For those on Medicare - Perscription benefits may be changing

[gpatt0n]

Click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS

pubby

[lotstodo]

The 50% discount is part of the $80 billion crony capitalistic deal between Obama and Big Pharma. In exchange, when the $80B runs out the deal runs out, and the government won't use competitive bidding to negotiate prices for drugs in the Medicare program in perpetuity. It's a super sweet deal for the drug companies and ultimately a loser for patients and the government that will allow Big Pharma to set prices without fear of competition. It's called political expediency.

[gpatt0n]

The 50% discount is part of the $80 billion crony capitalistic deal between Obama and Big Pharma. In exchange, when the $80B runs out the deal runs out, and the government won't use competitive bidding to negotiate prices for drugs in the Medicare program in perpetuity. It's a super sweet deal for the drug companies and ultimately a loser for patients and the government that will allow Big Pharma to set prices without fear of competition. It's called political expediency.

 

Well that was better than the crony deal made in the first place when this program was first enacted and the requirement that no negotiation take place and all purchases be made at list price.

 

LTD: This kind of proves my political point, though... and that is that nationally, both parties are corporatist and there is little difference and what difference that does exist is that the Dems tend to favor a little bit better deal (not a lot better deal mind you) than the GOP. Hence, the facts are the first deal called for prices at "list price" with no additional discounts which is what was contained in the law as passed in 2004. The $80 billion in discounts as negotiated by Obama was rightly characterized by you as avoiding competitive bidding (which was never there in the original) but is 'a little bit better deal' than what preceded it.

 

So, do you suppose by voting GOP, you think the nation means to give big Pharma back that $80 billion?

 

I will say that that won't happen though ... Obama would veto it

 

pubby

[lotstodo]

Well that was better than the crony deal made in the first place when this program was first enacted and the requirement that no negotiation take place and all purchases be made at list price.

 

LTD: This kind of proves my political point, though... and that is that nationally, both parties are corporatist and there is little difference and what difference that does exist is that the Dems tend to favor a little bit better deal (not a lot better deal mind you) than the GOP. Hence, the facts are the first deal called for prices at "list price" with no additional discounts which is what was contained in the law as passed in 2004. The $80 billion in discounts as negotiated by Obama was rightly characterized by you as avoiding competitive bidding (which was never there in the original) but is 'a little bit better deal' than what preceded it.

 

So, do you suppose by voting GOP, you think the nation means to give big Pharma back that $80 billion?

 

I will say that that won't happen though ... Obama would veto it

 

pubby

It's just another way that Obama hides the true cost of Obamacare. Foist the costs off on other programs. I'm not sure how you view this as a "better deal".

 

Medicare and Social Security are completely out of control, and guaranteeing the Pharmaceutical industry that you will not attempt to negotiate prices is not a good deal for anyone except the Pharmaceutical industry.

 

Unlike Obamacare, the Republicans have a plan that will actually reduce the costs associated with the delivery of healthcare in the US.

 

The Patient's Choice Act

[NewsJunky]

Well that was better than the crony deal made in the first place when this program was first enacted and the requirement that no negotiation take place and all purchases be made at list price.

 

LTD: This kind of proves my political point, though... and that is that nationally, both parties are corporatist and there is little difference and what difference that does exist is that the Dems tend to favor a little bit better deal (not a lot better deal mind you) than the GOP. Hence, the facts are the first deal called for prices at "list price" with no additional discounts which is what was contained in the law as passed in 2004. The $80 billion in discounts as negotiated by Obama was rightly characterized by you as avoiding competitive bidding (which was never there in the original) but is 'a little bit better deal' than what preceded it.

 

So, do you suppose by voting GOP, you think the nation means to give big Pharma back that $80 billion?

 

I will say that that won't happen though ... Obama would veto it

 

pubby

I say good luck to Obama getting his unconstitutional plan funded under the new Congress. He won't need to veto it if they do what they should do.

[gpatt0n]

It's just another way that Obama hides the true cost of Obamacare. Foist the costs off on other programs. I'm not sure how you view this as a "better deal".

 

Medicare and Social Security are completely out of control, and guaranteeing the Pharmaceutical industry that you will not attempt to negotiate prices is not a good deal for anyone except the Pharmaceutical industry.

 

Unlike Obamacare, the Republicans have a plan that will actually reduce the costs associated with the delivery of healthcare in the US.

 

The Patient's Choice Act

 

 

Glad you have such confidence in those folks considering their choice to require all drug purchases under Part D to be a 'list price' - no negotiation.

 

When I looked at the short description of the attached legislation you linked, one of the things I did note is toward the end of the paragraph it said:

 

Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prescribe standards for the establishment, certification, operation, and interoperability of independent health record trusts.... Terminates the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

 

Figure what that first sentence would do is allow potentially hundreds of partial repositories of health records increasing the likelihood that health record privacy would be impossible to control. (With thousands of insurers and hundreds of providers, you can always find access to info - Health records are a very valuable item to health insurers who are notorious for gaming the system. With hundreds of potential sources of information, they're likely to find someone who will break the rules reliably. Whereas with a single repository a strong set of controls would probably be effective in keeping the information confidential assuring a level playing field for all insurers.

 

The latter piece, though, is a pure sell out. By termination of the Coordination council for comparative effectiveness research, we fail to gain the single most effective tool not only for controlling costs but improving outcomes - comparative knowledge and information. Indeed, the consolidated health record repository and the the Comparativeness council's research are critical if we are to gain a big picture perspective to improve our general health care.

 

So why would the GOP and medical industry want to ditch them? Simple, if treating a particular kind of headache with a dose of 1,200 mg of Advil is effective 90 percent of the time but a group of doctors, sponsored by a drug company, has a 'prescription' alternative that is effective 50 percent of time but costs $2,500 (including the MD's trips to Hawaii kickback) ... the GOP is all for protecting the kickbacks (Just as they signed on to the no-bid list price for drugs medicare part D program). If you don't identify such shenanigans - they aren't fraud mind you - you're destined to popularize them as there is more profit to be made on a $2,500 course of treatment than a $1.25 course of treatment.

 

Again, I state that the Dems are a corporatist party that stacks things in favor of their major campaign contributors and lobbyists. I can say with the same certainty that those in the GOP do the same for their large corporate supporters and since both parties do the same thing and most major corporations tend to prefer the Republicans over the Democrats, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand why.

 

Indeed, it might help to grasp that on at least on issue in regard to health care, the GOP has sold out to the doctors ... i.e. are in their pocket doing their best to protect doctors from their errors and incompetence through wholesale support for caps on medical malpractice. The Dems, who are admittedly in the pocket of the malpractice attorneys, hold on to the 'conservative' notion that if you harm someone through negligence, you pay for their injuries. I say it is conservative because that PRINCIPAL was established in English Common Law literally centuries before the formation of the USA.

 

Hence, the purveyor of radical change in this case are the Republicans who obviously have no problem taking the position of change to protect their 'preferred constituency' - the doctors - because the trial lawyers don't pay them enough.

 

Oh, and NewsJunky ... the Congressional Budget Office has ruled that Obama Care saves a trillion dollars - money that won't have to gained in taxes - between now and 2020. It may take less money than you think.

 

Finally, I was watching a couple of folks teaching a class on how to be a campaign manager on C-Span today. One salient point was that campaigns are not run on issues. Rather they are about establishing themes and positions and using issues and how folks stand on them to illustrate those points.

 

Of course these kinds of dynamics play out in the primary election in places like Paulding where the GOP gets 65 percent of the vote out of the box in a general election. Regardless, one of the main points though is that campaigns and elections aren't about issues.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

Glad you have such confidence in those folks considering their choice to require all drug purchases under Part D to be a 'list price' - no negotiation.

