Dubya Lies about Medicare

[JoseCuervo]

Medicare lies, part 2
Following up on yesterday's revelation that a top Medicare official was told to withhold information from Congress, the Washington Post confirms that the official, Richard Foster, claims that he believed his job was in jeopardy if he told Congress the true cost of the Bush Medicare bill.

The government's longtime chief analyst of Medicare costs said yesterday that Bush administration officials threatened to fire him last year if he disclosed to Congress that he believed the prescription drug legislation favored by the White House would prove far more expensive than lawmakers had been told.

[Foster] said Thomas A. Scully, then administrator of the HHS agency that oversees Medicare, repeatedly told him last spring and summer that Foster would be fired if he complied with requests from Republican and Democratic lawmakers to provide cost estimates of aspects of the prescription drug legislation. Although other HHS officials ultimately assured him his job was safe, Foster said, the administration's practice of withholding budget predictions continued until the legislation was enacted in November.

But last June, [Foster] said, Scully directed him to "cease responding directly to Congress" and to funnel all cost estimates to Scully to decide which ones would be released. "More than once, Tom said he was just following orders," Foster said, adding he did not know where the orders came from but believed they might have originated in the White House.

Democrats on the Hill have demanded an investigation. If Foster — who the Post says "is regarded in government and policy circles as a competent and neutral civil servant" — is telling the truth, than the White House deliberately lied about the cost of the Medicare bill to Congress and the American people.

While we've come to expect deceptions at every turn from the Bush administration, this latest revelation, especially the threats to Foster, is shocking. Let's hope the GOP machine doesn't shut down attempts to find the truth yet again.

 

[Nemont]

What did the dems use for a projected cost for a more comprehensive benefit?

How much would the new benefit cost? The Congressional Budget Office hasn't evaluated the legislation yet, said Benjamin, but a very similar bill introduced in the last congressional session by former Sen. Chuck Robb (D, Va.) was estimated to cost $318 billion. Because of minor differences in the two plans, Benjamin expects Graham's proposal to cost slightly less, between $308 and $312 billion.

Link

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

Cost projections for all medicare plans have been off from the get go. To claim the dems were lied to is flat wrong as they have their own number crunchers employed by the thousands. Why didn't they fight it more in congress? Could it be to make it a Campaign issue?

Senate Democrats want to spend as much as $600 billion over six years

How can they cry wolf is they believed a drug benefit would cost $600 Billion?

Medicare started out in 1965 as three plans. The Democrat plan was the basisfor Part A, hospital insurance, or HI. The Republican plan was the basis for Part B, supplementary medical insurance, or SMI. The third part was Medicaid.

Early on, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, forerunner of today's Department of Health and Human Services, had signed off on HI.

"The financing of the basic plan is based on very conservative cost estimates," HEW Secretary Anthony Celebreezze told the Senate Finance Committeein 1965.

The budget projections said HI would cost less than $2 billion in its first year. It would rise to only $9 billion by 1990.

It would be financed with a 1% payroll tax split evenly between employers and employees. That tax would rise to 1.6% by 1987, but that would be the upperlimit. By 1971, the taxable wage base would be fixed at $6,600

LINK


Jeff

[ 03-15-2004, 13:51: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[Ten Bears]

Weak, EG, very weeeeeak.

 

[JoseCuervo]

It was interesting how many AARP members quit after the AARP endorsement of Dubya's package...

 

[pawclaws]

AARP has no more business endorsing anyone or anything regarding politics than do the unions, media, etc. Besides, they didn't quit; they died!@