Skip to main content

With the Affordable Care Act now in full effect, the conservative propaganda factory is working overtime to produce and publicize Obamacare horror stories, real or imagined. So with the federal government, the states, private insurers, hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies scrambling to assist the six million newly insured so far, the GOP's media water carriers are decrying enrollment snafus, delayed surgeries, emergency fixes in the states, and even national drugstore chains providing a month of prescriptions to customers whose proof of insurance is in limbo. (Breitbart went so far as to suggest that Walgreens and Walmart might be offering that customer service in order to do data mining for Uncle Sam.)

As it turns out, these furious conservatives are suffering from a particularly acute case of selective amnesia. Just eight years ago this week, the calamitous launch of President Bush's Medicare prescription drug program left over six million previously insured seniors without coverage. Hundreds of thousands more could not get their medications as problem-plagued government computer systems, confused insurers, and undertrained pharmacists left subscribers panicked and helpless. But unlike today's sabotage of the Affordable Care Act by Republicans in Congress and in the states, Democrats at all levels helped the Medicare Rx program whose design they opposed.

As the Washington Post reported in January 2006:

Two weeks into the new Medicare prescription drug program, many of the nation's sickest and poorest elderly and disabled people are being turned away or overcharged at pharmacies, prompting more than a dozen states to declare health emergencies and pay for their life-saving medicines.
Please read below the fold for more on Bush's Medicare drug rollout issues.

Roughly 6.4 million seniors who just days earlier had gotten their prescriptions for free as Medicare/Medicaid "dual eligibles" faced the prospect of going without because of untrained pharmacists and computer glitches. By January 16, 2006, the New York Times reported, many states (most of them led by Democrats) came to their rescue:

About 20 states, including California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and all of New England, have announced that they will help low-income people by paying drug claims that should have been paid by the federal Medicare program.
Among the governors taking action were future Obamacare foes Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee, who declared a health emergency in his state of Arkansas. The fiasco prompted the Bush administration to take drastic measures:
With tens of thousands of people unable to get medicines promised by Medicare, the Bush administration has told insurers that they must provide a 30-day supply of any drug that a beneficiary was previously taking, and it said that poor people must not be charged more than $5 for a covered drug.
It's no wonder why Paul Krugman summed up the whole catastrophe as "D for Debacle."

But it didn't remain a debacle for long. Days before Bush ordered insurers to "aid the ailing Medicare drug plan," Walgreens, CVS, and other national drugstore chains then as now announced they would fill prescriptions for customers unable to provide proof of their new coverage. (It is worth noting that no state sued the Bush administration for acting without Congressional authorization when it required insurers to provide the emergency prescription coverage described above.) But despite the fact that even Republicans like John Boehner and Tim Pawlenty admitted President Bush's rollout of Medicare Part D was "horrendous" and "awful," Democrats did everything they could to save it. As then-Senator Hillary Clinton described the effort to salvage a program she and most Democrats opposed as an unnecessarily expensive giveaway to private insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms:

"I voted against it, but once it passed I certainly determined that I would try to do everything I could to make sure that New Yorkers understood it, could access it, and make the best of it."
Wisconsin Senator Kohl, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Aging asked his colleagues "to put aside any partisan thoughts to work together to get this program running." They did. The result?  The Medicare drug benefit that was even more unpopular than Obamacare now enjoys 90 percent support among America's seniors.

Republicans and their conservative amen corner appear to have forgotten that history, and not because they forgot to take their meds.

Originally posted to Jon Perr on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 01:18 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great Addition (14+ / 0-)

    I think this is a great addition to pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of the conservative/Republican/Tea Party.

    Collect Different Days

    by Homers24 on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 01:34:41 PM PST

  •  Memories are short. We need constant (15+ / 0-)

    reminders.  

    Thanks.

    "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." - George Carlin

    by Most Awesome Nana on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 01:42:23 PM PST

    •  Last month I wrote a diary and mentioned (13+ / 0-)

      that we didn't do anything when my husband first qualified for Medicare. Months later when he had to use it, and we decided to enroll him in a Medicare Part D plan, we found out that because we didn't enroll when he first became eligible, we would now have to pay a late enrollment penalty every month for the rest of his life. To which jasan pointed out:

      Your husband found out about the mandate

      that President Bush's plan had in it for Medicare Part D.  What you found was that we have been living with a health mandate that forces you to purchase a drug plan since 2003, long before Obamacare.  You are also correct that there will be a whole bunch of angry right wingers when they find out they screwed themselves out of a pile of moolah for being so damn dumb.  Funny how life is though.

      Glad your sweety is on the mend.  Take care..

      by jasan on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 10:16:58 PM EST

      So you're right. It took jasan pointing it out to me that there was a health mandate in Medicare Part D.

      “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

      by hungrycoyote on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 03:21:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ouch. That will hurt. (16+ / 0-)

        When I signed up for Medicare almost 2 years ago, I was very confused by all the options and rules. I swear I received 5 lbs of mail a day from everyone trying to get a share of my insurance bucks.

        It took me forever, and a good insurance agent, to get what I needed. I wasn't going to sign up for Part D, since the only meds I took (thyroid) cost so little. My agent pointed out that I might eventually need more medication and if I signed up late, I would pay the penalty forever.

        The penalty is explained in the information from the Social Security Administration. I had understood it to mean a one time penalty. But I was so overwhelmed by all the information - from private insurance companies as well as Medicare - that I didn't catch that it was forever.

        The whole system is incredibly complicated. How does someone with reduced capacity ever navigate it?

        We need single payer!

        "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." - George Carlin

        by Most Awesome Nana on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 03:45:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  You expect consistency ? n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OregonWetDog, FloridaSNMOM

    "Speak out, judge fairly, and defend the rights of oppressed and needy people." Proverbs 31:9

    by zdefender on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 01:45:02 PM PST

  •  Evil TGOP don't care as long as they get elected (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FloridaSNMOM, Damnit Janet

    In order to punish us.

    FUCK the TGOP & their voters.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 01:54:49 PM PST

  •  The difference is that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    some Democrats voted for the Prescription Drug Program.  So, while it was a Bush program, there was some Democratic buy-in when it was passed.  

    There was no Republican support for the ACA -- nada, zilch.  So, no Republican in Congress has any interest in making it work, because they were all against it.  In fact, if their goal is to get rid of the program - which it apparently is -- then failure of the ACA helps them achieve their goal.

    When you pass a huge bill like this with absolutely no support from the other side, you own it and you can expect absolutely no support whatsoever from the other side once you sign it into law.  The upside is that if things go well, you get all the credit.  But if things do not go well, you get all the blame.  That's what happens when a bill is passed on a purely partisan basis.  Only one side has any interest in making the program successful.

    If the Administration expected any help from Republicans in making sure the ACA is implemented well, that was their mistake.  It was never going to happen.

    •  Did it occur to you that Democrats and Obama (6+ / 0-)

      were not making a mistake, they were trying to help people who couldn't afford insurance get healthcare?

      There was always going to be partisanship.  What never should be allowed is outright sabotage.  That is what Republicans have tried to accomplish.  It is dispicable.

      In any sane society, they would be ostracized.

      In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

      by Sixty Something on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 02:16:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I said the mistake would have been (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        in expecting Republicans to help in the implementation, not in passing the bill in the first place.  Of course, if you really believe that this bill is going to be a really good thing for the country, and if you can't get the other side to support it, I would expect you to pass it on a partisan basis.  What I am saying is that when you do that, part of the deal is that after it's passed, you get no support from the opposition, and part of the deal is that the opposition has no interest in making something that they opposed successful, and part of the deal is that the opposition will blame you for everything that goes wrong.  I'm sure the Administration would not have chosen that route, but they had no other option.  So they did what they had to do to pass the ACA.  I'm just saying that they then certainly expected Republicans to oppose the implementation every single step of the way.  It would have been illogical to expect anything else.  

        Of course the Republicans were going to do whatever they legally could do to make sure that the bill was not going to be a success.  The Administration clearly knew that and clearly should have planned the implementation based on that assumption.  I suspect that what they may not have factored into their plans when they passed the bill is that the Republicans took back the House in 2010 and were in a better position to try to   throw roadblocks in the way.  

        •  A Few Things to Keep in Mind (7+ / 0-)

          1. That no Republicans voted for the ACA isn't a reflection of Democratic inability to attract GOP votes, but the determination of the GOP to block ANY health care reform bill.  If you have any doubt that it was not the bill itself but the OPPOSITION TO IT which was partisan,read more here.

