Caving in to Democrats who hate the air he breathes anyway, this plan is absurd. It means that all over America working people will have money taken out of their paychecks to buy all the drugs for retired fatcats playing golf in Florida. Means testing would have saved this disaster. Now we've added a ten trillion dollar unfunded mandate to the Federal Budget while the entire budget is 1.5 trillion. And it's the death knell for pharmaceutical development in this country. Like with Bush giving in to the Democrats who knowingly and intentionally ran around lying about how the tax cut was an "attack" on poor children: so NOW they're giving $400 per child "tax-rebates" to millions of people who DON'T PAY TAXES> It's nothing but a government giveaway, a freebie. It's taking money from one person and giving it to another person because the GOVERNMENT thinks they should have it. And if I call this Socialism, I'm certain people will say I'm being extremist or hysterical or something.
OK Bill, I'm going to take you on about this issue. I don't know if you know, but both my parents fought cancer in the past three years, so I have a first hand understanding of drug costs and how the pharma market works. The prescrption drug benefit is based on a key religious and cultural assumption that it is better to keep someone alive rather than to let them die. We've moved from a diagnostic and procedural basis for medical treatment to a pharmaceutical-based treatment system. Have a problem? Take a drug! I'll debate the merits of this approach some other time. It's my belief that a prescrption drug benefit is a proper extension of Medicare/Medicaid provided there is extensive reform (i.e. cost-cutting) in other areas. It simply keeps up with changes in the way we practice medicine. Of course, we also need tort reform and general insurance reform to correct many of the distortions in the medical marketplace. I do agree there should have been more means testing, especially as the retirement age inches up. But there are many other problems that need to be corrected here as well: 1. Doctors need to be trained to prescribe the correct amount of medicine. I lost it at UVa when a resident prescribed a drug that cost $800 a dose for 10 days, and then wrote out a prescription for 30 days. As it is, after the death of both my parents, I have enough surplus drugs on hand to open my own Walgreeens. 2. I have my doubts about the "death of pharma research" arguement. The same drug that cost $800 a dose here costs $75 a dose in India and $150 a dose in Canada. It seems that American consumers are paying for pharma research that keeps prices low in other countries. 3. Any prescription drug benefit should be extrememly tight, covering only the most commonly used drugs. At least in my case, our insurance company was extremely generous, preapproving the use of a drug that costs $7000 per ounce. That's not a typo. Any publicly funded program can't be that generous. 4. The last change is impossible. Meaningful reform won't take place until we as a society come to the conclusion that at some point, people have to die. Something like 80 percent of drug expenses come in the last year to 18 months of life, as we try newer and newer drugs to keep our loved ones alive, usually to no avail. I know you and I agree a lot on many different issues, but I think on this one, we have slightly different viewpoints. Sachin
Well, we aren't mind-numbed Liberals marching in lock-step, so it's not surprising. Both my parents passed recently as well. Both from Cnacer, essentially. We were fortunate not to have to deal with the long, drawn out American way of death, although my mother's case was instructive. She was paying more for her meds per month than for all her other living expenses combined. She complained and worries about it constantly. And it WAS a lot of money. But the bottom line was that she COULD afford it. As can a lot of seniors. Medicare has screwed up medical care in this country through price controls, and it is now poised to do the same to the drug industry. Look, I have no problem with the American taxpayer helping needy elders buy drugs. But most seniors ARE NOT NEEDY. When Bill Gates retires, his blood pressure meds will be paid for by hourly workers in his warehouses, fast food employees and day laborers. It simply makes no sense to me. If you need help, fine. Prove you need help and we'll give it to you. As it stands, free stuff is showered upon you as a reward for getting old, even if you have a chaffeur pick your scrips up for you at CVS on the way to the Country Club for lunch. I've never mentioned this on BS before, and since not many people will have bothered to read this far, I'm not really spilling a lot of beans when I tell you that my wife is a Physician. She comes home daily with tales of abuse of the system by people who don't pay and don't care who does. There's no incentive to be careful with somebody else's money.
Are you sure we're not related? My brother is a med student. Freaky. When my mom worked for a pediatricians office, she would tell me all kinds of stories about people who would refuse to pay even though they had the money and people who tried to pay even if they didn't. The thing that bothers me is an old AARP study that showed that it's the "near elderly" those 40-55 who support the entitlement the most. I guess they must figure they can get their parents and themselves paid for, even if their kids take in the shorts. Which pretty much sums up American politics over the past 30 years. Sachin