BCT Editorial – 11/28/06

This page was last updated on November 28, 2006.

Too pricey; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 28, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Medicare’s prescription drug plan is proving its critics wrong.

“The Washington Post reported Plan D has turned out to be less expensive and more popular than anyone imagined. Polls indicate that more than 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied with the plan, which was created in 2003 and took effect in 2005.”

[RWC] I’m nitpicking, but I believe it’s “Part D,” not “Plan D.”

“The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006. And even though its cost is projected to rise to $45 billion in 2007, the paper reported Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per person subsidy could drop by 15 percent next year, to $70.90 a month.

“Have no doubt. Plan D has been a boon to many seniors, especially those who have no prescription drug coverage.

“However, it’s still wrong.

“Plan D is a program this nation cannot afford, not now and certainly not when the baby boom generation swamps Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Medicare is expected to go bust within the next decade even without Plan D.

“But instead of bringing Medicare’s costs under control, Congress and the Bush White House created a prescription drug program that was the largest expansion of the nation’s entitlement system since the days of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

“As a result, even more debt is being heaped on future generations of Americans. Plan D is a luxury the nation can’t afford.”

[RWC] If this were the first Times editorial you read about healthcare, you might be fooled into believing the Times has its head screwed on right. You would be wrong.

At the same time editorials correctly bash Medicare Part D (albeit for the wrong reasons) as being too expensive, other editorials lobby for a taxpayer funded national healthcare system. Examples are “Poor health” and “Painful price.” If Medicare is too expensive and it covers only people 65 years old and above, consider the expense of a taxpayer funded national healthcare system that would cover everyone for everything, including prescription drugs.

Times opinion columnist Gino Piroli has consistently bashed Medicare Part D as not really helping seniors. The most recent example is here. Does anyone care to guess if Mr. Piroli will concede he was wrong?