          2. The vote for Medicare Part D was 220-215 in the House, identical to the ACA.  16 Dems voted for it, 189 against.  That is pretty close to total opposition.

          3.  As it was, Part D only passed because of an extending voting period, on-floor vote buying that resulted in a reprimand for Tom Delay. On top of the that, the White House withheld its true budget forecast from Congress, with then Medicare chief Tom Scully threatening to fire actuary Richard Foster if he made public his much higher forecast.

          4.  Medicare Part D used "navigators," including many of the same organizations as Obamacare.  So, if you're in Texas and need help enrolling in Medicare, just call.  If you need help getting health insurance, you're SOL.

          5.  If you can find another case where a modern U.S. political party acted to sabotage the law of the land at both the federal and state level, I'd love to hear it.

          And yet for all that, Democrats helped make Part D work.  Republicans are still trying to blow up the ACA.

          •  And the Mandate Was Republican Idea... (5+ / 0-)

            ...as Senator Orrin Hatch, co-sponsored it in 1993, would be only too happy to tell you.

            •  Sure, all that is true. Doesn't change anything. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              Maybe you think Republicans SHOULD have supported it, but they didn't.

              Political reality is political reality.  When the bill passed with no Republican support, when all Republicans became invested in the notion that the ACA would result in all those horrible things (if you listened to what they were saying), it was clear that, during implementation was going to be opposed by Republicans every step of the way.  

              I'm NOT saying that was good or right.  I AM saying that the Administration had no reason to think Republicans would do anything else, because that is the political reality of the situations.  Practically speaking, Republicans will benefit politically (and will get none of the blame) if the ACA is a disaster, Democrats will benefit politically (and Republicans get none of the credit) if the ACA is a huge success.  You can argue that it SHOULDN'T be that way, that both parties should share in both the credit if it goes well and the blame if it does not, but practically speaking, that's not going to happen.    

              •  What I Arguing is: (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lookit, KenBee, earicicle, smartdemmg

                ...that GOP sabotage of the ACA at all levels of government is unprecedented.  It is not a matter of politics as usual.  

                1. What the Republicans are doing is unprecedented in modern American politics.  They aren't merely "doing nothing," but actively obstructing implementation of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

                2. They are actively preventing their constituents from accessing services approved by the government.  Again, if you have another recent example of a political party doing likewise, I'd love to hear it.

                3. Many Republicans were very clear in 2009 and 2010 that they opposed health care reform not because it would fail, but because it would succeed. That is, they were explicit that health care reform success wasn't bad for America and Americans, but for the Republican Party.  Again, you can read more about it here:

                "The Real Reason for the GOP's All Out War on Obamacare."

                4. Please note that the 2009 stimulus bill got a grand total of 3 GOP votes. Nevertheless, dozens of GOP Senators and Reps lobbied to get money for their districts.

                5. By the way, the 1993 Clinton tax hike got exactly zero GOP votes in Congress.  In 2009, Bill Kristol explained why in telling Republicans to vote against the stimulus bill:

                "But the loss of credibility, even if they jam it through, really hurts them on the next, on the next piece of legislation. Clinton got through his tax increases in '93, it was such a labor and he had to twist so many arms to do it and he became so unpopular...

                ...That it made, that it made it so much easier to then defeat his health care initiative. So, it's very important for Republicans who think they're going to have to fight later on on health care, fight later on maybe on some of the bank bailout legislation, fight later on on all kinds of issues. It's very important for them, I think, not just to stay united at this time, though that's important, but to make the arguments."

                •  And my point is that there is no precedent (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  either way.

                  This is the first bill this huge -- that affects virtually everyone in the country and alters the structure of a 15 - 20% of the economy when it's fully implemented-- to pass with absolutely no support whatsoever from one political party.  

                  A tax hike where you essentially just raise marginal rates takes no implementation.  You don't NEED any cooperation to implement.   You don't have to write a book of regulations.     The ACA was always going be a huge project to (1) write the applicable regulations; and (2) implement.  Not like a tax hike.  Not. At. All.

                  The ACA is more on the scale of passing Social Security or Medicare or the prescription drug program.  All of those required implementation (perhaps not even as much as the ACA).  None of those was passed solely on the votes of one political party.