 

When I looked at the short description of the attached legislation, one of the things I did note is:

 

 

 

Figure what first one would do is allow potentially hundreds of partial repositories of health records increasing the likelihood that health record privacy would be impossible to control. (Hundreds of providers, you can always find access to info - Health records are a very valuable item to health insurers who are notorious for gaming the system - whereas with a single repository a strong set of controls would probably be effective in keeping the information confidential assuring a level playing field for all insurers.

 

The latter piece, though, is a pure sell out. By termination of the Coordination council for comparative effectiveness research, we fail to gain the single most effective tool not only for controlling costs but improving outcomes - comparative knowledge and information. Indeed, the consolidated health record repository and the the Comparativeness council's research are critical if we are to improve our general health care.

 

So why would the GOP and medical industry want to ditch them? Simple, if treating a particular kind of headache with a dose of 1,200 mg of Advil is effective 90 percent of the time but a group of doctors, sponsored by a drug company, has a 'prescription' alternative that is effective 50 percent of time but costs $2,500 (including the MD's trips to Hawaii kickback) ... the GOP is all for protecting the kickbacks (Just as they signed on to the no-bid list price for drugs medicare part D program).

 

Again, I state that the Dems are a corporatist party that stacks things in favor of the major campaign contributors and lobbyists with the same certainty that those in the GOP are corporatists.

 

Indeed, it might help to grasp that on at least on issue in regard to health care, the GOP has sold out to the doctors ... i.e. are in their pocket doing their best to protect doctors from their errors and incompetence through wholesale support for caps on medical malpractice. The Dems, who are admittedly in the pocket of the malpractice attorneys, hold on to the 'conservative' notion that if you harm someone through negligence, you pay for their injuries. I say it is conservative because that PRINCIPAL was established in English Common Law literally centuries before the formation of the USA.

 

Hence, the purveyor of radical change in this case are the Republicans who obviously have no problem taking the position of change to protect their 'preferred constituency' - the doctors - because the trial lawyers don't pay them enough.

 

Oh, and NewsJunky ... the Congressional Budget Office has ruled that Obama Care saves a trillion dollars - money that won't have to gained in taxes - between now and 2020. It may take less money than you think.

 

Finally, I was watching a couple of folks teaching a class on how to be a campaign manager on C-Span today. One salient point was that campaigns are not run on issues. Rather they are about establishing themes and positions and using issues and how folks stand on them to illustrate those points.

 

Of course these kinds of dynamics play out in the primary election in places like Paulding where the GOP gets 65 percent of the vote out of the box in a general election. Regardless, one of the main points though is that campaigns and elections aren't about issues.

 

pubby

 

The congressional budget office has already admitted that it will cost more. The figures they were provided with were not accurate. Wonder why?

 

This may help: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/19/obamacares-delusional-deficit-reduction-claims/

[gpatt0n]

The congressional budget office has already admitted that it will cost more. The figures they were provided with were not accurate. Wonder why?

 

I'd ask you for a link.

 

My research shows the last CBO pronouncement on the health care bill was March 20, 2010 and it said ... (The lead story from the Hill website on that date.)

 

New CBO numbers reflect bigger savings for health care proposal

By Vicki Needham - 03/21/10 10:50 AM ET

 

The budget deficit would be reduced by another $5 billion, according to revised numbers released by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation on the health care legislation reconciliation language.

 

I also checked the CBO website (google search CBO Health Care) and it appears that as the final cost estimate issued.

 

I did find a summary the CBO issued in December 2010 that did not appear to contradict the cost estimates regarding the health care proposal made in March 2010.

 

pubby

 

PS: Here is a link to the December 2010 CBO report. It is 375 pages and I suppose it could be in there. It does include, incidentally, the CBO estimates of the kinds of money that tort reform might realize. I didn't read that at this moment but expect to. Here's the link. My link

 

PPS: It may be some other group besides the CBO that made the 'revised' cost estimate but then that wouldn't have the same credibility I wouldn't think.

[NewsJunky]

I'd ask you for a link.

 

My research shows the last CBO pronouncement on the health care bill was March 20, 2010 and it said ... (The lead story from the Hill website on that date.)

