Reply
Thu 1 Mar, 2007 09:40 am
Obama has stated on his website, that he would never have voted for approval of Bush's Medicare D, a program that provides important medications to Seniors at reasonable and competitive prices.
So what would Obama have proposed in place of Medicare D?
Medicare D is no panacea. It works for people who are facing very heavy prescription costs. However for those who have moderate needs it can cost more than it would without it. In addition the fact that it prohibits any attempt to bargain with the industry regarding price. As I might note every other nation does.
The legislation above all protects the industries profits.
Note, I agree with the senator on this issue.
au1929 wrote:Medicare D is no panacea. It works for people who are facing very heavy prescription costs. However for those who have moderate needs it can cost more than it would without it.
I don't know what you would call 'heavy prescription costs", but a Senior gentleman I know pays less than $500/year for his medications ( 1 generic + 2 brand drugs ) through Medicare D + his Medigap insurance policy. The same medications would cost close to $1400, if he were to buy them at Walgreens.
That amounts to about $1100 savings per year for him.
Medicare D is a God-send for Seniors, thanks to President Bush ( not sit-on-his ass Senator Obama).
$1400.00 sounds like a lot, but not in the context of heavy prescription costs. I'll examine part D in a couple of years, but my understanding of what they call the "donut" is that you get good coverage up to a point, then no more till another limit is reached. It's called "donut" because of the big hole in the middle.
roger wrote:$1400.00 sounds like a lot, but not in the context of heavy prescription costs. I'll examine part D in a couple of years, but my understanding of what they call the "donut" is that you get good coverage up to a point, then no more till another limit is reached. It's called "donut" because of the big hole in the middle.
I'm sure that with time, the donut hole problem will be elimnated.
Yes, $1400 sound like a lot, but I personally think that some of the retail pharmacy chains over charge on many brand name drugs.
The cheapest way to buy drugs in the US is to buy generics, where possible and from online sources such as drugstore.com and express scripts.
Whether Part D is valuable to a someone, varies from person to person. For instance, I was not in the donut hole. Last year, I figured out, that taking my Part D premiums into consideration, I saved about $150- over the entire year. Big deal. And for that magnificent savings, I had to be obliged to order my medications a month at a time, which was a pain in the butt. In the old days, I would buy bottles of 100 of the stuff that I took on a regular basis, which afforded some nice savings. I know that I could have ordered 3 months supply by mail, but I did not want to do that.
My mother, on the other hand, was smack in the donut hole by May. Her drugs cost her a lot of money. The only advantage to her having Part D, was that she did get the discounted rate that was offered by her insurance.
I have Medigap. It offers a discount card for drugs. I use it for the prescriptions that are not on the Part D formulary. Won't make me rich, but it is a help!
The only way that Part D would make any sense if if the government were able to negotiate with the drug manufacturers. The V.A. does it, why not Medicare?
I'm sure that Medicare + Medigap Insurance do negotiate the prices down. For instance , for my friend, one brand name drug would cost about $1000 for a year's supply, if bought at Walgreens, but if bought through Express Scripts through the Medigap/Medicare D insurance plan it will cost $256/year.
This is where the savings are. There are some savings with the generics, but if you buy in bulk ( pay on your own ) from drugstore.com ( RITE AID ), the savings are fantastic.
Bulk purchase by the individual ( 6 months supply ) could back fire however, should the drug prove to be unstable where stored in the individual's home.
Miller- I can only speak for one company of which I am familiar, AARP. I have their Medigap and Part D policies. When I get my prescription, there will be a line on the receipt from the pharmacy which says, "Your insurance has saved you "X" dollars". When I first was getting my insurance advices from AARP at the end of each month, the figures did not jibe.
I went on the net and discovered that the pharmacy was figuring my savings, based on the retail price. My insurance company was figuring based on the price that was negotiated with the pharmacy.
Quote:My insurance company was figuring based on the price that was negotiated with the pharmacy.
But isn't that price also negotiated with the Government?
I don't believe so. I think that one of the problems is that the government is not permitted to negotiate drug prices. I think that those were prices negotiated by AARP and the pharmacy.
Phoenix32890 wrote:I don't believe so. I think that one of the problems is that the government is not permitted to negotiate drug prices. I think that those were prices negotiated by AARP and the pharmacy.
That's exactly why you see PhRma (the drug company lobbying group) putting commercials on TV, in a pre-emptive strike against attempts to allow the gov't to negotiate prices.
The main drawback to allowing the gov't to negotiate? It'll cost the pharma industry more money, so they will have less to make new drugs. Right.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:so they will have less to make new drugs.
Not with all the brand- name drugs, still under patent, on the market.
Miller wrote:Quote:so they will have less to make new drugs.
Not with all the brand- name drugs, still under patent, on the market.
And that's exactly why I find their arguments to be, yeah, uncompelling at best.
Cycloptichorn
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace