Um, Nathan, the CEO of AARP is a supporter of Newt Gingrich and his crackpot "reform" ideas.

It's not that AARP made an unintelligent compromise. It's that the AARP has SOLD OUT ITS MEMBERS to the Republican Party.

Perhaps the GOP wants to co-opt the AARP. Perhaps they want this schism to develop. But the fact is that the status quo is untenable if the AARP purports to represent the best interests of seniors.

It's not a mistake, Nathan. It's a betrayal.

http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/quote

See my update.

I don't get this. The AARP knows that chimpco is desperate to get this bill thru in time for 2004. Why don't they bargain for a better bill?

Because on principle Bush and the GOP would prefer to have no bill, so they are balancing pissing off THEIR base by passing the bill. They can't afford to lose large numbers of conservatives and pass this bill with only Democratic votes.

So Bush and the GOP could afford to play chicken; yes they preferred a bill for political reasons, but the AARP knew that once the compromise was settled on, there was basically a yes-no choice available. AARP made the better-a-half-loaf evaluation, while others are making a worse-than-no-loaf evaluation.

Since I have more confidence of Dems taking back control of Congress by 2010, maybe that's why I'm more sympathetic to the AARP. I think we can improve it before the competition features become a real problem-- and remember, they are test patterns, so to fully expand, a new bill is needed in the long run in any case.

Nathan - if you are confident in the Democrats taking back the presidency and at least one chamber of the legislature, then that is all the more reason to oppose this bill. Let's wait and get a decent one.

Gar- I said I was confident of doing so by 2010. This bill will still put $400 billion into prescription drugs in the meantime.

As I said, this is a political judgment over whether struggling from the status quo is better than struggling from the base of this bill. I think the latter may be better.

There's a huge difference between a private entity ADMINISTERING the plan, and a private entity COMPETING with Medicare. I won't go into all the reasons the latter is such a danger to the whole concept of Medicare, as it was established. E.J. Dionne's piece in a below thread does an admirable job of doing so.

Yes, I agree there is a big difference, but there is also a difference between pilot projects (the proposed bill) and permanent competition throughout the Medicare system (what was in the House bill). All of these privatization ideas are degrees of bad, but so is no prescription drug bill at all-- also a degree of bad.

What about the argument that people like Charlie Cook make - seniors are expecting a much more generous prescription drug plan than this bill offers, so it may become very unpopular as seniors realize how stingy it really is? Will the bill become an "albatross" around the neck of Republicans and Democrats who pass it, as Cook argues?

By the way, I don't agree that Bush would rather have no bill - if he gets one, he can chalk up another victory for "compassionate conservatism"

But, maybe it's better for Dems to oppose this Medicare bill. If it doesn't pass, we can always try again later. If it does pass, it may be a political liability for those responsible.

The problem is the bill won't come due until '06. So Bush can reap the credit, and possibly ensure his re-election, while postponing the fallout for over two years.

Even standing alone as prescription drug bill, the bill sucks. The out-of-pocket costs for many will be exorbitant, millions may lose the plan they already have, and there is no ability to control prescription drug costs. The bill nothing more than a give away to the big pharma. Shoot this turkey!

Nathan,

Are you sure you're not being too clever by half?

Ellen-- It's not an issue of cleverness but of strategy and policy. Is this bill better than nothing? That's a substantive issue that leads to different tactical issues of how to make it better-- kill it and go for a new bill, or pass it and work to improve it.

I think on balance the latter makes more sense, as long as Dems are clear about its problems.

This has nothing to do with strategy or tactics, but has everything to do with the party's core beliefs. As a result of this bill, whose passage is not assured, the road has now been paved for Medicare's privatization. And it won't begin in 2010. The money in the bill for health insurers will go direct into competition with Medicare.

But speaking of tactics and strategy, this is a big victory of Bush, courtesy of a number of Senate Democrats. It makes his victory next year more likely. That in turn will lead to additional reactionary policies, including his effort to privatize social security.

So in terms of both policy and strategy the bill is an unmitigated disaster for progressive Democrats.

I work for one of those 55 private companies (many are nonprofits BTW). I can tell you that we bend over backwards to accomodate CMS. While I think that we do a better job then a state level buracracy would (I've worked in both), I do think that it is the accountability to CMS that makes us better. Remove that oversight and big problems can develope.