                  So, there's no real precedent, one way or the other.

                  •  It's to the right edge w/coffeetalk...Squirrel! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    myboo

                    The diarist has laid out the parallels clearly. Except he has understated how badly botched the transition was of more than SIX MILLION elderly and disabled dual eligibles from nonprofit, single-payer Medicaid drug insurance to for-profit, 45-private-plans-per-state Medicare Part D insurance. Poor people who had medication they needed to live on Dec 31 could not get it on Jan 1. The months leading up to the 'transition' were chaos, with accurate information on how to make choices impossible to get. Which was especially hard for the large percentage of the dual eligible population without HS diplomas, or with dementia and/or severe cognitive disabilities. It is a clear, highly relevant precedent, no matter how many shiny objects and furry rodents you fling to the right of the thread, as per usual.

                    The Part D transition was so much more badly botched. Many of the most vulnerable, sick and desperately poor Americans had their health immediately and seriously endangered. Many businesses were thrown into utter chaos, and lost substantial money. The program remains a headache and a boondoggle to this day.

                    My pharmacies simply issued me my scripts without charge. They knew I needed my medicine, and that I had no way to pay the retail cost. As far as I know, they were never reimbursed by anyone. I suspect the pharmacist at one place may have lost his job because he chose the lives of his patients over his company's bottom line.

                    Oh, and taxpayers continue to get hosed every single year, to the tune of multiple billions of dollars. Medicaid used to pay rock bottom prices for dual eligibles' meds, b/c Medicaid has strong negotiating power. One of the biggest boondoggles in Bush's Part D giveaway: Giving away the now 8 million dual eligibles to Part D. Taxpayers pay the premiums, and the non-negotiable, full retail prices for the same drugs, for a population that needs a lot of meds. Congrats!

                    Of course, you know all about all, all the time, coffeetalk. So you knew this already. Right?

                    Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

                    by earicicle on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 06:15:20 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The "monkey wrench analogy (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lencialoo

                  One of the definitions of a saboteur is:  "One who throws a monkey wrench into the machinery so it won't work."

                  This is the mindset of these obstructionists who blatantly wished and still wish to botch everything geared to improve the lot of this country"s people.  

                  Hard to believe lawmakers in the United States of America have stooped so low as to sabotage their own nation.

                  I understand the House is scheduled to work a whopping 112 days for the next session.  Where is the outrage from the citzenry?

                  •  . (0+ / 0-)
                    Hard to believe lawmakers in the United States of America have stooped so low as to sabotage their own nation.
                    And yet it had to come to this.  On January 20, 2009, as Obama was giving his inauguration address, high ranking Republicans met at a restaurant.  They were glum as the meeting began but walked out with a spring in their steps.  In between they had decided to simply say no, no, no to anything and everything this president tried to do.  Even if the measure had originally been proposed by a Republican - the answer would be, "No."

                    This, like so much else of this administration, was unprecedented.  Gee, I wonder why they thought they could get away with it during THIS administration as opposed to that of any other president . . . .

          •  And yet for all that (0+ / 0-)
            Democrats helped make Part D work.  Republicans are still trying to blow up the ACA.
            And the latest is *drumroll*: It is being whispered that, if Boehner finally agrees to bring the unemployment benefit extension to the floor it will only be because he has attached an amendment to repeal Obamacare.  Then he can bluster and blunder and blame Obama for vetoing the UI extension.

            Beam me up, Scotty.  There's no intelligent life on this planet.

    •  The irony of course (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Team Leftie, twocrows1023

      is that the plan was a Republican plan in the first place.  Every time I encounter a Republican who says this was "rammed down their throats" because they refused to vote for it (strange idea of coercion when you make the choice not to participate, but I digress), I point out it was their plan to begin with.  That usually shuts down the whining about it pretty fast.  If it doesn't, I ask them for their alternative proposal.  Since they have none, the discussion ends there.

  •  yeah, but..... there were no death panels! (3+ / 0-)

    see, Obamacare still bad

    ... or something.

    ;)

    every adult is responsible for every child

    by ridemybike on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 01:58:13 PM PST

  •  seriously, thanks for this post. t/r (5+ / 0-)

    every adult is responsible for every child

    by ridemybike on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 01:59:11 PM PST

  •  Any ACTION suggestions? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    awcomeon, Damnit Janet, earicicle

    I'm disabled and can't do much but it would help to have some talking points and contact info to write LTEs, make phone calls.

