Move On says AARP selling out medicare

Scrat
The rest of the world does. Why not the US. Don't our elderly deserve the same consideration? I guess not, someone has to assure the pharmaceutical industries profits. The excuse is that it is needed to support research. That research benefits the entire world but for some reason must come out of the pockets of Americans.
Where there is an oportunity to lessen the impact of high prescription drug costs our government is enacting laws to make it illegal.
Ref. http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15491&highlight=

Which may be the reason most of the major leaps forward in drug therapies are made in the US.


Because I happen to believe that price controls kill innovation and killing medical innovation would be far worse for seniors (having no drugs to treat their illnesses to me seems worse than having expensive drugs to treat them).

In fact, I have to wonder whether price controls overseas aren't part of the reason our drug prices are so high; those controls reduce competition and force drug companies to get most of their profits here in the US when they would otherwise be able to spread those profits out over the global market.

In a Medicare survey, only 4.2%, 1.7 million people, said they had trouble obtaining prescription drugs. So this largest entitlement program ever was pushed through for 4.2% of Medicare beneficiaries? Doesn't sound like a move to get votes at all.

Medicare as Pork Barrel

By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, November 24, 2003; Page A21

Excerpt

Given all the excitement, you'd think that passing a Medicare drug benefit would solve one of the nation's pressing social problems.

It won't. But you wouldn't know that from politicians or the news media. They treat the elderly's problems in getting drugs as a major social crisis. You would know it if you'd read a government survey of Medicare recipients in 2002. It asked this question: "In the last six months, how much of a problem, if any, was it to get the prescription medicine you needed?" The answers were: 86.4 percent, not a problem; 9.4 percent, a small problem; 4.2 percent, a big problem.

Medicare has about 41 million beneficiaries, so even 4.2 percent represents about 1.7 million people. The survey doesn't say whether their problems reflected high drug costs, doctors' reluctance to write prescriptions or something else. But most people can somehow afford drugs. In 1999 about 30 percent of retirees had insurance from former employers. About 20 percent had government coverage (mainly from Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs). Another 25 percent bought insurance -- Medigap -- or had some other coverage. For the very poor without coverage, pharmaceutical companies provide free or heavily discounted drugs.

No one designed this system. It is a flawed and messy hodgepodge that, on balance, works. It may not work forever, and it doesn't work for everyone. Some retirees without insurance suffer staggering drug costs. But no system will ever be perfect. The test of any replacement is whether it improves upon the status quo for the whole nation, not just retirees. By that test, Congress's drug benefit fails.

It would actually make a major national problem -- paying the baby boom's retirement benefits -- worse. In its first decade, costs are estimated at about $400 billion, which isn't so much compared with projected total federal spending of $28 trillion. But if a new "blockbuster" drug appears, forget the $400 billion estimate. Spending will explode anyway as baby boomers retire and drug use rises. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office, puts the second decade's costs between $1.3 trillion and $2 trillion.

Full story

"Because I happen to believe that price controls kill innovation and killing medical innovation would be far worse for seniors (having no drugs to treat their illnesses to me seems worse than having expensive drugs to treat them). "

Scrat -- Do yourself a favor and look at the amount of advertising the drug companies do in major media and the amount of money they pour into the lobbying efforts. Then ask yourself whether you don't "happen to believe" because your opinion has been bought. You are leaning on the "innovation" canard as though you arrived at this brilliant conclusion all by yourself, whereas the "we need to set these prices to ensure innovation" argument is the the drug companies' argument, their absolute favorite. Its validity has been challenged often by medical people and economists (Uwe Reinhardt for one) who have studied the issue in detail and who say, Bullshit!

But doctors and state agencies and Princeton professors can't afford to take out glossy ads in major media to convince starry-eyed consumers that they're being had. Meanwhile the drug companies continue to pay for five page supplements in the slick weeklies, double full-page ads in the New York Times, and all because they're sure they can convince people... like you... who are paying for that advertising when you pick up a prescription. Maybe you can afford the luxury of being duped. I can't, nor can many living on fixed incomes, or who are chronically ill.

Next time you think about this, factor in the vast sums of money the people you dislike in Congress are picking up from big pharma, money which will keep them in office for yet another term. Now -- how much money are the druggies pouring into innovation???

Tart - Yes, I know... nobody who disagrees with you thinks for him- or her-self. We're all so far beneath you, so terribly stupid and brainwashed.

Scrat
Those major leaps you speak of benefit the entire world why should only US citizens pay for them. The drug manufactures should charge the same prices worldwide. They should refuse to sell, drugs to nations where price controls are in effect, under those conditions price controls will not hold. If the government had any concern about the people of the US they would insist that either prices be equalized throughout the world or price controls will be instituted to make them so.
I understand that this government would never take such action since it would hurt the pharmaceutical industries profits and ultimately their {congress persons} bottom line.

There is also much in the bills 1000 + pages yet to be revealed. One thing is absolute the first steps towards privatization of Medicare have been taken with this legislation. Choice will become a thing of the past.

I should add congress people have not had the time to read and digest the legislation yet like the sheep that they are, or is it lemmings, they will vote for it because their leadership told them to. How can anyone have anything other than disgust for our elected officials?

One more time.
The AARP endorsed this piece of crap BEFORE the drug part was revealed.

The Medicare abortion has just been passed in the senate. IMO the Democrats have been handed a golden opportunity to capture the senior vote by explaining how they will be hurt by this legislation. Remember, the seniors are a powerful voting block.

OUTRAGE!!!!
I am making plans to move out of the USA. It is turning into a cesspool of Multi-Corps.

Drugmakers protect their turf

Medicare bill represents success for pharmaceutical lobby

By Ceci Connolly
THE WASHINGTON POST

Nov. 21 — No industry in negotiations over the $400 billion Medicare prescription drug bill headed to the House floor today outpaced the pharmaceutical lobby in securing a favorable program design and defeating proposals most likely to cut into its profits, according to analysts in and out of the industry.

IF THE LEGISLATION passes as Republican leaders predict, it will generate millions of new customers who currently lack drug coverage. At the same time, drug-manufacturing lobbyists overcame efforts to legalize the importation of lower-cost medicines from Canada and Europe and instead inserted language that explicitly prohibits the federal government from negotiating prices on behalf of Medicare recipients.
“It couldn’t be clearer there is going to be a positive effect overall,” said Dan Mendelson, president of Health Strategies Consultancy, which bills itself as a think tank and consulting firm. “The volume will definitely go up. There will be a lot of people who didn’t have coverage before who will have it now and a lot of people getting an upgrade in terms of coverage.”
Democrats and consumer advocates complain that the Republican-crafted compromise does little to contain soaring drug costs. They say that by handing the Medicare drug program’s administration to private insurers, Congress missed a chance to exert pressure on pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices.
But Republicans and some industry analysts say that adopting a drug-purchasing mechanism similar to those in corporate health plans is the best way to extract discounts from drugmakers.
If Medicare negotiated on behalf of its 40 million beneficiaries, “I wouldn’t be negotiating; I’d just be fixing the price,” said Thomas Scully, the program’s administrator. “Let’s get seniors organized into big purchasing pools that get bulk discounts and see how they fare.”

STOCK PRICES RISE
Since the 2000 election cycle, the industry has contributed $60 million in political donations and spent $37.7 million in lobbying in the first six months of this year.

Representatives of the industry’s main lobbying arm, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), declined yesterday to discuss the legislation. But the clearest indication that the bill offers a brighter future for the industry came from Wall Street, where pharmaceutical stock prices have steadily risen over the past week as the legislation’s prospects for passage improved. Analysts at Goldman Sachs & Co. project the new Medicare benefit could increase industry revenue by 9 percent, or about $13 billion a year.
After objecting for years to proposals to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare, the pharmaceutical lobby recently shifted positions and poured enormous resources into shaping the legislation. Since the 2000 election cycle, the industry has contributed $60 million in political donations and spent $37.7 million in lobbying in the first six months of this year.
The lobbying continued in earnest this week with a television and print advertising campaign urging passage of the bill. In one series of witty commercials sponsored by the industry-backed Alliance to Improve Medicare, elderly citizens look into the camera and demand: “When ya gonna get it done?”
One Republican with ties to the industry said drugmakers eluded the three things they feared most: legalized importation of lower-cost medicines, many of them patented or made in the United States; government price controls; and easier market access for generic drugs that cost considerably less than brand-name drugs. “In their view, by improving access for all seniors, we will ameliorate any pressure on the industry toward price controls or reimportation,” the source said.

NEW CUSTOMERS?
About 24 percent of Medicare beneficiaries — nearly 10 million senior citizens — do not have any prescription benefits. Some of them buy medicine at the highest retail prices. Academic studies and anecdotal evidence suggest, however, that many go without prescription medicines and would become new customers for drugmakers if the bill becomes law. The remaining 30 million Medicare recipients buy some supplemental drug coverage, according to the most recent government figures.
Under the bill, beginning in 2006, all Medicare beneficiaries would have the option of buying a drug plan for about $35 a month, plus a $275 annual deductible.

Even those with some drug coverage are expected to spend more with the new benefit, said Fredric E. Russell, whose investment management company owns several drug stocks. Whenever a new health benefit is offered, he said, patients and doctors jump at the chance to take advantage of it.
Under the bill, beginning in 2006, all Medicare beneficiaries would have the option of buying a drug plan for about $35 a month, plus a $275 annual deductible. Insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) would administer the programs for the government.
The great unknown is what sort of prices those insurers will ultimately negotiate on behalf of their Medicare clients, said Kristine Bryan, senior health care analyst at Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. “Generally, when you have a large purchaser, you have the ability to demand better pricing,” she said.
Republican congressional staffers also point out that because the bill waives a requirement that state Medicaid programs receive the “best price” available, the new private insurers could save Medicare $18 billion. It would, however, likely increase states’ drug costs.

IMPORT PROVISION REJECTED
Many Democrats say private purchasers have not been as successful at bargaining as have government programs such as the Veterans Administration and Medicaid, which secure some of the steepest drug discounts available.
“We’ve been going through PBMs for 10 years and nothing’s happened except the price of drugs has gone up,” said Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, a physician.
Perhaps the most striking political victory for the pharmaceutical industry was the decision to reject provisions that would have allowed Americans to legally import drugs from Canada and Europe, where medications retail for as much as 75 percent less than in the United States. Polls show that an overwhelming majority supports the change, and the House approved the provision, 243 to 186. But the Bush administration and pharmaceutical lobby said the move was dangerous and would cut into future research and development.
The provision was dropped from the bill’s final version.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

AU - I can't believe that on one hand you are complaining that we don't have government price controls on meds in this country, and on the other you are arguing that drug companies should refuse to sell in countries that have them. WTF?

Clearly there are valid reasons for the companies to play in the various markets. My point is that I believe that our prices would be lower AND there would be more competition without price controls ANYWHERE.

PISTOFF - Please hurry up and leave. Let us know where you land and I'll send you a fruit basket.

Thanks.
I can use the basket. :wink:

Re: Thanks.

Hey, who can't use a basket, right?

You know, when I think about it... (I do that on rare occasions) if you actually mean to leave the US because you don't feel the country is headed where you think it should be, I suppose there's a certain integrity at play that should be given a modicum of respect, even if I disagree with your reasons.

My reasons.
I have many reasons. Honestly, most of those are family survival ones. I feel that only wealthy people will be able to maintain a reasonable life style within the next few years. An income above $60K. The Middle Class and below is being dumped. They are expendable. The Multi-Corps are leaning toward no longer seeing their Corps as being American but global.

The Govt. and Congress are servants of the upper class and cater to them. The USA is an Oligarchy or as some view it a Plutocracy, same system? Perhaps this will change in a few years but I see it as tightening up and a Police State is also looming due to the pretext of "The Terrorists". I now view the USA as a Corporate Emipire willing to decimate the entire planet's less than rich people in order to expand the wealth of a few. This is not a country that I can live in and feel good about supporting.

I could be wrong. I could be correct. I will keep researching the matter.

pistoff, where ya goin?

I ask because I know a few others who would like to move.... just wondering...

Am looking into BC
At present I live in the San Fran Bay area. I am researching the Canadian British Columbia area. I may fly to WA., rent a car and spend a few days there researching at the location for many factors. I have moved to various locations in the past few years and have sold and purchased our houses sans realtor before.

I'm in Seattle, and have been a frequent and happy visitor to Vancouver BC many times. I don't drive, so I've stayed only in the city -- Vancouver has excellent public transportation and a very livable downtown area -- but I don't know if I want to live in Canada... On the other hand, my daughter would move up in a heartbeat (she's 14 and not likely to go on her own just yet).

Sounds good.
I have visited Bellingham, Wash. It was quite nice.

I am sure Vancouver is a great place to live. I have heard from a few people about the area.

Scrat
You miss my point. It was either they force the other nations to drop price controls or we impose them. That is the only way to level the playing field. As it stands now US citizens end up paying for most if not all of the research and development of new drugs. Drugs that benefit the entire world. It seems that we always pay.