Criticism of Republican heath care proposals is nothing new in this space. But you know the GOP has a turkey on its hands when the Wall Street Journal tees off on a House Republican Medicare proposal, as it did on June 28 with an editorial entitled "Grandma's Bad Drug Deal," which carried the even more dismissive subheading, "Congress tries to sell seniors the Brooklyn Bridge."

Imagine our joy with at long last finding common ground with the Journal editorial page. The Journal calls the Republican bill, which passed on a party line vote last Thursday night, a "political loser," and follows up: "the drug benefit itself looks so lousy that Mr. [Bill] Thomas [R-CA] and his House friends may want to save time and tape 'Kick Me' signs on their backs for seniors to follow."

Here's how to explain the Republican drug benefit to your Grandma: She would pay a premium of about $400 a year. (The premium would rise rapidly after the first year, but we'll get to that later). Her benefits wouldn't start until she had drug spending of $250. For drug spending between $250 and $1000, the benefit would cover 80 percent of her cost, and for spending between $1,000 and $2,000 the benefit would cover 50 percent. Above $2,000, the benefit has a "hole" until her drug spending hits $4,800. That is, Grandma would have no coverage for drug spending between $2,000 and $4,800, at which point she would have spent $3,700 out her pocket for drugs (plus $400 in premiums). Above $4,800 in drug spending, however, the benefit would cover all her drug costs.

So if Grandma had $500 in drug spending in a year, she'd pay a premium of $400 to get a benefit worth $200, for a net loss of $200. If she had $1,000 in spending, she'd pay $400 and get benefits worth $600, for a net gain of only $200. In fact, the maximum net benefit (less the premium) for any senior with drug spending up to $4,800 would be exactly $700.

There's more. Angry grandmothers will chase Republicans down the street not just because the bill's drug benefits are lousy, but also because they are deceptive. The Republican bill wouldn't allow seniors' retiree coverage from ex-employers to count toward their Medicare drug benefits -- only out-of-pocket spending would count. In fact, any outside coverage, including private Medigap plans or state pharmaceutical assistance programs -- would be worthless toward the Medicare benefit. That would give employers a big incentive to cut their retirement benefits, and seniors little reason to protect themselves with additional drug coverage.

It gets even worse. Because the benefits would be slim and premiums high, few seniors would sign up for the Republican plan at first, except perhaps those who have desperately high drug spending and no outside coverage. That is an insurance phenomenon called "adverse selection," and it means premiums in the Republican plan would quickly skyrocket, and the whole Republican drug plan could just collapse.

However, to get around the skyrocketing premium problem, the Republicans bill includes a late-enrollment penalty. Under the bill, Grandma would be forced to decide in late 2004 (right around election time, actually) whether or not to stick with her current coverage or switch to the Republican plan. If she chose not to join up at first, she wouldn't be able to get in later without paying a hefty surcharge every month. If a late-enrollment penalty survived Congress, it would naturally drive more seniors into the Republican plan early on, and it would therefore help prevent the premium from jumping. But forcing our seniors to switch from good coverage to the Republican plan would not be popular at Grandma's house.

In a sense, it probably doesn't matter that the Republican bill wouldn't actually work or be politically acceptable in practice, since it was never intended to become law. Its real purpose is more modest: to give Republicans political cover on the drug issue in this fall's elections.

Of course, some House Democrats seem more interested in electioneering, too, and want to propose more for prescription drugs than our recently depleted federal budget can afford.

We don't have to try to fool Grandma. There are ways to design Medicare drug benefits that wouldn't have workability problems, and that would reinforce (not eliminate) seniors' current retiree coverage. And drug benefits don't have to cost taxpayers a fortune, although at some point Congress will have to level with seniors and deflate their unreasonably high expectations. That will take courage for politicians in an election year, but if it led to a workable, affordable drug benefit, instead of the customary gridlock, their bravery would be rewarded at the polls. The Senate should quickly discard the cynical Republican bill and get back to work on a clear-eyed, realistic plan for drug benefits and other needed reforms in Medicare.