Do you support Nationalized Healthcare?

And guess who they're going to vote for in 2004?

I think when my time comes and I get sick I'll just buy a seven cent bullet and inject it into my open mouth. It's quite likely to be the best and only affordable option.

Where are you getting these $15,000 and 55% numbers from?

The catastrophic cap is $5,100. Once you hit that (in total costs - your's and the governments..) the government picks up 95% of the drug costs from there.

I thought March was to bring the first dose of truth.

fishin, Before you reach that $5,100 penacle, you first must meet the deductibles plus the $400 in premiums from zero to $5,100. Do the math.

Don't forget, it's zero coverage between $2,250 and $3,600, so another $1,350 comes out of the senior's pocket.

You are avoiding the question asked c.i.

Where did you get the $15,000 and 55% numbers from? They don't exist anywhere.

Suzette,
As much as I hate to sound cruel to a person as well meaning and obviously caring as you I must point out the following hard facts:

America is a capitalist system. In capitalism, you don't have the right to free ANYTHING (Some Government social programs not withstanding)

It is not anyone's job to foot the bill for anyone else in this country. America gives everyone the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own and the right to earn as much money as they can.

The reason so many medical innovations happen here in America is because of that very force of capitalism.
Money=Research Dollars
Research Dollars=New cures and treatments for illnesses
Simple as that.

I don't feel that the Government has an obligation to do ANYTHING other than guard the borders, standardize currency and deliver the mail.

And before anyone starts in about how Fedral the "Right Wing Fascist Republican Fat Cat" wants to disenfranchise the poor and throw the starving welfare children to the wolves (assuming we can find any wolves) keep in mind that I have been a gardener for 15 years (ever since I got out of the Army), I have only ever had health insurance for about 10 of my 38 years (3 in the Army and 7 as a gardener for Disney) so I know what its like to not have health coverage. Keep in mind that the two times I have been injured WITHOUT health coverage, I was still seen and treated by the doctors in the Emergency Room of the hospital. One injury I paid off over time and the other the hospital ate the cost since I was out of work and unable to pay.
So much for no access to health coverage without money.

Just keep in mind that most of the best medical research facilities in the world are located in America (With MAJOR bows of recognition to the Pasteur institute in France)

Just my 2 cents (pre tax)

fishin, Actually, the breaking point of the drug benefit occurs at $7,500 - not $15,000, but that excludes the $420 premium cost to the beneficiary. The true number is probably closer to $10,000 if we add the cost of premium. This was reported in today's San Jose Mercury News.

Come on c.i.! You're grabbing at straws. How does $7,500 + $420 suddenly come up to $10,000?? Everywhere else in the world it would add up to $7,920. Not that it really matters. The $7,500 number is bogus too.

The big break point is EXACTLY $5,100. No more, no less.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0311/medicare.prescription/popup.medicare.gif

You pay your $32/month in premiums and the first $250 in perscription costs for the year. At that point Medicare pays 75% of the cost up to the $2,250 point. The range between $2,250 and $5,100 is entirely out of pocket. Once you hit the $5,100 point Medicare pays 95% of all remaining costs for the year. To get to your supposed "true number" of $10,000 the person would have to have total perscription costs of $124,700 in a single year.

If the individual's perscription costs for the year total the $2,250 marker they'd shell out $1,170. If they hit the $5,100 marker they shell out $4,020. If they managed to hit the $10,000 point they're out of pocket total is $4,265 and if they are one of the few that manages to hit the $20,000 marker they're out of pocket expenses would be $4,765. All of these numbers include the monthly premiums.

The real "break point" in all of this is the $810 marker. Any/everyone on this program that gets perscriptions in excess of the $810 point ends up paying less for the year under this plan than they would under the current Medicare program. If your drug costs are under $810/year then you lose money on it.

Hey fishin, NO reason to get so riled. According to the San Jose Mercury News, the out of pocket for the recipient will be $3,720 and the benefit $3,780 at the yearly cost of $7,500. If you have a problem with those figures, complain to the newspaper. Also, the chart this was taken from says this figure does not include the $420 premium, so at this point, the beneficiary still pays more than he/she receives in benefits. Go fly a kite, it might cool you off.

You are wrong Federal!

America is a *Democracy*.

The federal government has the right to collect taxes and spend them on whatever the Democratically elected officials agree is worthwhile. The hard fact is that the the vast majority of Americans want much more from their government than an army, currency and mail.

