MEDICARE / MEDICAID. What's The Difference?

We must recall the Medicare legislation to save ourselves

Lobbyists won when lawmakers turned down real health solutions

By Dr. Kate Scannell, Special to The Chronicle

Sunday, December 7, 2003

While we still possess momentum from the swift recall movement that ousted our governor, let's
tighten our grip on the still-warm sword and fight for recall of the recent Medicare legislation.

Let's accomplish this swiftly, as we know we can, before the insurance and pharmaceutical industries
invest even more of their thirsty roots into the new $400 billion legislation and gain further
control over American health care. Let's do this now to warn our politicians before the next
election cycle that they cannot act so cowardly when legislating our health care, as powerful as
party allegiances and private businesses may be in shaping their own political careers. Like a
doctor who declines to fight a health insurance company to obtain necessary treatment for her
patient, our politicians have to realize that placing the interests of pharmaceutical and insurance
companies above the health care needs of its citizens is wrong, unethical and dehumanizing.

We should also rename the new legislation more appropriately, as the spin on it has dizzied us into
thinking that it is concerned largely with drug benefits for the elderly. But many tentacles radiate
outward from the body of the new law, only one of which is a gnarled appendage offering weak
pharmaceutical support to the elderly. Several others reach muscularly into current and future
taxpayers' pockets while others simultaneously shake hands with the drug and insurance companies. A
few tentacles are busy shooing away more affordable drug importations from Canada. And in the end,
all of them are up in the air -- between a hostage-like and agreeable hands-off gesture -- promising
not to tamper with the drug companies' ever-escalating drug prices.

Taken apart, this bill, so heavily supported by the drug and insurance industries, dictates that
the financially strapped Medicare program -- unlike private insurers, large health care agencies or
drug retailers -- will not be allowed to negotiate lower drug prices with the profitable
pharmaceutical industry.

The bill gives money to private insurance agencies to enroll elderly patients. It also allows
Americans more affordable drug imports from Canada, but only if a governmental agency agrees to
oversee the process. The problem here is that the agency refuses to do so.

It proposes a $400 billion cost to taxpayers over the next 10 years that will only sometimes
alleviate some drug costs for some elderly patients some of the time.

The implications of the first item are obvious. We already know that drug companies jack up prices
whenever they can and that they already discriminate against the 43 million uninsured Americans and
the elderly on Medicare who pay higher prescription costs than, say, people enrolled in an HMO plan.
That's because, unlike HMO enrollees, these disenfranchised people are not represented by powerful
negotiators demanding equal prices through bargaining with the drug companies. With our new bill,
this terrible situation worsens. Unlike private businesses, the federal government has explicitly
agreed not to represent Medicare patients at the bargaining table.

You think that the $400 billion that we will pay largely to insurance and drug companies over the
next 10 years is awesome? It's a pittance compared with the added trillion-plus cost that is
predicted before 2023 -- three years shy of the year in which the Medicare hospital benefit is
expected to run out of money -- as the elderly population expands with its increasing drug usage and
longevity.

What were our politicians thinking -- if they were? And what does it mean when our federal
government agrees not to represent the interests of its citizens in matters that shape the entire
crumbling system of health care in this country when it breaks with its tradition of regulating all
other prices for Medicare services (like hospital and doctor fees)?

Also, passing legislation that allows the United States to import drugs at substantial savings from
Canada only if those drugs are evaluated by a governmental office that will not perform this
function is disingenuous at best, and slick politics at worst.

Finally, paying private insurance companies to enroll elderly patients smacks of corporate welfare.
Besides, we have already witnessed the dismal failure of for-profit health care systems when it
comes to taking care of the elderly. And someone is going to have to explain how this new costly
venture will differ from the existing Medicare program in which health plans and doctors are paid
with federal monies to care for the elderly.

Already, we Americans spend twice as much on health care as the average cost in other developed
countries. Without price controls on the pharmaceutical industry, we also pay among the highest drug
prices in the entire world. As of 1999, administrative costs fully claimed 31 percent of our
nation's health care expenditures. And for each $100 that we spend on pharmaceuticals, we donate $17
as pure profit for the drug companies and we pay $31 to subsidize their drug advertising and
administrative costs.

Technically, we can't refer to our politicians' further giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry in
the new bill as traditional "corporate welfare," because drug companies remain the most profitable
industry in the country. For example, in 2002 they collectively reaped $35.9 billion in profits
while all Fortune 500 companies suffered a combined loss of 66 percent in profits. But however they
are named, these government entitlements to the drug industry tax us all, and they strain the
capacity of our health care system. Such entitlements may not surprise when you consider that the
drug industry employs more governmental lobbyists than there are congressmen. That it will spend $73
million over the next year to lobby Congress and the FDA, an additional $48.7 million to influence
state-level politics, and $17.5 million more to manipulate health care systems in foreign countries.

What is particularly ominous about the new Medicare bill is the fact that our federal government
shied away from protecting us against drug company tyranny both at the Canadian border and at the
negotiating table. It shrunk from its responsibility to uphold its citizens' best interests in
promoting health care in the spirit of compassionate justice. And need we say anything more than,
"Et tu, AARP?"

We need to repeal the new bill. To get rid of middlemen insurance companies with their devastating
administrative costs, and to mandate cost controls on the out-of-control drug industry. We need to
remind our politicians about basic principles of government like genuine representation and advocacy
on behalf of the people they represent. We need our politicians to say no to the drug companies, to
separate the interests of the state from interests of powerful corporations, and to separate health
care from bipartisan politics. We would all do well to remember what Wendell Berry declared: "Rats
and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human
beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."

Kate Scannell is an East Bay physician and author of "Death of the Good Doctor." URL:
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/07/LVGO73FIRD1.DTL

"In the end, through the long ages of our quest for light, it will be found that truth is still
mightier than the sword":

Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Educate yourself and go to these links:

buzzflash.combuzzflash.comOpen ↗ & moveon.orgmoveon.orgOpen ↗ & veteransforpeace.orgveteransforpeace.orgOpen ↗ &
salon.comsalon.comOpen ↗ & huppi.comLiberalFAQ.htmOpen ↗ &
house.govcaughtonfilm.htmOpen ↗ & tvnewslies.orgtvnewslies.orgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

MEDICARE is a Federal program that was conceived by John F. Kennedy, but put into effect by Lyndon
Johnson. It is normally available only to seniors, over the age of 64, it pays for health care but
does NOT pay for drugs.

MEDICAID, on the other hand, is not necessarily for seniors, it is mainly designed for poor people,
the handicapped, women with children,
e.t.c. Medicaid is financed by both the State and the Federal government, it pays for health care
too, but Medicaid is better than Medicare, because Medicaid DOES pay for drugs.

Medicare, one generally has to work to earn it's benefits, medicaid on the other hand, does not
require one to have ever worked or paid into the program nor ever do so. Give people a reason to do
less or nothing and get rewarded for it and the line will be never ending.

Quoted message said:

Candidates for Medicaid must be dirt poor, to qualify they should have less than $1,000 in total
assets, but the stringent rules varies from State to State.

How many people who are just a hair above the qualifiers will change their situation to qualify,
there by adding more burden on the already failing system? Give people the opportunity to do less or
more poorly and be rewarded for it and too many people will. I do not blame these people, but the
system itself. Government security programs only provide the illusion of security, I believe
retirees deserve much better than this. I know I couldn't live on $1,200.00 a month, never mind that
a lot of people get less than this.

Quoted message said:

Senior citizens often qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. When Medicare was first created, drug
prices where not a major concern, but they are now. It is common for senior citizens to pay
thousands of dollars per year just for medicine. Every winter, there are seniors on Medicare who
are forced to choose between eating, heating their homes or paying for their medicines.

American citizens pay about twice as much on health care then do citizens who reside in the rest of
the developed world. Our health care costs are so high because we pay the highest drug prices in
the entire world, the highest, by far. Americans pay up to 6 times more money for the same exact
drugs that are sold to the rest of the world.

Due to government regulation. Many, many times drugs are available in other countries years before
and at a fraction of the cost than in America. Does government regulation really make a safer/more
effective drug? Or would a private company doing it's own research, depending on it's product being
superior to it's competitors in order to keep it's continued profits? The FDA takes 8-10 years of
research (after the drug company has done it's own) and about 300 million + dollars from the drug
company to approve it's product. In the meantime, how people have suffered and/or died while waiting
for the FDA? Competition is what betters a product or service, government regulation only serves to
hinder that process while increasing costs. When medicare was started in 1965, it's beginning costs
was about 1 billion dollars and it's projected cost for 1990 was 3 billion (12 billion when adjusted
for inflation), but the actual cost was 98 billion. 1993 was about 76 billion. I really wouldn't
expect anybody to forecast that far in advance and be very accurate, that wasn't their downfall.
Their downfall was attempting to do so in the first place. Private companies usually forecast
quarters and a year, maybe two at a stretch, but never 35 years.

Quoted message said:

All Fortune 500 companies suffered a combined loss of 66% in the year 2002, but not the drug
companies. The drug industry and the insurance industries remain the 2 most profitable industries
in the nation.

The comparison here is a little shaky, in my opinion. Drug companies and insurance companies provide
a consumable product and/or service used on a frequent basis. Many people take drugs daily, and use
their insurance quite frequently, to be without it would be very costly. On the other hand,
companies like GM produce a product designed to last several years. Most people don't buy a car
every month or every year. Highly consumed products with relatively low competition will of course
be profitable, no matter the economy.

Quoted message said:

The new Medicare bill that Republicans pushed thru Congress prevents the government from reducing
the price of drugs any more, so it is bound to lead to even higher drug prices in the future.

Government regulation sent the prices sky high to begin with and will continue to do so. The best
thing the government can do to lower the cost of the medical industry is to get out of it
completely. That includes medicare and medicaid.

Quoted message said:

It's not a drug coverage plan, it is a several hundred billion dollar giveaway to the
pharmaceutical industry, and the health insurance industry.

