care system hostage.

The new Medicare law subsidizes private health plans, which have repeatedly failed to deliver promised cost savings. It creates an unnecessary layer of middlemen by requiring that the drug benefit be administered by private insurers. The biggest giveaway is to Big Pharma: the law specifically prohibits Medicare from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices.

Outside the United States, almost every government bargains over drug prices. And it works: the Congressional Budget Office says that foreign drug prices are 35 to 55 percent below U.S. levels. Even within the United States, Veterans Affairs is able to negotiate discounts of 50 percent or more, far larger than those the Medicare actuary expects the elderly to receive under the new plan.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06krugman.html

It's not like there wasn't a better model for single-payer programs.

<...>

Best Price. A third argument is that it makes sense for Medicare to receive the best price available for prescription drugs, just like Medicaid and the VA. In Medicaid, the drug manufacturer provides the federal government discounts for drugs, which are shared with the states. The discount is either the minimum drug amount or an amount based on the best price paid by private drug purchasers, whichever is less. Current law requires drug companies to charge Medicaid 23 percent less than the average price they receive for the sale of a drug to retail pharmacies. Drug companies also must provide another discount if a drug’s price rises faster than the rate of inflation (Thomas and Pear, 2013)...Medicaid rebates, if applied to Part D, would save the federal government money. According to a 2011 study conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicaid rebates were three times greater than the discounts negotiated by Part D for 100 brand name drugs. In 68 of these drugs, Medicaid rebates were twice as high as rebates granted by the drug companies for Medicare drugs (OIG HHS, 2011; Hulsey, 2013). Similarly, a 2008 study of drug pricing information by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that Part D paid, on average, 30 percent more for drugs than Medicaid (Hulsey, 2013).

- more -

http://www.ncpssm.org/PublicPolicy/Medicare/Documents/ArticleID/1138/Issue-Brief-Medicare-Drug-Negotiation-and-Rebates

The ACA increased the Medicaid rebate percentage.
http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html

Medicaid Drug Rebate Program

<...>

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program is a partnership between CMS, State Medicaid Agencies, and participating drug manufacturers that helps to offset the Federal and State costs of most outpatient prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid patients. Approximately 600 drug manufacturers currently participate in this program. All fifty States and the District of Columbia cover prescription drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which is authorized by Section 1927 of the Social Security Act.

The program requires a drug manufacturer to enter into, and have in effect, a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in exchange for State Medicaid coverage of most of the manufacturer’s drugs. When a manufacturers markets a new drug and electronically lists it with the FDA, they must also submit the drug to the Drug Data Reporting (DDR) system. This ensures that states are aware of the newly marketed drug. In addition, Section II(g) of the Rebate Agreement explains that labelers are responsible for notifying states of a new drug’s coverage. Labelers are required to report all covered outpatient drugs under their labeler code to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. They may not be selective in reporting their NDC's to the program. Manufacturers are then responsible for paying a rebate on those drugs each time that they are dispensed to Medicaid patients. These rebates are paid by drug manufacturers on a quarterly basis and are shared between the States and the Federal government to offset the overall cost of prescription drugs under the Medicaid Program.

http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Benefits/Prescription-Drugs/Medicaid-Drug-Rebate-Program.html

Medicare Improvements

The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.

1) Closing the donut hole

a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.

b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.

c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

<...>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024695694

The President has proposed the same rate for Medicare (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043 ), which would save even more than the Senate proposal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022725266), $164 billion to $141 billion, respectively.

[Nye Bevan]

8. Laws expanding healthcare coverage tend to be messy compromises,

as we all know from more recent experience. And Medicare Part D certainly has its flaws. But on balance, I would argue that it's better that this law was passed than that there was no prescription drug coverage in Medicare. My understanding is that it's an optional program, so if it was really so terrible why would so many seniors sign up for it?

[ProSense]

10. Again,

"Laws expanding healthcare coverage tend to be messy compromises, as we all know from more recent experience. And Medicare Part D certainly has its flaws. But on balance, I would argue that it's better that this law was passed than that there was no prescription drug coverage in Medicare. My understanding is that it's an optional program, so if it was really so terrible why would so many seniors sign up for it?"

...they had the models, and since Medicare is single-payer, there was no reason to move away from those programs. Why were so many seniors complaining about the donut hole?

Why are people pushing for Medicare to negotiate drug prices?

Drug prices for the VA are half of those for Medicare. That's a huge difference.

The deficit hawks have been screaming about rising health care costs and the potential to bankrupt the country, and yet they are the ones who seem to constantly make excuses for the the predatory insurance companies.

