The GOP’s new Medicare provision forbidding the government from negotiating drug prices was an especially hypocritical giveaway by the Republicans, because it insulates drug companies from price pressure by preventing the free market — supposedly the GOP's shrine — from operating as it should to lower drug prices for regular Americans.
But the payoff to the drug companies (and the assault on the free market and consumer’s freedom of choice and contract) is even worse: now comes news that the new law’s so-called “Prescription Drug Benefit” literally forbids insurance companies from offering so-called “Medigap” coverage to regular Americans who want to try to insulate themselves from the multi-thousand dollar gaps in the new plan’s prescription drug benefit.
Passing a law to forbid our seniors from spending their own money to protect themselves from devastating drug prices reflects right-wing values, not American values. So much so, that it raises the question whether the provision outlawing Medigap coverage might be vulnerable to a legal attack because it violates the constitutional right of seniors and the insurance companies to contract freely. (It may not, since the Contracts Clause (Article I, Section 10) of the U.S. Constitution is intended to prevent the states from passing laws infringing on citizens’ contract rights, and does not mention the U.S. Congress.)
Still, even if the matter is legally questionable, as a rhetorical and political matter, this new law is subject to attack on the basis that it unreasonably curbs freedom of contract. And, that it does so merely to protect and ensure drug companies’ profits.
Posted by Lead Balloons at December 08, 2003 11:11 AM
How does it even reflect right-wing values to block people from spending their own money for services they want? Sounds like a bunch of Communism from here.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on December 8, 2003 12:49 PMQuite right in terms of political science theory, Martha. But I was speaking of the REAL right-wing values being protected here, and always, by W: maximizing profit for corporate political donors at the expense of regular Americans.
--LB
Posted by: Lead Balloons on December 8, 2003 01:02 PMThe supposed justification for the no gap-insurance provision was so that seniors "should bear some of the burden" of the drug provision. That the seniors were already bearing the entire burden apparently did not enter into the calculus. That the drug companies should bear none of the burden was paramount.
Personally, I'm hoping that Bush and the Republicans actually try to run on this as an "accomplishment" of the Shrub's tenure. It will make superb campaign fodder for the Democratic candidate.
Posted by: Derelict on December 8, 2003 01:53 PMI ran into a neighbor today who used to work as a poll inspector in our precinct. He lives in a subsidized building on either disability or retirement benefits, I don't know which. He was saying he's had several operations this year on a fragile multiply broken leg bone and doesn't feel well enough to do the election work this year. He seemed well informed about this week's Medicare news and, yes, he said he's scared.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on December 8, 2003 10:56 PMDon't forget that one of the purposes of this bill is to kill Medicare. This is one of the poison pills. Stay with Medicare if you want, but if you do you can't spiff it up on your own. If you want better coverage you'll have to drop Medicare and look for it in the private sector.
Posted by: B Savage on December 9, 2003 03:20 PMWhat prevents a foreign company offering such an insurance policy? Is the restriction on companies or on individuals?
Posted by: Dinesh Gaitonde on December 9, 2003 04:31 PMYou are free and that is why you are lost.
Posted by: Manion Kim on January 21, 2004 09:04 PM