Would you like a side order of sneering bias with your news?
The Senate passed the GOP-sponsored Medicare prescription thing 54-44, after jumping through a boatload of procedural hurdles thrown up by a panicked Tom Daschle, horrified at the prospect of the GOP getting credit for what has been a traditionally Democratic goal. In a report on the bill (written before the vote), MSNBC analyst Tom Curry tossed in this little tidbit:
What has generally been overlooked in the commentary on the bill is that it stands usual Republican income-related politics on its head: it treats best those parts of the elderly population who are poor, while it imposes new burdens on upper-income retirees by requiring them to pay more for their Medicare Part B coverage, which pays for visits to doctors’ offices and other non-hospital services.
The implication is that the GOP favors goodies for the rich, at the expense of the poor, which is not the case. Curry is playing the class-warfare card in an attempt to smear the Republicans, because the GOP cannot POSSIBLY have the interests of the poor in mind when crafting any legislation. </sarcasm>
posted on November 25, 2003 08:38 AM
Comments:
A bit of history. When Medicare/Medicaid were originally set up, the Democrats were proposing a plan for old people, regadless of income and the Republicans countered with a plan for poor people, regardless of age. Wilbur Mills saw that he could combine the two and (add a third plan helping hospitals). That's how we got our current system.
That pattern, Democrats proposing a unversal program, Republicans proposing something just for the poor is a very common one.
posted by Jim Miller on November 26, 2003 05:01 AM
posted on November 25, 2003 08:38 AM
posted by 
