Home |  Elder Rights |  Health |  Pension Watch |  Rural Aging |  Armed Conflict |  Aging Watch at the UN  

Mission  |  Contact Us  |  Internships  |  Donate Now!  

back

Some related articles :

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senators rejected yet another Medicare prescription drug proposal Wednesday, all but assuring lawmakers will fail to pass a plan before leaving this week for a summer recess.

By a 50-49 vote, the Senate rejected a scaled back, last-ditch proposal by Democrats -- who control the Senate -- to get an agreement. Sixty votes were needed to keep the proposal alive -- and Democrats could must only 49.

Lawmakers were poised, however, to pass a bill that would ease access to generic drugs and allow importers to buy U.S.-made drugs in Canada, where they are cheaper, and resell them here. The measure also contains an amendment that would send $9 billion to help states' shrinking Medicaid budgets. The House has not acted on any of those proposals.

The Senate was expected to move on to other business after the prescription drug votes, taking up several spending bills and a measure giving trade negotiating authority to the president.

The Senate rejected three other Medicare drug proposals last week.

The latest plan, offered as an amendment to the generic drug bill, would have spent $390 billion over 10 years to provide help to poor seniors and those with high drug bills. Senate rules required 60 votes for passage because the plan costs more than the $300 billion allotted by the budget Congress passed last year.

The gridlock is almost certain to spill over into the midterm elections, which attracts a disproportionate number of older voters. It's also likely it raise the ire of the AARP, the nation's largest lobbying group for senior citizens, which had pushed aggressively for passage of the latest proposal.

``This is a debate about the next election. This is hardly a debate about Medicare,'' said Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas. ``The sooner this charade ends, the better off America will be.''

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., had tried to sway opponents. ``We can walk away from this effort and give each other hell, blame each other for failure. Or we can accept this good-faith compromise and give American people hope,'' Daschle said.

Democrats had initially backed a 10-year, $594 billion plan, administered by the government, that would have offered benefits to all seniors enrolled in Medicare. Republicans wanted a $370 billion plan, supported by the Bush administration, which would have been administered by private insurers and would have offered limited benefits to all seniors.

Both were rejected last week along with a second Republican plan that would have offered drug help to the neediest seniors for $170 billion over 10 years.

The debate came down to an ideological divide.

Republicans wanted a plan that would rely on private insurers, saying it would promote competition and drive down costs. Democrats wanted a program that would be administered by Medicare, saying it's too risky to hand the program over to private industry.

The Republican-controlled House has already passed a $320 billion Medicare bill that would also be administered by private insurers.

Under the Medicare proposal, low-income seniors -- individuals with annual incomes of no more than $17,720 or couples with an income of no more than $23,880 -- would have gotten full drug coverage and would have paid nominal copayments of $2 for generic drugs and $5 for brand-name drugs.

Other seniors would have received government help of at least 5 percent of the cost of each prescription drug, with more government help available once a patient reached $3,300 in drug costs. At that point, the person would have paid only a $10 copayment on each prescription drug.

There would have been a $25 annual enrollment fee for the plan, and the program would have been administered by Medicare.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Action on Aging distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.