Bush's prescription deal.

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by RetiredGySgt, Aug 2, 2011.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,566
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,982
    Read a blurb somewhere the other day ( think it was at the Bank) that Bush's prescription plan is SAVING the Government thousands if not millions of dollars due to less hospital visits by seniors.

    Wonder why that is not mainstream news? Could it be because the Press is biased?
     
  2. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Read it at the bank?

    Bush's prescription deal, aka the pill bill is costing the usa many millions due to the non negotiable price on drugs clause.

    The rest of what you said sounds like balony. Find a valid source for that data.
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,566
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,982
    The Credit Union I bank at has news blurbs on their Screens while you wait to talk to a teller. It was a news blurb.
     
  4. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    Each and every year it has come in between 20-40 percent lower than the original projected costs to the treasury. This law was an effort by the Rs to bring some competition to a drug plan that would've been completely missing had it been written and passed by a D congress. Instead of directly negotiating with the drug companies as occurs with Medicare (between it and doctors, using coercion) the law allows the patient himself to get the best deal in the marketplace, and make decisions about insurance plans, companies, and fomulary.

    If they failed to sign up to a plan the first year in which they were eligible, and any subsequent year, the premium would increase for them by a predetermined percent of surcharge. In a certain number of years, potential freeloaders could see themselves being punished substantially for staying out of the program to save on premiums and then getting in only when they needed drug support to due to medical imperatives.

    I need only one generic drug for arthritis, but I signed on at first eligibility opportunity. They are making money on me, and that's fair. It's what insurance is all about. But I've always made sure my family was medically insured as a self employed person and it always included drugs. Each year, if my Part-d insurance has increased, then I went back out and shopped for a better deal.

    Five years ago my first premium was $18/mo and this (5-years laster) year it's $43.89; I realize Medicare is subsidizing additional costs that go unrecognized in my premium, but not enough to nullify competition. The plans are standardized so that judging prices when shopping is easy to do.

    If the Rs hadn't passed it, the Ds surely would've, and they would've destroyed the American pharmaceutical industry, the best in the world, just like they do everything else they touch.

    The Rs believed that accessibility to drugs would lower the need for Medicare hospitalization costs as an unseen largely unrecognized cost benefit, and of that there is no doubt; medicate, don't operate! There is also the vastly improved quality of life for those with chronic health conditions who would prefer to avoid surgery procedures because of risks and other considerations.

    Liberals hate the Part-d drug plan. It was supposed to be THEIRS to pass and they were beaten to the pass. I vividly recall that when I signed up, the Democrat lady who signed me up, and who I thought was there to help me, put the 2006 Medicare booklet in my hand, and with that said: "HERE! This is what the damned Republicans gave to you! You'll find what you need to make a decision between the pages 80 and 120".

    If you think that was a one-of-a-kind outburst by an otherwise dedicated civil servant, my wife, 4-years later got the same bitch and precisely the same treatment and hateful diatribe in lieu of any real service. She did as little as possible because she's not really concerned with helping those she serves, but being a political hack.

    Part of the Dem's solution was to provide for re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada. Had that happened, the price in Canada wouldv'e had to go up and it wouldn't have panned out for lower prices here. The very first pill costs the drug company something like a $1-billion. They have a limited amount of time (five years?) before it goes generic and their ability to recover their costs for research, testing, compliance, and development is greatly reduced.

    That is why we see them advertise on TV, another thing we hear liberals complain about, and want to take a tax deduction away for. They have to take their profit while they can, to finance current research and development. Selling outside the country, and their R&D market, even at reduced prices, stimulates their market share and amortizes costs more quickly.

    Everybody won with Medicare Part-d except the Dem party.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
  5. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Program costs As of the end of year 2008, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517,[18] making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 (billions). Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion.

    Medicare Part D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,566
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,982
    And the cost of hospitalization and operations? During the same time? And projections of what they would be?
     
  7. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    That's a bargain, when we consider offsets that I mentioned, and much cheaper than it would've been with the Ds doing it, and we still have a thriving drug industry to tax and enjoy the medical benefits from.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
  8. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    I just think it is funny as hell who is now defending Bush's socialistic spending spree.
     
  9. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    so a good example of government spending creating jobs?
     
  10. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    No USC, I mean that the jobs weren't destroyed as they would've been. But yes, the pharmaceutical industry has been strengthened, particularly by the preservation and enhancement of competition by this Republican legislation. A Dem plan would've been the opposite so the net difference is doubly so.

    It does better than the umbrella Medicare does, in staying within the original projections. Do you really think that Medicare can continue on as it is now? It is the largest deficit cause in our economy, much more than SS, and so much earlier since it's creation.
     

Share This Page