On "repeal and replace" as applied to Medicare Part D (the Bush prescription drug bill)
Last edited Mon Apr 2, 2012, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Had I been a member of Congress in 2003, I would have voted against the Bush Medicare prescription drug bill. It was written by Pharma lobbyists for the purposes of making their industry a lot of money. And indeed it did.
I would have preferred a cheaper plan that cut the for profit drug companies out of the loop, allowed Medicare to directly negotiate lower prices and allow for the importation of generic drugs from Canada.
But the bill passed as it was, in part because Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert cheated by holding the House roll call vote open for over two hours past the regulation time for a roll call vote.
So Medicare part D is now the law of the land and firmly entrenched into our health care delivery system.
I seriously doubt any senior citizen getting prescription drug coverage today gives a shit about the violation of House parliamentary procedures 8 years ago.
I would like to see the Medicare Part D changed to work in the aforementioned ways I noted above, so I would favor repeal and replace . But I would stoutly oppose any proposal to simply repeal Medicare Part D and replace it with nothing. I would be against that because millions of seniors would be hurt as a result. Then it would just be about a personal grudge to repeal part of the legacy of George W. Bush, not actually trying to better people's lives.