 

 

 

I also checked the CBO website (google search CBO Health Care) and it appears that as the final cost estimate issued.

 

I did find a summary the CBO issued in December 2010 that did not appear to contradict the cost estimates regarding the health care proposal made in March 2010.

 

pubby

 

PS: Here is a link to the December 2010 CBO report. It is 375 pages and I suppose it could be in there. It does include, incidentally, the CBO estimates of the kinds of money that tort reform might realize. I didn't read that at this moment but expect to. Here's the link. My link

 

PPS: It may be some other group besides the CBO that made the 'revised' cost estimate but then that wouldn't have the same credibility I wouldn't think.

 

 

This article outlines some of the reasons they were off:

This may help: http://blog.heritage...duction-claims/

[lotstodo]

The CBO scores what they are told to score by the individual congress persons requesting the score. They are not legally able to say "wait a minute, you are getting some of your facilities, and some of your policing and other administrative functions from other sources not paid for in this bill, you are not counting all of the additional medicare costs, and your payments to doctors that you are stating have no basis in reality. You are counting money from discontinued programs that you are going to spend elsewhere in this bill as savings, and you are paying for 7 years of care with 10 years of revenues and not fully disclosing the fact that you can do that only once, putting the actual actual annual cost way above the first ten year cost divided by 10."

 

If Reid says that they are going to pay $1 per doctor's visit, 10 cents for a 30 day prescription, save $500 Billion from taking away free coffee in the cafeteria in the Congressional office building, and get their facilities for free from the Martians that will be landing next week, then that's what the CBO scores.

 

As to the Patient's Choice Act, read the specifics and you will see that it actually removes barriers to the free and instant transmittal of electronic patient data, and establishes a different and well defined research entity. It abolishes title IX to bring their operations under the auspices of this act.

 

It also provides for competitive pricing of ALL services including prescription drugs, and it establishes strong penalties for kickbacks.

 

I would kindly suggest that you actually research the Act, instead of trying to make esoteric partisan points against totally nonexistent positions of the authors of this bill.

[zoocrew]

The CBO scores what they are told to score by the individual congress persons requesting the score. They are not legally able to say "wait a minute, you are getting some of your facilities, and some of your policing and other administrative functions from other sources not paid for in this bill, you are not counting all of the additional medicare costs, and your payments to doctors that you are stating have no basis in reality. You are counting money from discontinued programs that you are going to spend elsewhere in this bill as savings, and you are paying for 7 years of care with 10 years of revenues and not fully disclosing the fact that you can do that only once, putting the actual actual annual cost way above the first ten year cost divided by 10."

 

If Reid says that they are going to pay $1 per doctor's visit, 10 cents for a 30 day prescription, save $500 Billion from taking away free coffee in the cafeteria in the Congressional office building, and get their facilities for free from the Martians that will be landing next week, then that's what the CBO scores.

 

As to the Patient's Choice Act, read the specifics and you will see that it actually removes barriers to the free and instant transmittal of electronic patient data, and establishes a different and well defined research entity. It abolishes title IX to bring their operations under the auspices of this act.

 

It also provides for competitive pricing of ALL services including prescription drugs, and it establishes strong penalties for kickbacks.

 

I would kindly suggest that you actually research the Act, instead of trying to make esoteric partisan points against totally nonexistent positions of the authors of this bill.

I would suggest the same. To you.

 

But that is not the point here.

 

The point is the new rules are taking effect January 1 and people need to make sure their aged loved ones utilize it.

[lotstodo]

I would suggest the same. To you.

 

But that is not the point here.

 

The point is the new rules are taking effect January 1 and people need to make sure their aged loved ones utilize it.

I have read the original House version of Obamacare and the Patient's Choice Act in their entirety. I have also read the salient points of the amended conference version of Obamacare as passed, although I have not reread the entire bill word for word. I don't have to rely upon NPR to shape my opinions on the subject.

 

The thread goes where the thread goes, and I was involved in a discussion with the OP. That may be your point, but it isn't mine.

[gpatt0n]

I have read the original House version of Obamacare and the Patient's Choice Act in their entirety. I have also read the salient points of the amended conference version of Obamacare as passed, although I have not reread the entire bill word for word. I don't have to rely upon NPR to shape my opinions on the subject.

 

The thread goes where the thread goes, and I was involved in a discussion with the OP. That may be your point, but it isn't mine.

 

Actually LTD: former member was correct about the purpose of the topic. Indeed, the article was an approved bit of PR from planprescriber.com, a division of online health insurance company ehealth. Ehealth is licensed to market and sell health insurance in all 50 states and the District of Columbia and insures over 2 million persons nationwide. Basically a health care marketer, ehealthinsurance.com partners with actual providers in the various state-markets. Here is their aboutmepage.

 

Hence, instead of railing against the liberal mob at NPR I think it revealing to point out you're really railing against two bastions of capitalism - The North American Press Syndicate (NAPS) - and of course the health insurance company ehealthinsurance.com. NAPS basically distributes what are known in the publishing business, as featurettes that provide good information that literally begs for space. Editors use the items to fill pages.

 

I was actually kind of surprised this bit of public service information I was seeking to distribute (involving two pretty main street private companies) would get your kick'em in the bum with your best boot response.

 

But really, it was intended to inform folks (almost like pubby)who are either on medicare or advise their parents who are on medicare to make sure they did their homework. Why? because if they don't, it could cost them a couple of hundred dollars or more.

 

pubby

[gpatt0n]

The congressional budget office has already admitted that it will cost more. The figures they were provided with were not accurate. Wonder why?

 

This may help: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/19/obamacares-delusional-deficit-reduction-claims/

 

Oh, and newsjunky, I forgot before I headed out for the house that I checked the article you referenced suggesting that the CBO had revised their figures on health care reform. I saw no reference that the Congressional Budget Office has revised their figures one cent from then.

 

Indeed, the blog on the Heritage Foundation site was published a day before the final report of the CBO and cited a Washington Post reporter it claims is no friend of the GOP ... despite the fact that several reporters and columnists on the WAPO are rabidly conservative. For instance you did know Bob Woodward is a life-long Republican!)

 

Anyway, the guy - he must be a tree hugger because he works for the Post - is the key first mentioned source claiming the CBO figures are wrong. Why a conservative would believe him is what I find baffling as it must be the first liberal eastern establishment journalist the guy ever believed in his life.

 

The second source is shown quotes as a link ... to another blogger for the Heritage foundation. (The heritage Foundation has a reputation as an echo chamber for a reason.)

 

Then LTD comes out and says we should all ignore the CBO budget estimates because they are all BS anyway. Why are they BS ... well because they are constrained by the wishes of the Congressman who asked for the research on costs.

 

Well, LTD, that is simply not true.

 

If it were true, no CBO report would be worth considering. The CBO is set up as an independent body designed to give the Congress, as best as is possible, the unvarnished truth as to the costs estimates of various programs. This flies in the face of the respect members of both sides ascribe toward the reports of the office.

 

I understand you believe the government is lying and is corrupt ... except for those on the right who are all saints and who, when they say that eliminating all taxes will generate so much wealth that donations from the poor made playing the lottery will be enough to balance the budget in a time of war. For my two cents, these folks are a rubes and charlatans, not the independent analysts in the CBO.

 

pubby

 

PS: Seeking to destroy the credibility of the institutions we depend upon for factual information is destructive to civil society. How can one have a civil discussion when the first words out of your mouth are that all who oppose your point of view are liars and corrupt.

[NewsJunky]

Oh, and newsjunky, I forgot before I headed out for the house that I checked the article you referenced suggesting that the CBO had revised their figures on health care reform. I saw no reference that the Congressional Budget Office has revised their figures one cent from then.

 

Indeed, the blog on the Heritage Foundation site was published a day before the final report of the CBO and cited a Washington Post reporter it claims is no friend of the GOP ... despite the fact that several reporters and columnists on the WAPO are rabidly conservative. For instance you did know Bob Woodward is a life-long Republican!)

 

Anyway, the guy - he must be a tree hugger because he works for the Post - is the key first mentioned source claiming the CBO figures are wrong. Why a conservative would believe him is what I find baffling as it must be the first liberal eastern establishment journalist the guy ever believed in his life.

 

The second source is shown quotes as a link ... to another blogger for the Heritage foundation. (The heritage Foundation has a reputation as an echo chamber for a reason.)

 

Then LTD comes out and says we should all ignore the CBO budget estimates because they are all BS anyway. Why are they BS ... well because they are constrained by the wishes of the Congressman who asked for the research on costs.

 

Well, LTD, that is simply not true.

 

If it were true, no CBO report would be worth considering. The CBO is set up as an independent body designed to give the Congress, as best as is possible, the unvarnished truth as to the costs estimates of various programs. This flies in the face of the respect members of both sides ascribe toward the reports of the office.

 

I understand you believe the government is lying and is corrupt ... except for those on the right who are all saints and who, when they say that eliminating all taxes will generate so much wealth that donations from the poor made playing the lottery will be enough to balance the budget in a time of war. For my two cents, these folks are a rubes and charlatans, not the independent analysts in the CBO.

 

pubby

 

PS: Seeking to destroy the credibility of the institutions we depend upon for factual information is destructive to civil society. How can one have a civil discussion when the first words out of your mouth are that all who oppose your point of view are liars and corrupt.

They have revised their estimate up by $115 Billion. They admit to being off by that much and because of the way they arrive at their estimates you really don't believe their figures are anywhere near correct do you? LTD is right by the way. Source for the first revision and the admission that they were mistaken.

http://www.cbo.gov/f...sLtr_HR3590.pdf

 

I never used the words lying and corrupt.

[gpatt0n]

Newsjunky:

 

 

I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. That is the kind of information that moves a discussion forward in a civil manner.

 

The May letter would appear to be a revision of the estimates based on projected authorizations that have yet to be appropriated. I was unaware of it and the previous links did not reference it.

 

 

I do think it important to recognize the difference between an authorization and an appropriation.

 

Given the general mood of the next congress toward spending, I would suggest that only a small portion of authorizations mentioned would actually be funded. All an authorization does is provide the presumption that the need exists. The money itself has to be contained in an appropriations bill that is passed as part of the budget.

 

Do you see the next congress fully funding this legislation? I know I don't.

 

NewsJunky, I also didn't suggest you said they were lying. My reaction was to LTD's post which read in part:

 

If Reid says that they are going to pay $1 per doctor's visit, 10 cents for a 30 day prescription, save $500 Billion from taking away free coffee in the cafeteria in the Congressional office building, and get their facilities for free from the Martians that will be landing next week, then that's what the CBO scores.

 

Asserting that deleting free coffee in the Congressional office building cafeteria would raise $500 million ... is asserting that Reid and Pelosi are perpetrating a corrupt lie. BTW, coffee in the Senate cafeteria may have been subsidized but it wasn't free when I was there.

 

I also think it would be illuminating for you to know that I'm not spending a great deal of time even trying to become an expert on the intricacies of this legislation. As stated a couple of post above, the purpose of the post was to inform those who are dealing with Part D of the medicare program to be aware they need to look around for a better deal on their insurance drug coverage.

 

This is important for you, me and everyone in Paulding because if the 10,000 folks covered by such insurance were to save $200 each, that is $2 million dollars more churning in our community. That $2 million would generate more than $10 million in economic activity over the course of the year if it isn't sent off to health care insurers. Heck, that would generate about $700,000 in sales taxes, for instance, that wouldn't be here at all if those dollars left the community.

 

But I get drawn into these topics because, well LTD wanted to prove a point that Obama is bad and democrats were corrupt because they are the bad boys who negotiated the $80 billion discounts in drugs that are responsible for that decline in the elderly's drug coverage insurance.

 

NewsJunky, if you are aware of some the "NOLABELS.ORG" efforts, you know that what is needed are folks to stand up for our elected officials doing the hard work. That means not trying to spin things bad and good about every piddling little thing.

