Dem congresswoman says unfair to make medicaid users work since they're all addicts!!

[Foxfyre]

/----/ As a former Pharma Rep, I towed the company line about the costs of self-insurance, R&D and marketing. What opened my eyes was a friend whose cancer meds were $2,500 a month. I suggested he try Costco Rx. He did, and the cost dropped to $30 a month. Sadly, we lost him five years ago.

We know a person who held a high level position with Merck. She admitted privately to us that the pharmaceuticals charge such high prices in America because the government will pay those high prices. Even for many very old drugs that have been on the market for decades. They charge as much as they can get.

And if there is no generic alternative, they get a LOT.

She said drug research is costly but does not anywhere nearly explain the charges for most of the drugs produced.

Litigation is one big expense as drug companies can be involved for months or years in high profile multi-million dollar lawsuits/class action suits should a drug be accused of harming somebody. That jacks up their insurance and legal costs. And the personal injury lobby has been successful in eliminating caps on punitive damages.

And pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars in advertising to get people to ask for their most expensive drugs and get doctors to prescribe those drugs and that in turn escalates the cost of those drugs.

But mostly pharmaceuticals charge what they do because our government and insurance companies pay those charges.

Why do your prescription drugs cost so much? - Harvard Health

The cost of a prescription drug can be very high, and several factors contribute to this. What can consumers do to reduce their drug costs, and what changes need to be made to make medicatio...

www.health.harvard.edu

But again back to the OP, I do think those receiving free government healthcare should have to work as much as they are reasonably able.

 

[Flopper]

I understand that life is hard, my sister in law just died from ALS. Thankfully she received SSI disability to help her. Maybe tort reform could help bring down medical prices.

Maybe, but I doubt it. The major factors in the high medical costs are not lawsuits nor goverment actions but rather hospital services and physician services, followed by prescription drugs and administrative costs.

The healthcare business is different from any other business because due to their focus on human well-being, strict regulations, and complex decision-making processes. Also unlike other businesses, healthcare has a multitude of third payers to deal with, each with their own unique set of qualification for payment. A single payer system would eliminative much of the administrative costs.

 

[Flopper]

We know a person who held a high level position with Merck. She admitted privately to us that the pharmaceuticals charge such high prices in America because the government will pay those high prices. Even for many very old drugs that have been on the market for decades. They charge as much as they can get.

And if there is no generic alternative, they get a LOT.

She said drug research is costly but does not anywhere nearly explain the charges for most of the drugs produced.

Litigation is one big expense as drug companies can be involved for months or years in high profile multi-million dollar lawsuits/class action suits should a drug be accused of harming somebody. That jacks up their insurance and legal costs. And the personal injury lobby has been successful in eliminating caps on punitive damages.

And pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars in advertising to get people to ask for their most expensive drugs and get doctors to prescribe those drugs and that in turn escalates the cost of those drugs.

But mostly pharmaceuticals charge what they do because our government and insurance companies pay those charges.

Why do your prescription drugs cost so much? - Harvard Health

The cost of a prescription drug can be very high, and several factors contribute to this. What can consumers do to reduce their drug costs, and what changes need to be made to make medicatio...

www.health.harvard.edu

But again back to the OP, I do think those receiving free government healthcare should have to work as much as they are reasonably able.

Approximately 64% of adults enrolled in Medicaid are employed, either on a full-time or part-time basis. The remaining 36% of enrollees are primarily not working due to caregiving responsibilities, illness or disability, or because they are pursuing education.

Determining who among the 36% is capable of working is a complex challenge. Even if we were to establish a program designed to assess and promote workforce participation among this group, it is unlikely to significantly reduce Medicaid costs. Most individuals in this category would continue to qualify for Medicaid due to low income. Those who no longer qualify would likely transition to low-cost, high-deductible insurance plans, which often result in unpaid medical bills. These costs do not disappear; they are simply shifted from the government to healthcare providers, who may then raise prices to offset the financial losses.

However, the primary issue with this approach is that it fails to address a more pressing problem: individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid but should not be. This situation arises for several reasons. Some individuals are partially or fully supported by relatives or friends. Others rely on inheritances or gifts, and there are those who do not accurately report their earnings—whether due to a lack of understanding of the rules or through deliberate misrepresentation.

Medicaid, which is administered by state governments, relies heavily on information provided by applicants to determine eligibility. While the IRS serves as a secondary source of income verification, the data it provides is often one to two years old. Medicaid regulations require that eligibility decisions be based on current income, making this time lag problematic. Moreover, recent reductions in IRS staffing and federal funding cuts to state Medicaid programs may further exacerbate these challenges, making accurate eligibility determination even more difficult.

 

[Meathead]

Approximately 64% of adults enrolled in Medicaid are employed, either on a full-time or part-time basis. The remaining 36% of enrollees are primarily not working due to caregiving responsibilities, illness or disability, or because they are pursuing education.

Determining who among the 36% is capable of working is a complex challenge. Even if we were to establish a program designed to assess and promote workforce participation among this group, it is unlikely to significantly reduce Medicaid costs. Most individuals in this category would continue to qualify for Medicaid due to low income. Those who no longer qualify would likely transition to low-cost, high-deductible insurance plans, which often result in unpaid medical bills. These costs do not disappear; they are simply shifted from the government to healthcare providers, who may then raise prices to offset the financial losses.

However, the primary issue with this approach is that it fails to address a more pressing problem: individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid but should not be. This situation arises for several reasons. Some individuals are partially or fully supported by relatives or friends. Others rely on inheritances or gifts, and there are those who do not accurately report their earnings—whether due to a lack of understanding of the rules or through deliberate misrepresentation.

Medicaid, which is administered by state governments, relies heavily on information provided by applicants to determine eligibility. While the IRS serves as a secondary source of income verification, the data it provides is often one to two years old. Medicaid regulations require that eligibility decisions be based on current income, making this time lag problematic. Moreover, recent reductions in IRS staffing and federal funding cuts to state Medicaid programs may further exacerbate these challenges, making accurate eligibility determination even more difficult.

You wrote that yourself?!

 

[Flopper]

We know a person who held a high level position with Merck. She admitted privately to us that the pharmaceuticals charge such high prices in America because the government will pay those high prices. Even for many very old drugs that have been on the market for decades. They charge as much as they can get.

And if there is no generic alternative, they get a LOT.

She said drug research is costly but does not anywhere nearly explain the charges for most of the drugs produced.

Litigation is one big expense as drug companies can be involved for months or years in high profile multi-million dollar lawsuits/class action suits should a drug be accused of harming somebody. That jacks up their insurance and legal costs. And the personal injury lobby has been successful in eliminating caps on punitive damages.

And pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars in advertising to get people to ask for their most expensive drugs and get doctors to prescribe those drugs and that in turn escalates the cost of those drugs.

But mostly pharmaceuticals charge what they do because our government and insurance companies pay those charges.

Why do your prescription drugs cost so much? - Harvard Health

The cost of a prescription drug can be very high, and several factors contribute to this. What can consumers do to reduce their drug costs, and what changes need to be made to make medicatio...

www.health.harvard.edu

But again back to the OP, I do think those receiving free government healthcare should have to work as much as they are reasonably able.

Government purchases 40% of pharmaceuticals. The 60% of the drug costs are determined by insurance companies who negotiation through varies routes, purchasing groups, and retail customers. No where is there a real bidding process that would flush out the lowest cost providers. The reason for this is really complex. Both federal and state laws, regulations, and policies make it nearly impossible to actually have anything close to a a real bidding process.

 

[Meathead]

Government purchases 40% of pharmaceuticals. 60% of drug cost is determined by insurance companies negotiation through varies routes, purchasing groups, and retail customers. No where is there a bidding process that would flush out the lowest cost providers. The reason for this is really complex. Both federal and state laws, regulations, and policies make it nearly impossible to actually have anything close to a a real bidding process.

Can't you just admit to Trump's success?

 

[Flopper]

You wrote that yourself?!

Mostly but I use an AI to correct grammatical errors and make suggested changes.

I would suggest that anyone that writes a lot should consider an AI or some type of writing assistant. It saves a lot of time and often produces a better result.

 

[Foxfyre]

Government purchases 40% of pharmaceuticals. The 60% of the drug costs are determined by insurance companies who negotiation through varies routes, purchasing groups, and retail customers. No where is there a real bidding process that would flush out the lowest cost providers. The reason for this is really complex. Both federal and state laws, regulations, and policies make it nearly impossible to actually have anything close to a a real bidding process.

Assuming you're right, then that is a huge endorsement for President Trump and his team to do what they can to fix the problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

Approximately 64% of adults enrolled in Medicaid are employed, either on a full-time or part-time basis. The remaining 36% of enrollees are primarily not working due to caregiving responsibilities, illness or disability, or because they are pursuing education.

Determining who among the 36% is capable of working is a complex challenge. Even if we were to establish a program designed to assess and promote workforce participation among this group, it is unlikely to significantly reduce Medicaid costs. Most individuals in this category would continue to qualify for Medicaid due to low income. Those who no longer qualify would likely transition to low-cost, high-deductible insurance plans, which often result in unpaid medical bills. These costs do not disappear; they are simply shifted from the government to healthcare providers, who may then raise prices to offset the financial losses.

However, the primary issue with this approach is that it fails to address a more pressing problem: individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid but should not be. This situation arises for several reasons. Some individuals are partially or fully supported by relatives or friends. Others rely on inheritances or gifts, and there are those who do not accurately report their earnings—whether due to a lack of understanding of the rules or through deliberate misrepresentation.

Medicaid, which is administered by state governments, relies heavily on information provided by applicants to determine eligibility. While the IRS serves as a secondary source of income verification, the data it provides is often one to two years old. Medicaid regulations require that eligibility decisions be based on current income, making this time lag problematic. Moreover, recent reductions in IRS staffing and federal funding cuts to state Medicaid programs may further exacerbate these challenges, making accurate eligibility determination even more difficult.

All I will say to this is that a government that implements policies to make people dependent on that government does the people a huge disservice.

Work requirements are the right attitude everybody should take even if they don't save us a dime or cost us more.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Another problem with medicaid is all the fraud. Blacks and their doctors make false claims all the time and split the money.

Democrat Admits that Medicaid Recipients Can't Follow Work Requirements Because they Are "Addicts"

Wow, she said this!

pjnewsletter.com

It all fairness
she was pressed by Jacob Tapper & nbc

 

[Flopper]

Assuming you're right, then that is a huge endorsement for President Trump and his team to do what they can to fix the problem.

That has been the case with democrat and republican

Assuming you're right, then that is a huge endorsement for President Trump and his team to do what they can to fix the problem.

He can't issue an executive order to solve this problem. It would require changes in federal law and many states laws and it would be vigorously opposed by the drug lobby. Also hospitals and pharmacies make a lot of money selling pills at $10 a pot rather than 10 cents.

No, Trump needs to stick with deporting criminals which lots of people on both sides of the isle approve.

 

[Foxfyre]

That has been the case with democrat and republican

He can't issue an executive order to solve this problem. It would require changes in federal law and many states laws and it would be vigorously opposed by the drug lobby. Also hospitals and pharmacies make a lot of money selling pills at $10 a pot rather than 10 cents.

No, Trump needs to stick with deporting criminals which lots of people on both sides of the isle approve.

I can't speak for President Trump but I would bet an expensive steak dinner that he would think it ludicrous that he and the great team he has put together should all focus on on problem at a time. Most especially when that one problem might not be fully solved within the time he has to solve it.

His goal is am ambitious vision and agenda that addresses many issues that have been swept under the rug for a very long time now. I think all honorable Americans should have his back and encouragement and appreciation as he take that on.

 

[konradv]

Another problem with medicaid is all the fraud. Blacks and their doctors make false claims all the time and split the money.

Democrat Admits that Medicaid Recipients Can't Follow Work Requirements Because they Are "Addicts"

Wow, she said this!

pjnewsletter.com

MAGA lies. No one said all Medicaid users are adicts.

 

[justoffal]

Another problem with medicaid is all the fraud. Blacks and their doctors make false claims all the time and split the money.

Democrat Admits that Medicaid Recipients Can't Follow Work Requirements Because they Are "Addicts"

Wow, she said this!

pjnewsletter.com

Bwahahah......it pays to be addicted eh?

that is utterly hilarious...

JO

 

[Flopper]

I can't speak for President Trump but I would bet an expensive steak dinner that he would think it ludicrous that he and the great team he has put together should all focus on on problem at a time. Most especially when that one problem might not be fully solved within the time he has to solve it.

His goal is am ambitious vision and agenda that addresses many issues that have been swept under the rug for a very long time now. I think all honorable Americans should have his back and encouragement and appreciation as he take that on.

Many honorable Americans will struggle to support Trump's proposal that slashes $880 billion from Medicaid to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this drastic cut would leave 8.6 million Americans without health insurance, disrupting the lives of countless low-income families and vulnerable individuals.

Medicaid is the safety net of American healthcare, offering critical coverage to those who cannot afford private insurance. For low-income workers, the alternative would be catastrophic health insurance plans with deductibles as high as $25,000 per year. For most working families, this is effectively the same as having no coverage at all.

For individuals who are unable to work and are ineligible for Medicare disability, the situation would be even more dire. They would be forced into a complex "Medicare spend-down" program, which requires recipients to pay the first $15,000 of their medical expenses annually before receiving coverage, another unmanageable burden.

This proposal does not just shift costs, it shifts the burden of healthcare onto those least able to bear it. Americans who work hard yet struggle to make ends meet should not be forced to choose between basic healthcare and financial ruin.

 

[Foxfyre]

Many honorable Americans will struggle to support Trump's proposal that slashes $880 billion from Medicaid to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this drastic cut would leave 8.6 million Americans without health insurance, disrupting the lives of countless low-income families and vulnerable individuals.

Medicaid is the safety net of American healthcare, offering critical coverage to those who cannot afford private insurance. For low-income workers, the alternative would be catastrophic health insurance plans with deductibles as high as $25,000 per year. For most working families, this is effectively the same as having no coverage at all.

For individuals who are unable to work and are ineligible for Medicare disability, the situation would be even more dire. They would be forced into a complex "Medicare spend-down" program, which requires recipients to pay the first $15,000 of their medical expenses annually before receiving coverage, another unmanageable burden.

This proposal does not just shift costs, it shifts the burden of healthcare onto those least able to bear it. Americans who work hard yet struggle to make ends meet should not be forced to choose between basic healthcare and financial ruin.

Okay you have stopped any reasoned debate and now are spewing assigned Democrat talking points. I didn't read beyond your first sentence which has zero basis in fact and is pure propaganda.

 

[Flopper]

Okay you have stopped any reasoned debate and now are spewing assigned Democrat talking points. I didn't read beyond your first sentence which has zero basis in fact and is pure propaganda.

No, you stopped the debate by not replying. If my first sentence was a talking point for democrats that's just fine with ne because House republicans have approved the 880 billion dollar cut in Medicaid and it will likely make possible Trump's tax cuts and and the lose of healthcare coverage for 8.6 million of the poorest people in the nation.