Most of you probably skimmed over anything relating to the Medicare bill that was recently signed into law. It's pretty odious--and it's rather telling that two-thirds of our senior citizens, the ones it's arguably supposed to benefit, think so.

I finally got around to catching up on the White House transcripts for the last week, and found yet another example of the WH press gang growing a pair to pass around amongst themselves. Much of the December 8th press briefing was devoted to questions about this bill, and they were pretty pointed questions that Scott McClellan kept pointedly avoiding.

One of the biggest complaints about this bill is the so-called "doughnut hole" in coverage: when a person's annual drug expenses reach $2,250, Medicare would cease coverage until those expenses reached $5,100, at which point it would kick back in--but that $2,850 gap in between would still be 100% out of pocket. The Medicare bill Bush just signed, in what the administration is pleased to call a "consumer protection measure", prohibits buying additional coverage to plug that gap, and prohibits using Medicaid to fill in the costs that Medicare doesn't cover--a practice often used by low-income seniors to stay above water.

This is bad enough--it gets worse. Not for nothing has this bill been called a Christmas gift for drug companies: it prohibits the government from negotiating bulk discounts for drugs that it buys, instead relying on a fixed industry "average" price. And this average is based on--you guessed it--the average of prices charged by companies that are surveyed.

There's plenty more, and the WH press gang was relentless about it. Some of the better excerpts...

Q Right. But, still, seniors will get stuck -- seniors who have drug costs that run just below catastrophic coverage, or even over, will still get with this $2,800 out-of-pocket expense because they will not be able to buy Medigap insurance to plug that hole. And I'm wondering why the President saw fit to support that particular provision.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, why I said; because it's a consumer protection measure that I just outlined to you. And under this legislation, seniors are going to see great savings for their prescription drug coverage. Seniors --

Q But they could see more, though, if they could buy that insurance.

MR. McCLELLAN: Seniors who have no coverage right now will be able to join a Medicare-approved plan that will cut their yearly drug cost in half, nearly in half, in exchange for a $35 monthly premium. In many instances, the savings are going to be far greater than that. Seniors with no drug coverage and monthly drug cost of $200 would save more than $1,700 on drug costs. Seniors with no drug coverage and monthly drug cost of $800 would save nearly $5,900 on drug cost. So this is a lot of savings in low-income seniors in particular.

Q I understand the savings, but there is still this doughnut hole, as people like to call it, that they can't get coverage for. And I'm just wondering why the President would see fit to not allow them to get coverage for it.

MR. McCLELLAN: You asked specifically about the Medigap policy and stories that ran over the weekend, and what I addressed was the consumer protection measure that was put in the Medicare legislation, for the reasons I stated.

Q How is a consumer protected by being denied the choice to purchase a product in the free market that he or she thinks will help them?

[....]

Q So protecting seniors by prohibiting them from buying what they want to buy on the open market?

MR. McCLELLAN: We don't want seniors to be overcharged or have duplicative coverage.

Q But, Scott, isn't it true that this is a deterrent measure, that if you feel that if you allow seniors to get this Medigap coverage, that they'll over-use the system, or if you make it difficult for them to go above the $2,250 yearly benefit, that they are less likely to reach that benefit level?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I just explained the way that we view this provision within the legislation.

Q Yes, but the way that you explained it doesn't make any sense at all.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure it does. It's a consumer protection initiative.

Q No, it doesn't, because this is a free market White House that believes that Americans should be able to buy whatever they want on the open market, and you're saying that they can't.

[....]

And then the second part, there's a provision in the bill that does not allow Medicare to negotiate bulk prices, like the Veterans Administration is able to -- since they buy a lot of drugs, they get them at a discount. Yet there's specifically a provision in this bill that says that Medicare can't do that. Why would the President oppose a government agency getting a savings from the pharmaceutical industry?

MR. McCLELLAN: Why would the President support the biggest improvements in Medicare in more than three decades? Because this -- because this is about America's seniors and they have waited long enough. Congress worked hard in a bipartisan way to reach an agreement, and the President was pleased to support this -- to not only to support this legislation, but be out front advocating for the passage of a stronger and more modern Medicare program.

Someone really needs to buy McClellan a scarecrow and put it up on the podium so he'll have his very own "straw man" prop to knock down.

Take this to the bank: Medicare is going to be an issue in the 2004 election. And judging by the reactions of senior citizens, who make up the most rapidly growing demographic in the country, it's not one that's going to be kind to the Bush administration.