 

In the case of health care, we needed reform badly. We got a plan modeled after the Mitt Romney plan complete with mandatory purchase of insurance (like Romney's Massachusetts plan). There is no way that the law will be repealed. It may be challenged in court. It may not get all the appropriations it needs in the coming year. However, if it saved ... what was it $700 billion over 2010-2020 ... and then you find $115 billion in additional authorizations that are never appropriated; it still saved $700 billion.

 

The challenge, IMO, is to make it work and to support those both in government and private industry that are trying to make it work. Why? because in the end it will help folks I know get better health care, preventative health care and adequate health care. I could name names but I know more than a handful of folks whose health has been compromised by our sucky system.

 

The constant bickering and finger pointing is really not productive; instead it is a trap we are in that we've got to figure a way out of if we expect to thrive and prosper.

 

pubby

 

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

Newsjunky:

 

 

I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. That is the kind of information that moves a discussion forward in a civil manner.

 

The May letter would appear to be a revision of the estimates based on projected authorizations that have yet to be appropriated. I was unaware of it and the previous links did not reference it.

 

 

I do think it important to recognize the difference between an authorization and an appropriation.

 

Given the general mood of the next congress toward spending, I would suggest that only a small portion of authorizations mentioned would actually be funded. All an authorization does is provide the presumption that the need exists. The money itself has to be contained in an appropriations bill that is passed as part of the budget.

 

Do you see the next congress fully funding this legislation? I know I don't.

 

NewsJunky, I also didn't suggest you said they were lying. My reaction was to LTD's post which read in part:

 

 

 

Asserting that deleting free coffee in the Congressional office building cafeteria would raise $500 million ... is asserting that Reid and Pelosi are perpetrating a corrupt lie. BTW, coffee in the Senate cafeteria may have been subsidized but it wasn't free when I was there.

 

I also think it would be illuminating for you to know that I'm not spending a great deal of time even trying to become an expert on the intricacies of this legislation. As stated a couple of post above, the purpose of the post was to inform those who are dealing with Part D of the medicare program to be aware they need to look around for a better deal on their insurance drug coverage.

 

This is important for you, me and everyone in Paulding because if the 10,000 folks covered by such insurance were to save $200 each, that is $2 million dollars more churning in our community. That $2 million would generate more than $10 million in economic activity over the course of the year if it isn't sent off to health care insurers. Heck, that would generate about $700,000 in sales taxes, for instance, that wouldn't be here at all if those dollars left the community.

 

But I get drawn into these topics because, well LTD wanted to prove a point that Obama is bad and democrats were corrupt because they are the bad boys who negotiated the $80 billion discounts in drugs that are responsible for that decline in the elderly's drug coverage insurance.

 

NewsJunky, if you are aware of some the "NOLABELS.ORG" efforts, you know that what is needed are folks to stand up for our elected officials doing the hard work. That means not trying to spin things bad and good about every piddling little thing.

 

In the case of health care, we needed reform badly. We got a plan modeled after the Mitt Romney plan complete with mandatory purchase of insurance (like Romney's Massachusetts plan). There is no way that the law will be repealed. It may be challenged in court. It may not get all the appropriations it needs in the coming year. However, if it saved ... what was it $700 billion over 2010-2020 ... and then you find $115 billion in additional authorizations that are never appropriated; it still saved $700 billion.

 

The challenge, IMO, is to make it work and to support those both in government and private industry that are trying to make it work. Why? because in the end it will help folks I know get better health care, preventative health care and adequate health care. I could name names but I know more than a handful of folks whose health has been compromised by our sucky system.

 

The constant bickering and finger pointing is really not productive; instead it is a trap we are in that we've got to figure a way out of if we expect to thrive and prosper.

 

pubby

 

 

pubby

 

Mitt Romney's plan is destroying the Massachusetts economy and is a proven failure. He is not even on my radar for President because of it. I do see your point about the topic and I am sorry for the hi-jack.