[Nye Bevan]

11. Yeah, we could spend all day complaining about both Medicare Part D and the ACA.

But I think we are better off with the ACA than with no law at all, and I think we are better off with Medicare Part D than with no Medicare prescription drug coverage at all.

[ProSense]

17. Maybe, but

"Yeah, we could spend all day complaining about both Medicare Part D and the ACA. But I think we are better off with the ACA than with no law at all, and I think we are better off with Medicare Part D than with no Medicare prescription drug coverage at all."

...the ACA didn't take a single-payer model and corrupt it. In fact, the ACA is fixing some of the problems with Medicare Part D.

The ACA strengthened Medicare.

<...>

MEDICARE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION

Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).

The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).

<...>

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf

Yeah, we're "better off with the ACA than with no law at all," but many ACA supporters will acknowledge that the goal is single payer.

[hue]

15. Very good points!

[jwirr]

9. Part D has helped seniors but there were big problems - the donut hole and the big pharma

payoff were a few.

One of the only laws passed by repugs that I think was a real help was the Nixon revenue sharing bill and that had too much emphasis on bricks and mortar. Ignored a lot of community needs that could not be solved by the b/m solution.

[jmowreader]

24. Three things would have made it a good program

Allowing the government to negotiate with the pharma industry. The VA does it, which is one of the reasons VA is so efficient.

Not doing the donut hole.

And paying for it.

[wandy]

5. Kpete speaks truth here......

Somewhat older than 40 years.
Some times I think that the traditional republican party has done little good in my lifetime.
Sometimes I think that the modern Teapublican party is the greatest threat this country has faced.

[HooptieWagon]

14. Yes, the Tealiban is a greater threat to this country than the Taliban.

[hfojvt]

12. well the Bush tax cuts must have been good

Democrats recently voted to make most of them permanent.

I also find it hard to believe that Nixon created the EPA.

Wasn't there some sort of legislation involved? Did a majority of Republicans vote for that legislation?

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. "Good" is relative ...

Democrats voted to make them permanent in exchange for things that were much more pressing for the working classes. That doesn't make the tax cuts good; it just means that other things, like extending U/C, etc., were better/more important.

[hfojvt]

53. sure they were

and Bush only proposed them in the first place to "help the economy".

See, it is just purely accidental that both actions greatly helped the rich. Both parties were just trying to help the working class and had to give truckloads of money to the rich in order to do so. It was the only way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Let me tell you astory ...

I once had a client that sought advice on a matter.

The client had hired a care-taker for her elderly mother and paid the care-taker cash, under the table ... and paid out of the mother's bank account. The client paid the care-taker a flat rate of $3,500/month to attend to the mother's needs ... this included getting the mother up, washed and dressed in the morning, preparing breakfast, ensuring that her meds were taken, running errands for the mother, preparing lunch, then dinner, and at the end of the day, getting the mother to bed and to secure the house. Because the care-taker, was a neighbor (and friend) of the mother's, the care-taker was free to return home when she had attended to the specific care tasks; but was expected to "check-in" on the mother throughout the day, and be available should something arise throughout the night.

This was a win/win arrangement for both of the parties: the care-taker got a nice (unreported) supplement to her SSDI income, for doing a little more than what she would have normally done (I.e., caring for an elderly neighbor and friend); and the client got a trusted care-taker at below market and avoided paying payroll and other taxes and fees.

After some 5+ years, the client and the care-taker had a wage dispute, as the client sought to, without notice, reduce the care-taker's wages, because the mother had been hospitalized for about a week ... in the client's eyes, "why should I have to pay the care-taker for stuff she's not doing?" But from the care-taker's view, they had argued on a monthly rate, not a daily or weekly rate.

After hearing the facts, I advised that the client pay the full monthly fee, then go back and negotiate a new arrangement. The client balked, stuck on, "why should I have to pay the care-taker for stuff she's not doing?" And the client promised that if the care-taker didn't back off, she would call SS and inform them that the care-taker had unreported income.

I advised that this was a bad idea, as the client had significant exposure, as it would bring to light the client's unpaid tax liabilities, etc.; and the exposure, with penalties, would likely be in the 6-figures.

The client's response: "But she'd be in prison ... I am with that!"

This seems to relate to the approach you would've taken ... "Just let the Bush tax cuts expire because the wealthy are getting tons of benefit!!!!!" ...

Damn the fact that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would have taken more money out of the working class' pockets, as the tax cuts benefited the working class, too - albeit to a lesser total amount. (But, you're good with that because the wealthy would have had to pay a little bit more).

Damn the fact that had the Tax cut compromise not been made, the U/C extension would died, as well. (But, you're good with that because the wealthy would have had to pay a little bit more).

... And like the client, you're good with all that because YOU, personally, would not have been affected.

How brave a warrior you are!

[former9thward]

26. Nixon sent a re-organization message to Congress.

He told them what he was going to do.

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/reorganization-plan-no-3-1970

After that Congress budgeted money for the agency just like they do for every other agency.

[hfojvt]

52. okay then

I sit corrected

[Nye Bevan]

38. Dems kept them for the middle class but took them away from the 1% (nt)

[hfojvt]

51. actually, no, on two counts

first of all, the 91-99% are NOT part of the "middle class" in my book. A 2%er is not all that much different from a 1%er.

Second, the top 1% gets some $600 billion in permanent tax cuts over the next decade with the bill that Democrats passed and Obama signed and sold to us as a "great victory".

[Nye Bevan]

54. Since President Obama's reelection, the top rate of income tax on the rich has increased by 4.6%.

The top rate of tax on interest income for the rich has increased by 8.4%.

The top rate of tax on capital gains and dividends for the rich has increased by 8.8%.

And where in my post did I claim that the 91-99% were part of the middle class? I accurately stated that the tax cuts were maintained for the middle class but not for the 1%.

[hfojvt]

55. the top rate on dividends has only increased

if you ignore the cuts that happened before Obama took office.

Cuts that were scheduled to EXPIRE automatically, but some political party voted to make them permanent instead. And called that a fucking victory.

Permanent tax CUTS - FOR the rich. $600 billion over the next decade for the top 1% and $1.3 trillion over the next decade for the top 5%. $2.4 trillion for the top 20%.

That's 65% of the total tax cuts going to the top 20%.

Democrats kept the tax cuts mostly for the top.

But of course with that 1% bullsh*t, the top 20% becomes part of the "middle class".

[hue]

13. This is about the time ALEC became a force in US politics. (ALEC was founded in 1973)

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F

[Johonny]

16. Dems controlled the House and Senate all Nixon did was sign the thing

and then attack it in the courts which was his MO. As a lawyer his strategy was always to delay things he thought he couldn't defeat in public by using the court system. This is different than the modern Republican party that openly labels and attacks popular things yet oddly never seems to worry about the ramifications almost as if the media was owned by them.

[unblock]

18. does the ada count? poppy signed it

democratic sponsors, democratic congress. but republicans pretty much cooperated and poppy signed it and even talked about it like it was a good thing.

[starroute]

22. What about the Endangered Species Act of 1973?

It doesn't invalidate your headline ("over forty years&quot , but the establishment of the EPA wasn't the last decent Republican initiative. The GOP did continue to support environmental initiatives until the Reagan era took hold.

[FailureToCommunicate]

28. The great civil rights act, the ADA, was bipartisan, and signed by GHWBush in 1990...

Last edited Thu Apr 10, 2014, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The gist of the article- originally from Liberaland - is certainly true, but this is kind of a big omission.

[Zorra]

30. Interesting how far back posters have to go when trying to debunk the OP

with the very rare exceptions that seem to contradict the premise of the OP.

[karadax]

39. OP gives a time frame of 40 years.

Anything brought up within that scope should be fair game to discuss. Outside of 40 years I say ignore it as it's not relevant.

[Zorra]

43. So few constructive bills over 40 years proves how totally lame republicans are

at governing.

[subterranean]

44. They passed the Do Not Call act.

I'd say that one was useful, and it had broad bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop robocalls, which I still get almost every day.

[Nye Bevan]

46. Yeah, that would be great if it actually worked,

which it doesn't. Anne from Account Services always spoofs her caller ID to make it look like she's calling from somewhere like Montana or Wyoming.

[geretogo]

48. And as long as we have Right Wing churches , Fox News , Corporate news , and far Right Radio

the programed robots will continue to put evil Republicans in office .

[Jenoch]

56. "Not One Law Republicans Passed Has Helped America In Over Forty Years"

Although I can't name one, I find this statement to be statistically impossible. There have been tens of thousands of laws passed over the past four decades.

Now if the point is about when Republicans controlled both houses of congress, that changes things because they have not had that kind of power too often in the last 40 years.

By the way, 1970 was longer than 40 years ago.

[LuckyTheDog]

59. And now, they seek to pass laws that will hurt us badly

And there are a lot of morons willing to help them.