Senate advances major Medicare bill
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...are/index.html

What do you think about this bill? Is this what is needed?

No. It sucks. Just more unneccesary spending. Some of the additions are good, but without taking away more of the current flaws it's not smart.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

El

What do you think of the parts of this bill that open up spending accounts? Is there the potential there for privitization? I've read both sides and it seems possible. Setting maximums and spending accounts so people have a reason to shop around. Changing that attitude could be the first step to letting competition in. Maybe?

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

i'm not really clear on what's in the bill. to be sure, it isn;t beating up on pharma. big pharma was for it but not solely b/c it helps them but to undermine efforts that woudl hurt them more. are you saying flex spnding accts are being opened up? I'd say this bil, form what I know, has little chance of accomplishing major reforms. My parents were against it b/c they felt it would boot seniors out of perfectly good plans into gov't plans. I think the future taxpayers are probably going to be the ones that get teh shaft (us and our kids.) if it helps this market start to use price incentives then great, but heavy subsisides to insurance companies wil not help.

The recently passed medicare bill is grossly inadequate- here is why I think that:

1) Seniors will still have to pay hefty co-payments, and there is a small cap on the amount that medicare will cover, then the rest has to be picked up by the consumer

2) it babies the pharmaceutical industry and gives them $$$ that they don't need and don't deserve- what is really needed is sweeping reform of the pharma industry- end or drastically reduce the free vacations, meals, gifts, game tickets and unethical kickbacks that these companies dole out in the billions to physicians-on-the-take each year (while little old ladies with inadequate coverage have to decide whether to get their medicine or buy groceries this month-disgraceful).

3) it does not hold insurers accountable enough on providing quality coverage

4) the personal health care accounts are a big joke- the VAST majority of Americans do not have or make enough money to make this helpful or practical- it primarily helps the wealthy, and also attempts to get medicare and the insurance companies off the hook for providing adequate coverage

Just my 2 cents. Check out the details, and hopefully you'll see what I mean. There are FAR TOO MANY people in America who cannot afford adequate health insurance or prescription coverage- this latest measure does little more than throw a few bones to them, and throws all the meat to the pharma industry and insurance execs.

Have a great holiday everyone, and remember not to get sick unless you are filthy rich, or have an unusually generous benefits package, or a nice golden parachute... :wink:

Peace,

J

What's your definition of hefty. I think it's reasonable to expect seniors to pick up some of the bill. They pay $35/month. That's not a lot. There is not a cap. They pay the first $250. The plan pays 75% of the next $2000. Than they pay all of the next $2850. then the gov't pays 95% of the remainder over $5100. Lower income seniors receive more generous subsidies, including reduced premiums, deductibles and drug co-pays.

It does not give Pharma anything. It just prevents the gov't from negotiating prices. Individuals must search for the best price. I know you want to force Pharma to charge less, but it is our drug costs that pay for research. Everyone in the world depends on us for drug advancement. Weather it be the research or the money to do the research. If the Gov't forces pharma to charge a set price, we all lose in the long run.

That is why it opens it up to competition. If you give poor service, we can go elsewhere. That's the point of competition.

You're a little right on this point. But if you're going to spend the money anyway, you can save money this way. I why is it that everything must be for the poor? And I think VAST is not quite correct. I would say many can take advantage of this if they are smart. Unfortunaetly, most are not.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

hefty co-pays? like what? is there a mechanism to force peopel to shop around? don't out ALL the blame on pharma, that would be misguided.
Pharma industry support was bought with that package. only the taxpayer is getting screwed form what i can tell. whether you realize it or not, pharma has been cutting back on these promos. hell, thos eof us in finance and ops hardly get any free stuff anymore. i've gotten maybe two pens in three years. while it still happens, costs are watche dmuch mroe closely.
if people don't have enough money, give us a good sized tax break so we can.
i guess mainly whee we part ways is that I think it is sad that anyone even has to have prescription coverage to pay for medicines and that health insurance is so necessary. in fact, it's a vicious cycle b/c health insurance is one of the major reasons that drugs costs so much to being with. healthcare is mried in more leayers of bureaucracy than anyone shoudl have to deal with. why do you need to fill out so much paperwork to heal someone?
this is, at best, a deal with the devil that no one really likes. stop further, mroe damaging socializing and to appease those who feel it's "their right" to sock rising costs to other people and that it will somehow fix things.
Here's to another year of rising outsourcing and companies goign bankrupt under our healthcare system that was ruined by FDR.