    Constant reminders are needed.
    and our side falls down really badly in that department.

    Conservative outrage IS constant, always barraging every possible target.

  •  The difference here is that Democrats don't (7+ / 0-)

    actually hate America.

    Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

    by Matt Z on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 03:16:02 PM PST

  •  haha..yeah, true, but that's different (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lineatus

    BENGHGAZI!!!

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 05:12:09 PM PST

  •  I have a job, hence unemployment doesn't exist (0+ / 0-)

    I see snow and cold, hence global warming doesn't exist.

    Either conservatives are stupid OR they think people listening to them are. The sheer stupidity of their argument is an insult to intelligence, if not plain and simple fraud.

    Those people deserve to lose their voting right…or at least to be listened to on ANY issue!

  •  Excellent, important diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linkage

    I lived throught the Part D disaster first hand. It is a continuing boondoggle. It raises my blood pressure even to think about it, let alone to write details about how the private insurers are slowing squeezing more and more revenue out of us poor, lowly dual eligibles. And, of course, the taxpayer who pays for most of our stuff without even noticing the billions picked from his and her pockets every year.

    Thanks, George W. Bush!

    Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

    by earicicle on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 06:19:44 PM PST

  •  T&R'd, bookmarked for community edu. (0+ / 0-)

    This is a great item. Thanks, Jon Perr!

    Poverty is not an accident. Like slavery and apartheid, it is man-made and can be removed by the actions of human beings. —Nelson Mandela

    by kaliope on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 09:00:44 PM PST

  •  Doncha just love it? (0+ / 0-)

    The Teapublicans conveniently forget what good ol' Tom DeLay did to get the drug program through.  First, he broke the rules of the House by keeping the vote going on beyond the permitted time.  Then he made certain that the poor folks on Medicare would pay up the yang for drugs by making it illegal for Medicare to bargain for better deals.  He made damned sure that the pharmacy companies could continue to stick it to the people who need prescriptions.

    He was one of the sleaziest people to ever serve as the majority leader, at least during my lifetime.

    Bush, shrub, whatever he's called by is one miserable jerk who will go down as one of the worst presidents we've ever had, including Nixon.

    I'm on Medicare Plus, so I don't pay anywhere near what people on regular Medicare, but I have to pay through the nose for two of my prescriptions.  Thanks for nothing, DeLay, I just want to outlive you.

  •  Exactly, the only difference is Black and White (0+ / 0-)

    the republicans should be ashamed, but for this bunch of ass hats, that is impossible.

  •  Jon Per, ACA is not in full effect yet. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jon Perr

    First few words in diary say:

    With the Affordable Care Act now in full effect
    ACA is far from being in full effect.  Most significantly, the employer mandate which is not in effect until 2015, both in terms of some employers paying penalties if they don't provide health insurance and what that insurance must be.  This is the health insurance that covers the majority of people in the country.  

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:00:51 PM PST

  •  It still is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, mayrose, Team Leftie
    an unnecessarily expensive giveaway to private insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms.
    It should be administered by Medicare with the ability to negotiate lower drug prices.
  •  In your Links, I see where (0+ / 0-)

    that many "could" possibly have lost coverage but not confirmation that many did? Did I miss something?

  •  Fighting for Drug coverage (0+ / 0-)

    During the roll out I attended a program put on by one of the local Blues that was supposed to explain the program and sign us all up.  There were about 20 there and being on disability I was the youngest.  Everybody else was 65 or older, in some cases much older.  Big Brother Blue had sent a couple of young guys who looked like they were just out of college to do the honors.  Wore nice suits and ties too.  God bless their pea pick'en little hearts.  

    They gave us their hand outs which included a handy application form and went though their Power Point presentation.  Then we began asking all the "what if" questions that had been left unanswered.  Memory fails me on specifics.  It's been 6 years and I ain't no spring chicken anymore.  However, there were lots of questions and all they did was keep referring back to their talking points which they finally admitted was all they knew.  

    Before they finally owned up to not knowing a heck of a lot they endured a lot of yelling and not being content to heap it on just the youngsters some of the oldsters almost came to blows over the merits of the sitting president one GW Bush.

    There was a bill in the House to delay the roll out for 90 days to allow the dust to settle and work out the bugs because, if you will remember there is a penalty for life of extra charges if you don't sign up with a time limit.  

    Being royally pissed off I walked over to the local office of my Congress Critter and explained that I had just come from a shouting match of seniors.  That it was a wonder nobody had a heart attack and died and that the insurance reps admitted that all the knew was how to get people signed up but couldn't actually explain the program or how to determine the benefits of one company plan over another.  That I thought a 90 day time out would be a grand idea because I had no idea what to do and it seemed neither did anyone else.

    The short version is that there was no extension and we made a forced choice.  I didn't go with the Blue but didn't make a very good choice either and the company I did go with apparently didn't understand it either because by the next year they had failed to meet some sort of requirements and had to sell off their Part D to Humana which started a whole nuther nightmare.  

    Medicare Part D is still a rip off because there was a sell out to big Pharma just like Obama sold out to the providers and insurance companies over single payer.  

    And if you don't know, they partially closed the so called doughnut hole by creating an additional tier of generic drugs called "non-preferred generics" which cost more than we were previously paying for them.  Not all generics are cheap and some have no real substitute other than the name brand.   So they took all those that you can't already get for $4.00 at Wal-Mart, Target, etc and put them in a priced higher category which is subject to the deductible of $310 a year this year.  

    The cheap generics, Tier 1, have no deductible requirement nor is your co-pay for them credited to it.  Therefore now you have to pay the full cost of the drug until you pony up the $310.  Previously all my meds were the old Tier one and had no deductible.  Now I pay an additional $310 plus double the co-pay for the same meds.  

    So we got screwed as usual by paying for the doughnut hole closure benefit by transferring the cost elsewhere.  I somehow missed when Obama explained that factum.  Oh Yeah, and the Obama I voted for promised to support drug re-importation.  Guess I missed when that happened too.  

    A bad idea isn't responsible for those who believe it. ---Stephen Cannell

    by YellerDog on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:06:02 PM PST

  •  Yea thanks (0+ / 0-)

    ...for reminding yourselves why the TEA party was formed under Bush and before Obama was inaugurated. ( I personally know one of your own here that was for the TEA party while Bush was still president, before being against it after the Obama inauguration.

    But! As Nancy Pelosi once said, when challenged on remarks she made during Bush's 5% unemployment while Obama was having 8% (+) unemployment..."Lets MoveOn". So I will: How many of you above signed on to ObamaInsurance?

  •  Yes, a Bush debacle, but.. (0+ / 0-)

    u r 4getting, Benghaaaazzzhhiii!  Just kidding.

  •  Part D of Medicare Enrollment was a nightmare. (0+ / 0-)

    My pharmacy filled my prescriptions without charging me for 2 and a half months before I could provide proof of enrollment.  The Republican party seems to be run now by people who are grossly destructive without rhyme or reason.   And let us not forget that there are Democratic politicians who have also been trying to sabotage the new ACA.  The Act is inherently flawed, but it is what it is, and we should make the best of it.  At least millions of people have coverage now.

  •  Medicare Part D (0+ / 0-)

    The D stands for Dead!

  •  NOW WAIT A MINUTE... (0+ / 0-)

    Medicare Part D, the prescription drug payment program, enacted by the George W. Bush administration, has turned out to be a very helpful and cost-saving move for seniors and the disabled. My elderly mother would not be able to afford to pay for most of her monthly medications without the benefits she receives under the prescription drug plan.

    The hypocrisy of the conservatives doesn't involve the Medicare Part D program itself. Instead, they are being hypocritical when critizing the difficulties involved with enrolling in and implementing the Affordable Care Act. Once again, the Republicans are guilty of applying a double standard regarding federal health care benefits. ANY new government program is naturally going to have problems in the beginning with the enrollment process and implementation of the initial legislation. The Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage plan enacted under the Bush administration was every bit as troublesome and had just as many snafus straight out-of-the-gate as the problems the ACA has had. For Republicans to rag on President Obama for the initial start-up of the ACA legislation, while ignoring the problems associated with the Medicare Part D program, is hypocritical and wrong. However, lest we forget, conservatives have amazingly short memories when it comes to comparing the ACA passed under the Obama administration and the troubles involving similar laws passed under the previous president's auspices.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site