Clinton and Gore Want to Help Elderly Americans Cover Drug Costs
President and Vice President cite drug price increase in "call for adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare."
President Clinton "unveiled a report showing that prices for the 50 most commonly prescribed drugs for elderly Americans increased by nearly twice the rate of inflation last year." "'Seniors living on fixed incomes simply can't cope with these kinds of price increases forever,' he said. 'That's why we should take action to help them and do it now.' Clinton's legislative proposal would allow Medicare recipients to buy a drug benefit with an initial premium of about $26 per month, rising to $50 in a few years. It would cover half of all drug costs, up to $2,000 at first, and eventually up to $5,000."
Vice President Gore also noted the need to "include prescription drugs in Medicare" and said, "'At a time when prescription drugs are at the forefront of modern medicine, we need a health care system that treats them as a medical necessity, not an optional luxury.'" [Washington Post, 4/27/00
<AbelMalc...@webtv.net> wrote: >From: http://www.democrats.org/news/danews/dan042800.html >April 28, 2000 >Clinton and Gore Want to Help Elderly Americans Cover Drug Costs >President and Vice President cite drug price increase in "call for >adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare." >President Clinton "unveiled a report showing that prices for the 50 most >commonly prescribed drugs for elderly Americans increased by nearly >twice the rate of inflation last year." > "'Seniors living on fixed incomes simply can't cope with these kinds of >price increases forever,' he said. 'That's why we should take action to >help them and do it now.' >Clinton's legislative proposal would allow Medicare recipients to buy a >drug benefit with an initial premium of about $26 per month, rising to >$50 in a few years. It would cover half of all drug costs, up to $2,000 >at first, and eventually up to $5,000." > Vice President Gore also noted the need to "include prescription drugs >in Medicare" and said, "'At a time when prescription drugs are at the >forefront of modern medicine, we need a health care system that treats >them as a medical necessity, not an optional luxury.'" [Washington Post, >4/27/00
It sounds good, but is it realistic? It will lose money immediately just counting the cost of medicines and medical supplies for the diabetics on Medicare.
Instead of people being able to invest for their future medical expenses, the money has been siphoned off into the promises of the government.
Politicians promise, but cannot deliver. To err is human, but to foul things up takes a computer, and to make a total mess takes a government.
-- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
>hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman >Rubin) wrote: > It sounds good, but is it realistic? >It will lose money immediately just >counting the cost of medicines and >medical supplies for the diabetics on >Medicare.
If you study business, you will learn of a particular graph of price and sales. As "X" curve, and a "Y" curve. As the price goes up, sales go down. At the point where rising prices and declining sales intersect, that is where the company will set the price. This is why we pay many times more for the same exact medicines than other countries have to pay for. Pricing items at the lowest possible cost is not the way to ensure maximum profits. Pharmaceutical companies are gouging us for all they can, and the only reason for that is because they can get away with it. For the same reason, Nike will sell sneakers at a hundred dollars,or more, sneakers that cost no more than $5 to make. I've heard people argue that we benefit from slave laborers who give us cheap products. Nothing could be further from the truth. A company will charge you to the maximum, it the maximum price is the maximum price, regardless of how much money it cost them to make the product.
> Instead of people being able to invest >for their future medical expenses, the >money has been siphoned off into the >promises of the government.
When you talk about "siphoned off" money, it is amazing that you let the Pharmaceutical companies, and the Health Insurance Industry off the hook. You are not an objective writer. If you want to eliminate government corruption, that would be easy, let's start with campaign finance reform, this way, our Leaders would represent us (you know, the millions of us who voted for them) rather than the obscenely rich and corrupt big businesses who bribe them.
> Politicians promise, but cannot >deliver. To err is human, but to foul >things up takes a computer, and to make >a total mess takes a government.
Let me see. Clinton said he will balance the budget, and he did, and our economy is prospering. He kept his promise there. Tell me where Clinton has broken any of his other promises. Clinton's efforts to improve America's health care is sincere. Why else would the trillions dollar Health Insurance industry and the trillions dollar Pharmaceutical industry be investing so much of their money to help beef up GOP candidates? Because they know that Clinton's efforts to improve America's health will bear fruit, and they are only trying to maintain their monopoly, profiting from the misery of hundreds of millions of Americans who are being price-gouged to death when it comes to Health care.
> > It sounds good, but is it realistic? > >It will lose money immediately just > >counting the cost of medicines and > >medical supplies for the diabetics on > >Medicare.
Abel - thank you for your review of Econ 101. Perhaps the concepts of price elasticity of demand, marginal cost and marginal revenue, and consumer surplus are topics that will be covered in Econ 102 next semester. Market segmentation, price discrimination, monopsony, competition, and risk adjusted return on capital are economics and finance topics - classes that only the upperclassmen can take - so you'll have to wait a couple more years.
> If you study business, you will learn of a particular graph of price and > sales. As "X" curve, and a "Y" curve. As the price goes up, sales go down. > At the point where rising prices and declining sales intersect, that is where > the company will set the price. This is why we pay many times more for the > same exact medicines than other countries have to pay for.
And why physician salaries, hospital per diems, lab tests, and living standards are all higher in these countries? Yeh, right. (Chime in any time George and tell us how much better the quality of care is, ok?)
>Pricing items at > the lowest possible cost is not the way to ensure maximum profits. > Pharmaceutical companies are gouging us for all they can, and the only reason > for that is because they can get away with it.
I say boycott those gougers - all in favor?
-Snip caution-
>Why else would the trillions dollar Health Insurance > industry and the trillions dollar Pharmaceutical industry be investing so > much of their money to help beef up GOP candidates?
How much - pharma sales in 1999 in the US - about 120 billion - lose a decimal somewhere? And about this lobbying thing, compared to the gun lobby, the tobacco lobby, the .... lobby? And only GOP??
>Because they know that > Clinton's efforts to improve America's health will bear fruit, and they are > only trying to maintain their monopoly, profiting from the misery of hundreds > of millions of Americans who are being price-gouged to death when it comes to > Health care.
Price gouged to life, I suspect - dead patients don't buy too many drugs or pay too many premiums.
Abel - you need to read the reports quoted before you go off on this tirade. Basing your rhetoric on an article in even the most predigious of all dailies, the Washington Post, is a bit simplistic.
In talk.politics.medicine AbelMalc...@webtv.net wrote: > Clinton's efforts to improve America's health care is sincere.
If you want to find out how Clinton's health plan came into being and why it failed the way it did, check out "The Road to Nowhere; The Genesis of President Clinton's Plan for Health Security" by Jacob S. Hacker (1999; Princeton U Press). It's a fantastic piece of institutional analysis about health reform in America this past century, but a good specific piece about the Clinton plan. I think it's about $20 at amazon.com
Medicare already pays for diabetic supplies, insulin etc. Overall Medicare per capita spending has dropped over the last 10 years. Much of that must be because of improved new medications that are keeping people healthier. The hospital costs - covered by medicare are being pushed over to medications - not covered by Medicare. Why not have a drug plan, with a premium like part B. With the quantity buying power of the federal government the cost should not "break Medicare".
Marian seniorhealth.about.com
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
<seniorhealth.guideNOseS...@about.com.invalid> wrote: >Medicare already pays for diabetic supplies, insulin etc. >Overall Medicare per capita spending has dropped over the last >10 years. Much of that must be because of improved new >medications that are keeping people healthier.
I'm not at all certain that the above is a valid assumption. Could the reduction in drug spending be cause because more and more charges are being turned over to patients who can't pay the fees - so go without? Or that doctors are being pressured by insurance companies to prescribe only those drugs which the insurance company can obtain at low cost? The last might be OK if the resulting care is the same, but I sometimes doubt that it is. There's something terribly wrong when my doctor has to get out a booklet issued by my insurance company (he has lots of these from different companies) to see what drug he's allow to prescribe.
In article <49n9hsgq0rrlaocf1cjlcmmp0qcjo6g...@4ax.com>, Don Sterner <dstern...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2000 16:04:26 -0700, Marian > <seniorhealth.guideNOseS...@about.com.invalid> wrote:
snipped
Don points out that:
> Or that doctors are being pressured by > insurance companies to prescribe only those drugs which the > insurance company can obtain at low cost? The last might be OK if > the resulting care is the same, but I sometimes doubt that it is.
Why do you have these doubts (just curious).
> There's something terribly wrong when my doctor has to get out a > booklet issued by my insurance company (he has lots of these from > different companies) to see what drug he's allow to prescribe.
