Usenet.com

www.Usenet.com

Group Index

Talk Thread Archive from Usenet.com

<-- __Chronological__ --> <-- __Thread__ -->

Re: Medicare Bill



"Gretchen Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 29 Nov 2003 16:08:54 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bettina) wrote:
>
> >OK folks, what do you think of it? Is it a big fat payoff to the
> >insurance and pharmaceutical companies or a needed modernization of
> >Medicare? Why did 15,000 members of AARP drop out in anger because
> >AARP supported it? Why did the Wall Street Journal call it the best
> >bill ever? What the hell does it all mean?
> >
> >Bettina
>
> I see it as just one more screw-up and payoff by the current crop of
> politicos with the ONLY benefit being a small increase in
> reimbursement for smaller acute care facilities.  The so-called drug
> benefit is a fiasco due to the gap in coverage and the lack of cost
> controls.
>
> It appears that AARP sold their older members out to gain support from
> the 'boomers' which may be a benefit to the organization or the death
> knell.  Only time will tell us on that move.
>
> Amd. of course WSJ would support the plan..  Anything coming out of
> the Reps camp has their support.
>
> Business as usual.. The needy and elderly got screwed; pharma and
> insurance made huge gains.. and the obvious flaws/problems within
> Medicare and Medicaid continue.
>
> pixie

First why does the bill Prohibit medicare from negotiating for better drug
prices from the drug companies?  Private insurance would never stand for
that correct?

These private HMO plans that are being developed can probably eject the
sicker seniors back into tradional Medicare correct?  Would that have the
effect of boosting needed premiums from those in Regular traditional
Medicare correct?

But lastly Bush has effectively co-opted a Democrat position and has stolen
the thunder from Democrats on this issue while he is shoving a poison pill
down Medicare's throat in the hopes of killing it eventually with the moves
towards privatization....doubtful though.  The devil's in the details as
they say.

If people figure out that $3600 bucks in cost means they have to shell out
like 70% of that figure for their pills it won't be until well after the
next election cycle!  Nice move!  These seniors were counting on a benefit
like they had from employers or that others have now with a nice co-pay of
$10 or $15 buck per script.

Now Amp would love this bill.  Drugs stocks went up the days before they
were passing it!





<-- __Chronological__ --> <-- __Thread__ -->


Usenet.com



Please check out one of the premium Usenet Newsgroup Service Providers below for access to Usenet.