Sunday, November 30, 2003


the main complaint is that it's very expensive and pays for very little, BUT helps Drug companies on every step of the way. they do need government handouts, don't they?

The real problem? it pads the bill for anyone, no matter how rich they are. its not just a payment for those that cannot afford it. that's where the big cost jumps...oh well, gotta pay those drug companies back for the campaign dough i guess. the actual cost of drugs does not go down PLUS...

we get a ban on drugs from Canada by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to guarantee the drugs are safe...something i guarantee will not happen. Drug companines wouldn't like that, now would they?

Oddly enough, Trent Lott and i agree about disliking this bill for the same reasons. hmm....

In an Odd Turn of Events, the vote was held open for an amazing 3+ hours, as the count was 218 to 216, defeating the bill. the house leadership wouldn't close the vote on the bill until they could twist some arms to get the votes switched.

OK, Here's your crib notes on the new bill, courtesy of the NYTimes. the $$ we're spending roughly on Rx drugs for our elderly is roughly 1/2 of what we are spending yearly on Iraq.

Under "standard prescription drug coverage," defined in the Medicare bill, a beneficiary would be responsible for the first $250 in drug costs each year. Of the next $2,000, Medicare would cover 75 percent and the beneficiary would pay 25 percent, or $500. The beneficiary would then be responsible for all of the next $2,850 in drug costs.

The beneficiary would thus pay $3,600 for the first $5,100 worth of medicine in a year, and that does not include the premiums, estimated at $420 a year. Beyond that, Medicare would cover 95 percent of the cost of each prescription, after the patient had spent $3,600.

No comments: