A painless Way to Cut 40 Billion From the Deficit

[Antiderivative]

You're looking at the process as an on/off switch, which is faulty.

Explain.

 

[Polk]

Thanks Republicans
Medicare Part D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[26][27] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

Republicans?


It was Obama's deal with Big Pharma which made it so we could not get lower priced meds from Canada:


Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

Did you read the snippet you post? It was saying he'd oppose making a change to allow it. It's already not allowed.

 

[Polk]

You're looking at the process as an on/off switch, which is faulty.

Explain.

You're taking the position that a market is either completely open or it's not. That's not accurate. While our market for health care is not an absolute free market, it's definitely a freer market than the Netherlands, were the government regulates insurance companies much more tightly. The Dutch market, in turn, is freer than the British market were hospitals are owned by the government and doctors are public employees.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Thanks Republicans
Medicare Part D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Republicans?


It was Obama's deal with Big Pharma which made it so we could not get lower priced meds from Canada:


Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

Did you read the snippet you post? It was saying he'd oppose making a change to allow it. It's already not allowed.

Of course I read it. It said:

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada

And that was a gift to Big Pharma.

 

[Polk]

It was, but your original claim that Obama "made it so we could not get lower priced meds from Canada", which isn't accurate. He took an action that reinforced the status quo.

 

[CaféAuLait]

It was, but your original claim that Obama "made it so we could not get lower priced meds from Canada", which isn't accurate. He took an action that reinforced the status quo.

So you are stating that Obama who said he would not make a deal with Big Pharma could not have changed such-- yet dug in even farther to assure that this would remain so and would not change?

It was a plan Obama said HE WOULD SUPPORT then changed his mind and jumped in bed with Big Pharma in the secret memo which Huffpo spoke of above and then there is this:

WASHINGTON -- An expected vote on a healthcare reform bill amendment to allow U.S. pharmacies to import cheaper drugs from other countries was delayed Wednesday after a last-minute signal from the FDA commissioner that the Obama administration does not support the plan.

Medical News: FDA Opposes Drug Reimportation Measure that Obama Once Supported - in Public Health & Policy, Washington Watch from MedPage Today

That is what I was referring to his ever changing stance on matters.

 

[Antiderivative]

You're looking at the process as an on/off switch, which is faulty.

Explain.

You're taking the position that a market is either completely open or it's not. That's not accurate. While our market for health care is not an absolute free market, it's definitely a freer market than the Netherlands, were the government regulates insurance companies much more tightly. The Dutch market, in turn, is freer than the British market were hospitals are owned by the government and doctors are public employees.

No, I don't take that POV. I think you bankers are pieces of shit whom rely on government when they fuck up.

Again, explain away.

 

[percysunshine]

40 billion? That is pocket change. We need to subtract about 4 Trillion.

 

[Political Junky]

Thanks Republicans
Medicare Part D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[26][27] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

Yes, huge giveaway to Big Pharma.

 

[Flopper]

Medicare Part D now cost the taxpayers over 50 billion dollars a year. Costs will soon rise to over 60 billion. This program could be changed to save taxpayers over 40 billion a year and allow seniors to get prescription drugs cheaper than what they are paying under Part D.

Prescription Drugs from Canada can be purchased at 1/3 to 1/5 the US cost. I have checked the cost of buying drugs through Canada in lieu of using Part D for my wife, my brother, and myself. We would each save $300 to $800 per year by canceling Part D and just buy through Canada.

There are several reasons why Part D plans costs are so high. Although Medicare pays for the drugs, private insurance companies manage the plans. The insurance companies collect a premium from seniors and take no risk since Medicare pays for the drugs. Medicare does not negotiate any prices for the drugs so prices are retail price, which are more than what most people pay at their local pharmacy. Unless the insurance company negotiates a lower price, the plan is paying top dollar for the drugs. In addition seniors pay a premium to the insurance company plus a deductible and a co-pay for each prescription. Once drug costs reach about $2700 in a year, seniors pay the full cost until their out pocket reaches about $3500.

By changing Part D to eliminate all but catastrophic coverage, which has about a $6,000 deducible and allowing seniors to purchase drugs through Canada everybody wins. Well not quite. The losers are? You guessed it, insurance companies and drug companies.

There is no bill in Congress to make these changes because the drug and insurance lobby will not allow it. They have the votes to block any attempt to cut off this gravy train.

Currently lobbyist for the drug companies are working Congress and the administration to stop all Americans from buying drugs through Canada and other countries which will add billions more to their revenues.

So possibly Driving American Drug Companies out of Business is what you call Painless?

Importation of drugs will not drive the drug companies out of business. The only reason drugs are so cheap abroad is the US consumer is paying for most of the cost of drug research and the drug company's profits. If we allow the importation of those drugs, drug costs in the US would fall and the worldwide price of drugs would rise to cover costs.

Of the 12 largest drug companies in the world, all of which sell drugs in the US, half are foreign companies. All have manufacturing facilities outside the US. The term American Drug Company is an oxymoron.

 

[Flopper]

You tip your political hand when you say "there is no bill in congress". Democrats might be in the minority but they can still produce a bill. The truth of the matter is that the Medicare D issue promoted by the Soros's liberal propaganda machine is camouflage to take focus away from the real issue which is the 3,000 page monstrosity called Obamacare.

Medicare Part D was here long before the Obamacare. It was enacted in 2003 by a Republican Congress seven years before Obamacare.

The Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003, H.R. 2427 which would have allowed all Americans to take advantage of the lower-cost prescription drugs sold in Canada was introduced by Democrats and defeated by Republicans in the House. It would have saved American consumers billions and would have significantly reduced our healthcare costs. However, "W", was not about to disappoint his buddies in the drug companies, thus we have Medicare Part D, which cost tax payers and senior billions each year.

 

[Missourian]

The problem goes far deeper than just the Medicare Part D. Most of the drug company revenues in the US go to profits and research. The same exact drug that you pay a $100 for in the US, customers in other countries are paying $25 or $30. In effect, Americans are paying most of the research and developmental cost for new drugs plus most of the drug company profits. Thanks to drug company lobbyist and the FDA, the rest of the world enjoys low drug cost while we foot bill.

Nearly half of the prescription drugs you buy in the US are manufacture abroad. The only difference between the drug bought in the US and a foreign country is the box and the price.

Welcome to the receiving end of "Tax the rich". We pay more to subsidize the price for less fortunate countries. Not such a great plan when it affects you is it.

 

[Polk]

Explain.

You're taking the position that a market is either completely open or it's not. That's not accurate. While our market for health care is not an absolute free market, it's definitely a freer market than the Netherlands, were the government regulates insurance companies much more tightly. The Dutch market, in turn, is freer than the British market were hospitals are owned by the government and doctors are public employees.

No, I don't take that POV. I think you bankers are pieces of shit whom rely on government when they fuck up.

Again, explain away.

What are you babbling about?