
Opinion Editorial | |
| Thursday, July 15, 1999 | |
Tough Questions for President Clinton's Prescription Drug BenefitPete du PontFormer Governor of Delaware, is Policy Chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis |
Is it just me, or have the media been giving President Clinton a free ride on his Medicare prescription drug benefit proposal?
I would have thought that when a president comes out with the biggest new entitlement proposal in Medicare's 35-year history, the media would be peppering him with questions - tough questions.
For example, the president thinks his plan will save Medicare money. But actuaries always charge more when they add a prescription drug benefit to a health insurance policy. Any cat calls from the media when the president tried to pull this wool over their eyes?
Maybe the president has so undermined his credibility that the media don't care anymore. But I do, and I think you do too. So if the media won't ask the tough questions, try these.
Will the program bankrupt Medicare? Medicare is already facing financial collapse. The situation is so bad that Congress created a bipartisan commission to look into ways to save it. Columnist Robert Samuelson raised the ethical question recently whether our generation has any business strapping our grandchildren with a system already financially on the brink. By the time today's college students reach retirement age, the tax burden created by Medicare will have grown from the current level of about 5.35 percent of payroll - that includes the 2.9 percent payroll tax plus funds paid from general revenue - to almost 14 percent.
Under these conditions, does it make sense to add a new and very expensive benefit?
But the truth is that under the President's plan, no senior gets much help. In the initial year, the government would only pay $1,000 toward each senior's prescription drugs. That is very little help for those with catastrophic prescription drug costs of say, $12,000 a year, or even more.
But there is another fatal oversight: utilization. Liberals never take into account increased utilization when the government subsidizes something. If the government pays half the cost, that's like a half-priced sale. So drug usage - and thus, cost - will greatly increase. To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke from several years ago: You think drugs are expensive now, wait until the federal government decides to make them affordable.
Of course, there are some seniors who are faced with significant prescription drug expenses that they cannot afford. But doesn't it make more sense to consider a targeted solution that reaches those most in need, rather than a new entitlement meant to create a Bill Clinton legacy?
The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy research
institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies on public policy issues.
The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an office in Washington, D.C.
Julie Hillrichs, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Sean Tuffnell, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Joan Kirby, Washington, DC 202-220-3082 Internet: http://www.ncpa.org Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |