On policy, we now have the principle that drugs should be covered just like every other kind of health care under Medicare. Now, the question is how generous the benefit should be, which is a winning terrain for progressives. It's a lot easier to expand coverage in an existing program than create a whole new entitlement-- a fact that conservatives generally recognize and which is making most of the rightwing apoplectic as they see Bush and the GOP push through this plan for short-term political gain. As for the "privatization" aspects, I just don't think a few pilot projects and such are as threatening as most critics make out. And the very cost of the drugs will put pressure on Congress to actually pass drug cost controls as a deficit fighting measure.
Emphasize the last point-- without the drug bill, cost controls on drug manufacturers was just "anti-business regulation." With $400 billion in government spending at stake, suddenly drug price controls is a way to cut government spending, another good terrain for progressives to advocate against drug company profits.
As for the politics, passing a shitty bill is worse for the GOP than if the Dems had defeated it. If the Dems had defeated it, Bush could have said, "Well, I tried to fulfill my promise to give seniors a drug benefit, but the obstructions Dems stopped me." Now, Bush has full responsibility for the details of the bill and seniors won't be happy. They'll recognize that the trillions of dollars in tax cuts meant they only had this pathetic benefit available.
So much for the juggernaut.
Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Pollak" <mpollak at panix.com> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 mike larkin wrote:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/politics/25CND-MEDI.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position
[An article about passage of the medicare bill]
The LA Times cites a new, non-partisan poll which says respondents 65 and older oppose the bill by 49 percent to 33 percent. And that's before they figure out that nothing's covered in 2004.
Bush lost those voters by 4 points the last elections. If he loses them by much more, he's sunk. And the whole purpose of this bill was to win them.
Sounds to me like a juggernaut that just ran over his foot. Like Iraq.
Actually, now that I think about it, that's what the original juggernauts were (probably wrongly) reputed to be: huge heavy idols that worshippers threw themselves under in worshipful ecstacy.
Michael ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk