Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., acknowledged on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday that the Medicare prescription drug program has had some “stumbles and glitches.” But he also pronounced it a winner politically for Republicans in the fall elections and beyond: “I predict that six months from now or a year, a program that gives seniors affordable access to prescription drugs which are lifesaving — which they didn’t have before, which on average saves them $1,400 — is something that those seniors will appreciate.” Recent polls suggest Frist is either ahead of or out of step with public opinion on the issue, though, with most elderly Americans viewing the program as too confusing, not applicable to them or unlikely to save them money.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
21 Comments
That is what happens when government gets involved in managing health care. This is only perscription drugs for seniors. Can you image what it would be like if we had universal government health care?
Good Morning Joe. Uh dude, universal health care doesnt automatically equal government run health care.
I am all for making govt small enough to strangle, and believe government couldnt pour pee out of a boot without spilling it. But I am still in favor of universal access to health care. Universal access does not mean government operated.
Did he mention how much the new prescption drug program is going to cost the taxpayers? And Bush is calling for cutbacks in Medicare? It makes no sense, but what’s new?
I notice he didn’t mention the sweetheart deal they set up for Big Pharma, either. This program is going to cost taxpayers bigtime. Why did the administration (republicans) set it up so the program couldn’t negotiate price like Medicare and the VA? Something doesn’t smell right, but that’s just par for the course in a republican controlled government.
You can piss off the left, you can piss off the women, you can piss off the environmentalists, it doesn’t really matter . . . politicians can piss off whoever they want to EXCEPT if they piss off the SENIORS, they die.
Carved on the Republican tombstone in November: “here lies the party that tried to fool the seniors”
The irony of this whole thing was that the Medicare drug plan program was supposed to cement the advantage the Repubs had with senior voters of late. It seems that it will have the opposite effect. So, I bet Bush, Frist, and others are hoping that the program will be accepted and appreciated more later, because it clearly is not now.
PL,Between the war on seniors, the war on Islam, and their shooting of a major contributor, the republicans have just about finished carving their own coffin. Won’t be long now!
I don’t think the drug plan would have had as negative a reverberation if it had not followed the privatize Social Security push. Even though Bush went to lengths to tell seniors already on the S.S. program that they would not be effected — they did not believe him, apparently. As Damoon mentions above, there are talks of cutting Medicare, which would seem like a politically unwise action — surely Karl will nip that one in the bud.
Hehe, so true, J. R.
DD, I basically agree but I’d like to refine your observation that “even though Bush went to lengths to tell seniors already on the S.S. program that they would not be effected — they did not believe him, apparently.”
What I heard was that seniors, knowing how the system works, were concerned about their kids and grand-kids. They were on-board until they got the news that “private accounts” meant no guaranteed pensions.
That’s when they said, “no way.”
I’ll make bets that Democrats don’t gain any seats in November.
Joe,
You might want to remember that states other than Kansas will be voting, too.
I think the election is too far away to make bets. I sure will be surprised if Karl’s plan of using the Iraq war/terrorism will work a third time. But, if we get even a disrupted attack between now and then, who knows?
I think there is still a closely divided electorate. As things stand now, Bush is faltering. Can he turn that around? I would hope not, but I do not know.
PL,I recall reading a similar analysis. Thanks for the clarification. There was an older Republican lady interviewed after her attendance at the Bush speech in Manhatten. When asked what she thought about his privatization plan for S.S., she said something to the effect “That’s where he and I part company.” An obvious Bush supporter making that statement was interesting. Kansasns may be overwhelming Republican, most are not dumb.
“Kansans”
Lame Duck Presidents have always had low approval ratings. Even Bill Clinton.
Pretty much the House and the Senate will be the same bunch getting re-elected, so there will not be a landslide of Democrats coming in. Not going to happen.
You are right. It is too early. For what has been happening from the past, now, and until the end of October, nobody will care or remember. We all have a short attention span.
Percription Drug plan is a blunder. But its for the Seniors and they begged for something like this for decades. By the time November hits around, it will probably be smooth out and the Seniors will be happy. Troops will be pulled out of Iraq, and the controversial decisions out of the Supreme Court will be after the election.
So Darwin. You have to remember that members of Congress have a 98% re-election rate. I don’t see any gains coming from the Democrats no matter how hard they try to spin a scandal.
See, this is what I’m talking about:
“even Bill Clinton.”
God, it just never stops with you people, does it.
Bill Clinton had the highest approval rating of the last NINE administrations including REAGAN.
End-of Presidency Job Approval RatingsBill Clinton (2001) 65%Ronald Reagan (1989) 64Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59John F. Kennedy (1963) 63George Bush (1993) 56Gerald Ford (1977) 53Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49Jimmy Carter (1981) 34Richard Nixon (1974) 24
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html
Would the right-wing please just do a little fact-checking for once in their lives before posting their SH*T?
Okay, JoeW., now tell me how your original post was really right and I somehow misunderstood.
Pathetic excuse for a man . . .
Wow . . . listen . . . hear that?
Silence. Complete and utter silence.
Blissful silence . . .
65% is low to me.
Never said below a certain number or lower than a certain number. Just during the lame duck session (that is the last four years of a Presidents 2nd term) just to get your facts straight, is lower than previous terms.
Depending on who’s poll you use, Clinton’s range from 73% to 42%.http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm
High to me is somewhere in the 80% + range.
Low approval ratings is below that. The 80/20 Rule.
Proudlib. Don’t even try! Again. I will always out smart you and out do you. You can’t win against me. Troll of the WE blog.
LOL! You’re a joke and a loser. Calling me silent. Do you have a job? Or are you sucking the taxpayers money as a welfare reciepent? Freakin Loser.
Whoa, Joe, go back on your meds. You’re coming unglued.
Joe wrote that during the 2nd term, approval went down.
How many presidents starting with FDR had second terms? For how many of them did their approval ratings go down?
Since I know you don’t bother to know what you talk about, here’s the answer–seven presidents were re-elected (including Truman and Johnson who served out their dead predecessors’ terms).
Out of those seven, three ended higher than they began, Eisenhower ended virtually the same, and three ended lower than they began.
Your conclusion that Bush’s precipitous drop in approval is “normal” is not born out by empirical evidence.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/436/1538/1600/AllPresApproval20060122.jpg
But I don’t know why I’m surprised. If you got the facts BEFORE you posted your crap, you wouldn’t have anything to post . . .
Also, for future reference, when you wrongly cheap-shot someone as being a “welfare reciepent,” you might find that the insult has more effect if you spell it right–it’s “recipient” from the Latin “recipere.”
Damn public education, just isn’t what it used to be . . .
Edudity, classicallity, and insults, all from one guy. ProudLib, what wood we do without you?
Well, for starters, you’d have to get a new hobby.
Edudity–is that a combination of erudition and nudity?
I don’t know what that means, but I like the sound of it . . .