The Republicans AREN'T shutting gov't down; ONLY Dems can do that.

[American Horse]

Does it really increase costs to the treasury to the extent you say?
Arent people able to reduce their medical and hospital costs through pharmaceutical treatments?
And the cost of the Part D program has come in under original projections each year.
It's not a zero-sum-game. Some people see the cost of the military as a dead expense, but if we had no military how much more dangerous would the world be for commerce and financial freedom? Stable economies need stable social conditions.
A productive economy needs physically productive individuals in their workforce. Costwise, I think it's probably a wash.

Healthcare costs have grown at about the same pace since part D was passed as they have in the past, adjusted for the state of economy, at least that I'm aware, though maybe Greenbeard can correct me on that. So the initial answer would be appear to be "no," it hasn't reduced costs, and it appears that the costs have been shifted from the private sector to the public sector. I haven't seen anyone state that this would net net reduce costs for the government.

But again, it is an expansion of government into people's lives, regardless if the costs came in above or below projections. Nationalizing a chunk of the healthcare system doesn't seem to be a tenant of modern American conservatism.

Enacting Part-D didn't nationalize a chunk of the healthcare system, it saved it from being nationalized by retaining free market incentives in lieu of the other party's intent to put it under the thumb of the govt. That would have in reality effectively been its nationalization.

The monetary incentive to research, develop, test, and market new drugs has not been discouraged or diminished, it has been preserved, by Part-D