Most Americans think that spending federal money on education and medical care and highways, for example, is a very good thing.

You point about research is a very good example of why your philosophy is ridiculous.

Government funding (from tax dollars) has been a crucial part of most innovations in science and medicine. Research is one of the areas that is not motivated by a strict free-market. Companies are looking for sure things and quick profits. Research must be motivated by public good and discovery.

The most important research does not promise a guaranteed profit before it is done. The advances in genetics are all from government money. Most drugs are developed with help from the government, as is the cutting edge research in physics etc that will yield the technology our future will be based on.

Futhermore, what would the country would be like without a public health system? Think of what would happen if people who could not afford a cure for infectous diseases like TB had to continue their lives among us as they slowly deteriorate to a painful death.

The hard fact is that most Americans feel the government has an obligation to do a lot more than deliver the mail.

We want to live in a civilized society where people can get an education, where liberty is ensured and where everyone can better themselves. We don't want Americans dying of curable diseases. We don't want children starving. We want to advance science and technology to ensure our future.

That is what we want. And fortunately we live in a democracy.

ebrown, It's evident some people's view of what our government should provide its citizens is the "I got mine, now get yours" mentality. It's not only short-sighted, but grossly misplaced. The only way this country will remain healthy and competitive in the world markets is good health and good education. Look what happened just recently with the SARS scare. Without government intervention, it could have spread like wildfire in this country. We are having more flu this year, and that is going to end up with bad consequences for many of our citizens. I worry most about our children.

Only our economic system is capitalism, or "free enterprise," if you will. And it has gotten out of hand. A fresh set of hand-cuffs, some well-publicized investigations, and above all a solid and monitored campaign finance system should help.

Hey, you're the one fabricating numbers here. You've made 3 different posts on the topic now and used 3 entirely different sets of numbers and they're ALL wrong. No wonder your so pissy about this Medicaid bill. You can't seem to figure out what the heck it does.



No, the chart doesn't include the $420 in annual premuims. I DID however in all the calculations I posted. Maybe you should quit flying kites and pay attention what what it is that you're bitching about before you go spouting off.

Okay, so they're all wrong. If they're all wrong, one of them was taken from the newspaper, so go yellin at them. Watcha gonna do about it besides get'n all nasty? All you gotta do is make the corrections; I'm all for that, but you gotta get nasty about it. Not necessary for you to get upset about it. I'm not perfect, and I admit that I make mistakes every time somebody points it out to me. If you don't like what I write, you can always skip anything with my moniker.

Fishin' -- May your proctologist get nasty with you, scare you, overbill you and ruin your holidays. That's what I wish for you in thanks for your completely unnecessary put-down of CI which you will now try to justify. Ain't gonna work for me, bud.


The NYTimes today has a nice side-bar: "Medicare Reform: Who Wins and Loses." It's impossible to type it all in and it doesn't appear in online edition. So I'll give you the outline:

Among taxpayers, the winners will be current taxpayers and the losers future taxpayers.

Among low-income elderly, the winners will be those not on Medicaid and the losers those covered by Medicaid.

Among affluent retirees, the winners will be the elderly who can afford some financial risk and the losers will be beneficiaries with annual incomes above $80K

Among retiree health plans, the winners will be employers that offer health insurance to retirees and the losers will be retirees with health insurance from former employers.

For the AARP, the win will be it ability to claim credit for the bill's passage, and the loss will be loyalty of its middle-income retirees disappointed with gaps in coverage.

Among political groups, the winners will be Republicans and Bush, the losers will be Dems and Conservatives.

Among other groups, the winners will be the elderly with high drug costs, drug companies, insurance companies, pharmaceutical benefits managers, doctors, and rural areas, and the losers will be elderly who want to import drugs, drug stores, and home health care.

Now, try and convince me this wasn't a purely political action.

BTW, If you go back and read your own post, you'll see that you have completely misinterpreted some of the stuff I wrote. You go figure that out. If you would have kept your cool, maybe what you read from my post would have been different. Not necessary to make your own interpretation from my writings. All you need to do is ask.
Your quote, "How does $7,500 + $420 suddenly come up to $10,000." Yes, how does it? Did I say that? If I did, please show me where?

Whether anything works for you isn't something I really give a **** about one way or another Tart. Of all the people in this world, your opinion is one that means absolutely zip. nada.

Yes, you did say that.



Now your gonna claim that you didn't write that? Please!

And c.i., I haven't "lost" anything. You were asked a simple question and you were the one that got pissy here.