Medicare drug law becomes bitter pill

The Washington Times ^ | March 28, 2004 | Amy Fagan

[MikeJ75]

President Bush had hoped that the passage of the Medicare prescription-drug bill would be one of the crowning achievements of his administration, but so far it has turned out to be one of the messiest policies, being attacked on several fronts.

[OldFriend]

First of all, the prescription option is VOLUNTARY.

Further, poor senior citizens will pay no more than $5 for their prescriptions.

There is a medical savings account option in the plan as well.

Since when does left consider the cost of programs for the elderly, other than when it's the republicans making the plan available.

[meenie]

Socialism is wunnerful! Seniors who cannot afford prescriptions now are covered by Medicaid. Medical savings plans are to be tried in several pilot programs. Importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada are prohibited. Company pension plans containing prescription drug benefits are relieved of that burden.

Special benfits of 20% promised as early as this fall are already null and void because drugs are now 20% higher. Show me a new government program that does not cause an increase in costs. Paper-work, regulation to prevent abuse, and anticipation of these items automatically cause increases in price.

[NittanyLion]

"I tried to warn them. ... I think we made a big mess. Instead of it being a plus, it's becoming a negative,"

A number of us here on FreeRepublic expressed the very same sentiments, to no avail. Unfortunately it appears the Administration was hellbent on passing this dreadful bill regardless of the consequences.

[BlazingArizona]

Special benfits of 20% promised as early as this fall are already null and void because drugs are now 20% higher.

Since the subsidy plan does not go into effect intil 2006, the higher prices we are already seeing are for one reason only: the plan keeps the federal ban on consumers shopping overseas for prescriptions. Catering to special interests always means higher prices.

[babygene]

"First of all, the prescription option is VOLUNTARY"

Well, it's not "voluntary" if the company I retired from cancles my drug benifit because of it... And I have no doubt that they are just looking for an excuse.

[lepton]

the plan keeps the federal ban on consumers shopping overseas for prescriptions. Catering to special interests always means higher prices.

Removing that ban means putting the brakes on research in the U.S. - research that results in almost 2/3rds of all new drug discoveries worldwide. Illegitemate price controlls oversees have a significant effect in driving up prices domestically.

[NittanyLion]

Removing that ban means putting the brakes on research in the U.S. - research that results in almost 2/3rds of all new drug discoveries worldwide. Illegitemate price controlls oversees have a significant effect in driving up prices domestically.

Unfortunately the PDP will certainly result in domestic price controls in order to hold down the programs cost. The effect will be to stifle R&D by reducing pharma profit margins.

[babygene]

When I was working (for a fortune 500 company), our medical and drugs were paid for by our company's health insurance. Now that I've retired, since my wife is on social security, social security is the primary payee for her health insurance. Social security decides what they should pay and my company policy covers just pays 80% of the 20% that Medicare doesn't pay.

That leaves us responsible for all of the charges on the top end that Medicare doesn't cover. I, on the other hand, am not on socical security yet, and my company policy pays everything except a $10 copay.

How is it that she has two insurances (private and Medicare) and she pays about $50 every time she goes to the Dr. and I have only one insurance and pay $10? Before she went on SS, she also paid $10.

The reason is, that the way the law was written, Medicare becomes the primary payee. This lets the insurance company off the hook at the expense of the policy holder.

Do you think for a minute that the Medicare drug policy is going to be any different? My wife has a chronic illness, and her prescriptions are paid by our private retirement policy (which we pay a premium for), since drugs are not covered my Medicare. Once Medicare pays for them, I have no doubt that our private insurance will shift the burden to Medicare and stop her drug coverage and it will cost us thousands extra - even though we have a priate policy too.

[Wolfie]

Since when does left consider the cost of programs for the elderly, other than when it's the republicans making the plan available.

About the same time the Right doesn't care about passing new enormo-entitlements, I guess.

[OldFriend]

Guess the fact that you are not getting every thing for nothing, somehow obligates me to pay the difference.

[babygene]

"Guess the fact that you are not getting every thing for nothing, somehow obligates me to pay the difference."

Actually, I pay a monthly premium for my retirement health insurance for both me and my wife. I do get it at the company's group rate, but it comes out of my pocket, not yours. I also pay for my wife's Medicaid (or - she does).

The problem I have, (and yes you do pay, though it's not my choice), is that Medicade pays for her before our paid-for insurance pays anything. Our insurance (that we pay for) is only responsible for 16%, and THE TAXPAYER PAYS THE REST. This is ass-backwards, and it was written into law to give the insurance companies a break. It does not help me, and it does not help the taxpayer. It actually costs me more and I get less coverage.

The same thing is happening with the prescription drug benefit. It seems almost unbelievable that they would do it this way, but that's exactly what they did.

Almost 50% of the retired people have private health insurance, and those insurance companies will not have to pick up the tab any more. THE TAXPAYER WILL.

Jerk! (that was for your snotty comment)

[Brilliant]

It's fine with me if they repeal it. The medicare trust fund will be bankrupt decades before I'm eligible.

[goodnesswins]

KEEP your SENIORS OFF D.R.U.G.S!!! (If you can.)

[NittanyLion]

Guess the fact that you are not getting every thing for nothing, somehow obligates me to pay the difference.

That's exactly why this PDP was a stupid policy from the beginning. None of us are obligated to pay any portion of another's healthcare costs.

[BlazingArizona]

Removing that ban means putting the brakes on research in the U.S. - research that results in almost 2/3rds of all new drug discoveries worldwide. Illegitemate price controlls oversees have a significant effect in driving up prices domestically.

The ban on Americans shopping offshore for prescription medication applies both to countries where prices are reduced by price controls (Canada) and to countries where there is an open market and no price controls (Switzerland). It's pharma using government power to screw the public, and nothing more.

The "if you subject us to free markets, we'll stop research" argument was also used by steel makers vying for 'protection' from low-cost product. That argument was bunk when it came from steelmen, and it's still bunk now. The need for innovative new drugs is worldwide; since consumers everywhere want them, if America stops researching drugs, the Swiss or the Japanese or the Indians will be glad to go on innovating in our place.

[Wolfie]

They spend inordinately more on marketing than R&D. The bottom line is that other countries have gov'ts that represent their citizens, while we have a gov't that represents the pharmaceutical industry.

[luckydevi]

Lott, then why did you vote for it