The "book" is called a formulary and it list the drugs that the insurer will reimburse - prescribing freedom is only limited by the market availability of drugs - not be reimbursement eligibility. In the US currently) the cost of a medication is not a barrier to market entry - only its proved safety and efficacy. Cost is a likely determinant of market success, however, which results in competition as opposed to rationing as a mechanism to ensure cost-control.
Which is a very important point to remember in that in national health insurance programs in Canada, Europe, Australia among others, the "national" formulary also limits the market avialability. The monopsony power to control prices comes directly from this limitation. In Canada and Australia (and soon Norway) cost-effectiveness is a "fourth hurdle". In the UK, a government agency (NICE) has been put in place for the same purpose. Other countries have similar types of approaches.
A government managed drug benefit for Medicare could take on these types of characteristics. Are you ready to accept these limitations in freedom of choice?
amp_spamfr...@my-deja.com wrote: >In article <49n9hsgq0rrlaocf1cjlcmmp0qcjo6g...@4ax.com>, > Don Sterner <dstern...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 06 May 2000 16:04:26 -0700, Marian >> <seniorhealth.guideNOseS...@about.com.invalid> wrote:
>snipped
>Don points out that:
>> Or that doctors are being pressured by >> insurance companies to prescribe only those drugs which the >> insurance company can obtain at low cost? The last might be OK if >> the resulting care is the same, but I sometimes doubt that it is.
>Why do you have these doubts (just curious).
>> There's something terribly wrong when my doctor has to get out a >> booklet issued by my insurance company (he has lots of these from >> different companies) to see what drug he's allow to prescribe.
>The "book" is called a formulary and it list the drugs that the insurer >will reimburse - prescribing freedom is only limited by the market >availability of drugs - not be reimbursement eligibility. In the US >currently) the cost of a medication is not a barrier to market entry - >only its proved safety and efficacy. Cost is a likely determinant of >market success, however, which results in competition as opposed to >rationing as a mechanism to ensure cost-control.
Amp, you know very well that many oranizations have removed items from their formulary strictly based on the cost of such items. As an example, one HMO locally removed the most popular estrogens from coverage reinstating them ONLY after their members began screaming to the media and to the state insurance department. pixie
> >In article <49n9hsgq0rrlaocf1cjlcmmp0qcjo6g...@4ax.com>, > > Don Sterner <dstern...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 May 2000 16:04:26 -0700, Marian > >> <seniorhealth.guideNOseS...@about.com.invalid> wrote:
> >snipped
> >Don points out that:
> >> Or that doctors are being pressured by > >> insurance companies to prescribe only those drugs which the > >> insurance company can obtain at low cost? The last might be OK if > >> the resulting care is the same, but I sometimes doubt that it is.
> >Why do you have these doubts (just curious).
> >> There's something terribly wrong when my doctor has to get out a > >> booklet issued by my insurance company (he has lots of these from > >> different companies) to see what drug he's allow to prescribe.
> >The "book" is called a formulary and it list the drugs that the insurer > >will reimburse - prescribing freedom is only limited by the market > >availability of drugs - not be reimbursement eligibility. In the US > >currently) the cost of a medication is not a barrier to market entry - > >only its proved safety and efficacy. Cost is a likely determinant of > >market success, however, which results in competition as opposed to > >rationing as a mechanism to ensure cost-control.
> Amp, you know very well that many oranizations have removed items from their > formulary strictly based on the cost of such items. As an example, one HMO > locally removed the most popular estrogens from coverage reinstating them ONLY > after their members began screaming to the media and to the state insurance > department. > pixie
I never said any different - but has the FDA removed that item from the market? As long it is approved for marketing by FDA the physician is free to prescribe it and the patient to use it. It also follows that a managed care organization can limit reimbursement for it no mater what reason - but at no time can they force docs not to prescribe it (in the US).
>> >In article <49n9hsgq0rrlaocf1cjlcmmp0qcjo6g...@4ax.com>, >> > Don Sterner <dstern...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 06 May 2000 16:04:26 -0700, Marian >> >> <seniorhealth.guideNOseS...@about.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >snipped
>> >Don points out that:
>> >> Or that doctors are being pressured by >> >> insurance companies to prescribe only those drugs which the >> >> insurance company can obtain at low cost? The last might be OK if >> >> the resulting care is the same, but I sometimes doubt that it is.
>> >Why do you have these doubts (just curious).
>> >> There's something terribly wrong when my doctor has to get out a >> >> booklet issued by my insurance company (he has lots of these from >> >> different companies) to see what drug he's allow to prescribe.
>> >The "book" is called a formulary and it list the drugs that the >insurer >> >will reimburse - prescribing freedom is only limited by the market >> >availability of drugs - not be reimbursement eligibility. In the US >> >currently) the cost of a medication is not a barrier to market entry >- >> >only its proved safety and efficacy. Cost is a likely determinant of >> >market success, however, which results in competition as opposed to >> >rationing as a mechanism to ensure cost-control.
>> Amp, you know very well that many oranizations have removed items >from their >> formulary strictly based on the cost of such items. As an example, >one HMO >> locally removed the most popular estrogens from coverage reinstating >them ONLY >> after their members began screaming to the media and to the state >insurance >> department. >> pixie
>I never said any different - but has the FDA removed that item from the >market? As long it is approved for marketing by FDA the physician is >free to prescribe it and the patient to use it. It also follows that a >managed care organization can limit reimbursement for it no mater what >reason - but at no time can they force docs not to prescribe it (in the >US).
>Or do you disagree with me on this, too.
>amp
Certainly not, Amp, you're absolutely correct about the freedom to prescribe, and despite what you may think I don't disagree with you as a matter of practice, but simply because I don't agree with your thoughts about certain aspects of the industry you represent.
But having the freedom to prescribe a particular drug and having the ability to purchase that drug out of pocket are totally different issues, and my disagreement is that the unrealistic high prices for most prescription items in the U.S. forces individuals to do without that item. Why then, do you think that many are treking north... to Canada, or south, to Mexico, to obtain their drugs?
If, by some magic act, the pharmaceutical industry were required to charge no more than what is paid outside the U.S. for any drug the industry wouldn't fail, nor would their R & D efforts decline one iota. Yes, they'd take a hit in the bottom line, and some of their major stockholders, etc., would complain, but that would be the limit of the problem. They've been gorging themselves on the profits of their activities in the U.S. and it's time to put an end to that.
> >> >In article <49n9hsgq0rrlaocf1cjlcmmp0qcjo6g...@4ax.com>, > >> > Don Sterner <dstern...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 06 May 2000 16:04:26 -0700, Marian > >> >> <seniorhealth.guideNOseS...@about.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >snipped
> >> >Don points out that:
> >> >> Or that doctors are being pressured by > >> >> insurance companies to prescribe only those drugs which the > >> >> insurance company can obtain at low cost? The last might be OK if > >> >> the resulting care is the same, but I sometimes doubt that it is.
> >> >Why do you have these doubts (just curious).
> >> >> There's something terribly wrong when my doctor has to get out a > >> >> booklet issued by my insurance company (he has lots of these from > >> >> different companies) to see what drug he's allow to prescribe.
> >> >The "book" is called a formulary and it list the drugs that the > >insurer > >> >will reimburse - prescribing freedom is only limited by the market > >> >availability of drugs - not be reimbursement eligibility. In the US > >> >currently) the cost of a medication is not a barrier to market entry > >- > >> >only its proved safety and efficacy. Cost is a likely determinant of > >> >market success, however, which results in competition as opposed to > >> >rationing as a mechanism to ensure cost-control.
> >> Amp, you know very well that many oranizations have removed items > >from their > >> formulary strictly based on the cost of such items. As an example, > >one HMO > >> locally removed the most popular estrogens from coverage reinstating > >them ONLY > >> after their members began screaming to the media and to the state > >insurance > >> department. > >> pixie
> >I never said any different - but has the FDA removed that item from the > >market? As long it is approved for marketing by FDA the physician is > >free to prescribe it and the patient to use it. It also follows that a > >managed care organization can limit reimbursement for it no mater what > >reason - but at no time can they force docs not to prescribe it (in the > >US).
> >Or do you disagree with me on this, too.
> >amp
> Certainly not, Amp, you're absolutely correct about the freedom to prescribe, > and despite what you may think I don't disagree with you as a matter of > practice, but simply because I don't agree with your thoughts about certain > aspects of the industry you represent.
You are entitled to your opinions - but you tend to throw around the word "fact" when its simply an opinion. Look at the comments you make at the conclusion of this post.
> But having the freedom to prescribe a particular drug and having the ability to > purchase that drug out of pocket are totally different issues, and my > disagreement is that the unrealistic high prices for most
prescription items in
> the U.S. forces individuals to do without that item. Why then, do you think > that many
How many, and who? The busload on 20/20 (the political stunt trip)?
>are treking north... to Canada, or south, to Mexico, to obtain their > drugs?
> If, by some magic act, the pharmaceutical industry were required to charge no > more than what is paid outside the U.S. for any drug the industry
wouldn't fail,
How much less do people pay outside the US versus what people inside the US pay? As a percent of their salary? As a function of their other expenses? As a component of GDP? Compared to what they pay for food? Are Canadians pissed off because they pay twice as much for a gallon of gas?
> nor would their R & D efforts decline one iota.
OK - this one requires a little evidence - care to support this with any kind of documentation?
>Yes, they'd take a hit in the > bottom line, and some of their major stockholders, etc., would complain, but > that would be the limit of the problem. They've been gorging themselves on the > profits of their activities in the U.S. and it's time to put an end to that.
Gorging - care to explain how you know this and what evidence you have to support that the profitability of the industry is perceived by the business commnity to somehow be out of line with business in general?
> On Sat, 06 May 2000 16:04:26 -0700, Marian > <seniorhealth.guideNOseS...@about.com.invalid> wrote:
> >Medicare already pays for diabetic supplies, insulin etc. > >Overall Medicare per capita spending has dropped over the last > >10 years. Much of that must be because of improved new > >medications that are keeping people healthier.
> I'm not at all certain that the above is a valid assumption. > Could the reduction in drug spending be cause because more and > more charges are being turned over to patients who can't pay the > fees - so go without? Or that doctors are being pressured by > insurance companies to prescribe only those drugs which the > insurance company can obtain at low cost? The last might be OK if > the resulting care is the same, but I sometimes doubt that it is. > There's something terribly wrong when my doctor has to get out a > booklet issued by my insurance company (he has lots of these from > different companies) to see what drug he's allow to prescribe.
I agree with that last sentence ONLY if you made it clear to the doctor that you only wanted to get the HMO approved drug. I am sure that the doctor would give you any needed drug if you made it plain that you were going to pay for it yourself......
U S doctors, who make the highest salaries in the world, are choosing between practicing medicine and maintaining their income level... The insurance company makes it known, up front, when you buy the policy, that some things will not be covered. In a free market, you gets what you pays for,( maybe ).
The defense that doctors use, "the insurance company made me do it", sounds like the old Flip Wilson line " the Devil made me do it...."...... In fact, with an average salary of over $160K a year in the U S, and upwards of a million for some specialists, it is very much in a doctor's vested interest to do whatever he/she can to keep the prices of EVERYTHING higher, so it won't look like they are raking too much in.....
The solution would be to eliminate government and private insurance, killing the "cash cow" that lets doctors and care providers charge higher and higher prices. ( Have you notices that the non-insured charges are ALWAYS higher than the gov or insurance allowance??) The reason is that once the gov set a price for a certain procedure, that becomes the LOWEST price that a doctor will charge, knowing full well that a patient will always come up with an additional $20 or $30 dollars without too much complaint..... That carries over to the charges to the uninsured, which have to "make up for the losses" that occur when treating patients who don't have the free medical care, excuse me, insurance .....
A solution: Either insure EVERYBODY or eliminate insurance altogether. Either will bring the price to competitive market levels. After all, what people are complaining about is not lack of medical care, but lack of FREE medical care.....
>> >> >In article <49n9hsgq0rrlaocf1cjlcmmp0qcjo6g...@4ax.com>, >> >> > Don Sterner <dstern...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 06 May 2000 16:04:26 -0700, Marian >> >> >> <seniorhealth.guideNOseS...@about.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >snipped
>> >> >Don points out that:
>> >> >> Or that doctors are being pressured by >> >> >> insurance companies to prescribe only those drugs which the >> >> >> insurance company can obtain at low cost? The last might be OK >if >> >> >> the resulting care is the same, but I sometimes doubt that it >is.
>> >> >Why do you have these doubts (just curious).
>> >> >> There's something terribly wrong when my doctor has to get out a >> >> >> booklet issued by my insurance company (he has lots of these >from >> >> >> different companies) to see what drug he's allow to prescribe.
>> >> >The "book" is called a formulary and it list the drugs that the >> >insurer >> >> >will reimburse - prescribing freedom is only limited by the market >> >> >availability of drugs - not be reimbursement eligibility. In the >US >> >> >currently) the cost of a medication is not a barrier to market >entry >> >- >> >> >only its proved safety and efficacy. Cost is a likely >determinant of >> >> >market success, however, which results in competition as opposed >to >> >> >rationing as a mechanism to ensure cost-control.
>> >> Amp, you know very well that many oranizations have removed items >> >from their >> >> formulary strictly based on the cost of such items. As an example, >> >one HMO >> >> locally removed the most popular estrogens from coverage >reinstating >> >them ONLY >> >> after their members began screaming to the media and to the state >> >insurance >> >> department. >> >> pixie
>> >I never said any different - but has the FDA removed that item from >the >> >market? As long it is approved for marketing by FDA the physician is >> >free to prescribe it and the patient to use it. It also follows >that a >> >managed care organization can limit reimbursement for it no mater >what >> >reason - but at no time can they force docs not to prescribe it (in >the >> >US).
>> >Or do you disagree with me on this, too.
>> >amp
>> Certainly not, Amp, you're absolutely correct about the freedom to >prescribe, >> and despite what you may think I don't disagree with you as a matter >of >> practice, but simply because I don't agree with your thoughts about >certain >> aspects of the industry you represent.
>You are entitled to your opinions - but you tend to throw around the >word "fact" when its simply an opinion. Look at the comments you make >at the conclusion of this post.
>> But having the freedom to prescribe a particular drug and having the >ability to >> purchase that drug out of pocket are totally different issues, and my >> disagreement is that the unrealistic high prices for most >prescription items in >> the U.S. forces individuals to do without that item. Why then, do >you think >> that many
>How many, and who? The busload on 20/20 (the political stunt trip)?
>>are treking north... to Canada, or south, to Mexico, to obtain their >> drugs?
>> If, by some magic act, the pharmaceutical industry were required to >charge no >> more than what is paid outside the U.S. for any drug the industry >wouldn't fail,
>How much less do people pay outside the US versus what people inside >the US pay? As a percent of their salary? As a function of their >other expenses? As a component of GDP? Compared to what they pay for >food? Are Canadians pissed off because they pay twice as much for a >gallon of gas?
>> nor would their R & D efforts decline one iota.
>OK - this one requires a little evidence - care to support this with >any kind of documentation?
>>Yes, they'd take a hit in the >> bottom line, and some of their major stockholders, etc., would >complain, but >> that would be the limit of the problem. They've been gorging >themselves on the >> profits of their activities in the U.S. and it's time to put an end >to that.
>Gorging - care to explain how you know this and what evidence you have >to support that the profitability of the industry is perceived by the >business commnity to somehow be out of line with business in general?
>> pixie
Good God, Amp. Isn't the fact that people on both the northern and southern borders of the U.S are flocking over the line to purchase their pharmaceuticals sufficient evidence that something is terribly wrong with the pricing of drugs in the country? Why do you think these people do that???
You can blather on as long as you wish, but facts are facts. a) Drug prices are too high in the U.S. and b) There's a groundswell that just starting that's going to generate some massive changes to this issue.
Did you ever stop to think that if we did not allow our Congressman and Senators to exempt themselves from the laws they make that they would be on Social Security, Medicare and stop them from not filing and paying their income taxes things might change. The Medicare Prescription plan is another example of pulling the wool over peoples eyes, how many people who can't pay for their prescription drugs are going to have a tax refund large enough to pay for prescription drugs????? Jackie
> >> >> >In article <49n9hsgq0rrlaocf1cjlcmmp0qcjo6g...@4ax.com>, > >> >> > Don Sterner <dstern...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 06 May 2000 16:04:26 -0700, Marian > >> >> >> <seniorhealth.guideNOseS...@about.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >snipped
> >> >> >Don points out that:
> >> >> >> Or that doctors are being pressured by > >> >> >> insurance companies to prescribe only those drugs which the > >> >> >> insurance company can obtain at low cost? The last might be OK > >if > >> >> >> the resulting care is the same, but I sometimes doubt that it > >is.
> >> >> >Why do you have these doubts (just curious).
> >> >> >> There's something terribly wrong when my doctor has to get out a > >> >> >> booklet issued by my insurance company (he has lots of these > >from > >> >> >> different companies) to see what drug he's allow to prescribe.
> >> >> >The "book" is called a formulary and it list the drugs that the > >> >insurer > >> >> >will reimburse - prescribing freedom is only limited by the market > >> >> >availability of drugs - not be reimbursement eligibility. In the > >US > >> >> >currently) the cost of a medication is not a barrier to market > >entry > >> >- > >> >> >only its proved safety and efficacy. Cost is a likely > >determinant of > >> >> >market success, however, which results in competition as opposed > >to > >> >> >rationing as a mechanism to ensure cost-control.
> >> >> Amp, you know very well that many oranizations have removed items > >> >from their > >> >> formulary strictly based on the cost of such items. As an example, > >> >one HMO > >> >> locally removed the most popular estrogens from coverage > >reinstating > >> >them ONLY > >> >> after their members began screaming to the media and to the state > >> >insurance > >> >> department. > >> >> pixie
> >> >I never said any different - but has the FDA removed that item from > >the > >> >market? As long it is approved for marketing by FDA the physician is > >> >free to prescribe it and the patient to use it. It also follows > >that a > >> >managed care organization can limit reimbursement for it no mater > >what > >> >reason - but at no time can they force docs not to prescribe it (in > >the > >> >US).
> >> >Or do you disagree with me on this, too.
> >> >amp
> >> Certainly not, Amp, you're absolutely correct about the freedom to > >prescribe, > >> and despite what you may think I don't disagree with you as a matter > >of > >> practice, but simply because I don't agree with your thoughts about > >certain > >> aspects of the industry you represent.
> >You are entitled to your opinions - but you tend to throw around the > >word "fact" when its simply an opinion. Look at the comments you make > >at the conclusion of this post.
> >> But having the freedom to prescribe a particular drug and having the > >ability to > >> purchase that drug out of pocket are totally different issues, and my > >> disagreement is that the unrealistic high prices for most > >prescription items in > >> the U.S. forces individuals to do without that item. Why then, do > >you think > >> that many
> >How many, and who? The busload on 20/20 (the political stunt trip)?
> >>are treking north... to Canada, or south, to Mexico, to obtain their > >> drugs?
> >> If, by some magic act, the pharmaceutical industry were required to > >charge no > >> more than what is paid outside the U.S. for any drug the industry > >wouldn't fail,
> >How much less do people pay outside the US versus what people inside > >the US pay? As a percent of their salary? As a function of their > >other expenses? As a component of GDP? Compared to what they pay for > >food? Are Canadians pissed off because they pay twice as much for a > >gallon of gas?
> >> nor would their R & D efforts decline one iota.
> >OK - this one requires a little evidence - care to support this with > >any kind of documentation?
> >>Yes, they'd take a hit in the > >> bottom line, and some of their major stockholders, etc., would > >complain, but > >> that would be the limit of the problem. They've been gorging > >themselves on the > >> profits of their activities in the U.S. and it's time to put an end > >to that.
> >Gorging - care to explain how you know this and what evidence you have > >to support that the profitability of the industry is perceived by the > >business commnity to somehow be out of line with business in general?
> >> pixie
> Good God, Amp. Isn't the fact that people on both the northern and southern > borders of the U.S are flocking over the line to purchase their pharmaceuticals > sufficient evidence that something is terribly wrong with the pricing of drugs > in the country? Why do you think these people do that???
> You can blather on as long as you wish, but facts are facts. a) Drug prices are > too high in the U.S. and b) There's a groundswell that just starting that's > going to generate some massive changes to this issue.
And another thing, I think that Congresscritters and Senatori should be required to do their own personal income taxes, and not be allowed to hire professional help. After all, they pass the laws and , supposedly are educated people, so they should be able to do their own.....
Andy in Dallas
(who is amazed by the amount of time it takes to report selling a house on an income tax form )
> Did you ever stop to think that if we did not allow our Congressman and > Senators to exempt themselves from the laws they make that they would be on > Social Security, Medicare and stop them from not filing and paying their > income taxes things might change. The Medicare Prescription plan is another > example of pulling the wool over peoples eyes, how many people who can't pay > for their prescription drugs are going to have a tax refund large enough to > pay for prescription drugs????? Jackie > Pixie <glev...@edge.net> wrote in message
On Fri, 12 May 2000 08:17:17 -0500, Claude Sharpe <junglea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And another thing, I think that Congresscritters and Senatori should >be required to do their own personal income taxes, and not be allowed >to hire professional help. After all, they pass the laws and , >supposedly are educated people, so they should be able to do their >own.....
> Andy in Dallas
>(who is amazed by the amount of time it takes to report > selling a house on an income tax form )
Of course you must consider all the businesses who are in the business of completing income tax forms, and the people they employ to do this work. Not counting the people who write the computer software that they use...
These people have a vested interest in seeing to it that the 1040 is just as difficult as possible. Steve Forbes had the idea of greatly simplying things. The person from H&R Block I talked to was totally opposed to his ideas. Most likely because she'd be out of a job.
Jerome Bigge
Supporter of National Health Insurance CompTIA A+ Certified Computer Technician Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series. Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"
Jerome Bigge <jbi...@novagate.net> wrote: >On Fri, 12 May 2000 08:17:17 -0500, Claude Sharpe <junglea...@hotmail.com> >wrote: >>And another thing, I think that Congresscritters and Senatori should >>be required to do their own personal income taxes, and not be allowed >>to hire professional help. After all, they pass the laws and , >>supposedly are educated people, so they should be able to do their >>own..... >>(who is amazed by the amount of time it takes to report >> selling a house on an income tax form ) >Of course you must consider all the businesses who are >in the business of completing income tax forms, and the >people they employ to do this work. Not counting the >people who write the computer software that they use... >These people have a vested interest in seeing to it that >the 1040 is just as difficult as possible. Steve Forbes >had the idea of greatly simplying things. The person >from H&R Block I talked to was totally opposed to >his ideas. Most likely because she'd be out of a job.
It is not Form 1040 which is so difficult. It is even the problem of deciding income. This is a major problem.
Also, CPA's are not that expensive. They are likely to save someone with a reasonable amount of income from business or form investments, or with a reasonable amount of charitable deductions (I am opposed to the standard deduction; I believe in private charity, and that money given to it should not be taxed) is likely to end up saving money by using someone who understands the law.
It is much like going to doctors instead of treating yourself, only cheaper. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Interesting discussion going on. I have few observations to add fuel to the fire. Most Medicare beneficiaries are on traditional fee for service Medicare. If their physician prescribes a FDA approved drug the pharmacy will fill the prescription. Who pays for it depends on the situation. They may have private drug coverage which may come with restricitions which would be outlined in the plan information that the company supplying the coverage MUST provide when coverage is bought. They may pay for it with cash. If they are in a Medicare HMO that has a formulary they are also informed of that when they agree to the policy. In both cases if they are covered under these plans they recive information on the coverage which includes limitations etc. All states regulate insurance - including health insurance and any information sent to the covered person must conform to their regulations. Medicare HMO's are also governed by the federal government and must adhere to those regulations also. I guess I don't understand why people who already have the coverage are suprised when a drug or procedure are denied, under the limitations of the policy. Would you be suprised if you wrecked your Honda Accord and your car insurance would not give you enough money to replace it with a BMW? Would you be shocked if you had flood damage to your home and your insurance denied the claim because you did not have flood insurance? Why do people who sign up for HMO's (that their employer pays the lions share of) that clearly state that all specialty care must be preauthorized by their primary care physician act suprised when they have coverage denied when they don't follow the rules? Why do people on Medicare join a Medicare HMO? To save money of course! Why then would they be upset when they lose the freedom of choice of traditional Medicare? The plan regulations are clearly staed in the coverage information they recived on joining (per HCFA regulation). Where do those booklets that spell out the coverage and limitations go? I am willing to bet most go in the trash, or unread and lost in some drawer. I am not saying the health insurance industry is entirly without blame- they are out to make a buck and we all know money can corrupt, but the covered population must take some responsibility. Most probably know more about the love lives of the cast of "Friends" than they do about their health insurance policies. As I promised-food for thought.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