This is done because the government regulates the pharmaceutical industry to near paralysis, then
having to "save" them, they subsidize money. Had they stayed out of it in the beginning, everyone
would be better off.

Quoted message said:

The Republican sponsored bill also sends billions of dollars to HMO's, who will take in only the
healthy seniors, leaving the unhealthy seniors in an underfunded and eviscerated Medicare system.
As the Medicare system begins to unravel, starting in 2010, the Republicans will then argue that
the private system works better, and then they'll argue that Medicare itself should be abolished
all together.

I am not republican, first off, but I do agree that medicare for future generations should be
abolished. It does nothing but raise costs and provide more substandard care for everyone, including
those not on it.

Quoted message said:

Eventually, the Republicans will develop a scheme to destroy Social Security as well.

Social security isn't exactly secure to begin with. When SS was started, the ratio of people paying
in was about 40 people per 1 recipient. Today the ratio is approaching one tenth of the people
paying in, and with the baby boom generation (3-4 times larger than any other generation) nearing
(if not already) retirement, more people wanting benefits and less people paying in is a disaster.
The first answer to fix this problem is to raise the tax and/or cut costs ie. less benefits or to
extend the retirement age, which has been done already. 98% of the American population is either
dead or broke at age 65. According to the Social Security Administration, living retirees aged 65 or
above, 23% are still working, 30% are dependant on charity, 45% are dependent on relatives and 2%
are financially independent enough on their own (one of those two are around the poverty line and
the other has an income of $30,000 or more a year). Social Security has revealed itself to not be
providing the necessary benefits for our retirees and so far the problem has only become worse.
Forced saving at an unbelievable low return has not provided the solution nor will it ever. Many
employers have IRAs and/or annuities and pensions for this reason. These generally provide better
than any government sponsored program.

Quoted message said:

Abel Malcolm retiredamericans.orgretiredamericans.orgOpen ↗

For more information, go to this link: sfgate.comcgiOpen ↗
bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/07/LVGO73FIRD1.DTL

"In the end, through the long ages of our quest for light, it will be found that truth is still
mightier than the sword":

Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Educate yourself and go to these links:

buzzflash.combuzzflash.comOpen ↗ & moveon.orgmoveon.orgOpen ↗ & veteransforpeace.orgveteransforpeace.orgOpen ↗ &
salon.comsalon.comOpen ↗ & huppi.comLiberalFAQ.htmOpen ↗ &
house.govcaughtonfilm.htmOpen ↗ & tvnewslies.orgtvnewslies.orgOpen ↗

Your Name <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Medicare, one generally has to work to earn it's benefits, medicaid on the other hand, does not
require one to have ever worked or paid into the program nor ever do so. Give people a reason to
do less or nothing and get rewarded for it and the line will be never ending.

This is not true. People on Medicaid pay taxes too, so that means they've paid their dues. We are
the richest nation on earth, there's no reason why we should discard our sick citizens into the
trash bins, sick citizens who have in all likelihood served their country, such as Veterans who come
back home crippled and with medical problems or Factory workers who are the unfortunate victims of
industrial accidents, and so on.

Quoted message said:

How many people who are just a hair above the qualifiers will change their situation to qualify,
there by adding more burden on the already failing system? Give people the opportunity to do less
or more poorly and be rewarded for it and too many people will. I do not blame these people, but
the system itself. Government security programs only provide

A lot of people who are "just a hair above the qualifier" do indeed change their situation to
qualify, that's the only way they'll get life saving treatment. You say you blame the system, not
the victim, yet you want to just throw away the whole baby with the bathwater, you want to eliminate
the system altogether.

Quoted message said:

the illusion of security, I believe retirees deserve much better than this. I know I couldn't live
on $1,200.00 a month, never mind that a lot of people get less than this.

I assume you are talking of Social Security with your reference to "illusion of security". In the
1930's, about one-fourth of our senior citizens were roaming around the streets, eating out of
garbage cans, or eeking out a miserable existence living unwanted in their children's homes. Senior
citizens used to be the poorest segment of our society, Social Security changed all that, now they
have their dignity. Social Security is NOT an illusion, it is the most successful program there is.
And the program was not meant for people to get rich out of, it was only meant as a last resort
safety net for those who have reached the end of their lives and those who have run out of luck.

Quoted message said:

Due to government regulation. Many, many times drugs are available in other countries years before
and at a fraction of the cost than in America. Does government regulation really make a safer/more
effective

Republicans have turned the whole concept of 'serving the public' upside down on its head.
Government regulations should serve the voting public, but because of the Republicans (and the large
financial contributions they get from the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industry), drugs are
difficult to obtain and prices are astronomically high. There is a difference between regulating for
the public good, and regulating to screw the public. That's a difference between Heaven and Hell.
You can not say that all regulations are bad. All regulations that come from Republicans, on the
other hand, ARE bad.

Quoted message said:

drug? Or would a private company doing it's own research, depending on it's product being superior
to it's competitors in order to keep it's continued profits? The FDA takes 8-10 years of research
(after the drug company has done it's own) and about 300 million + dollars from the drug company
to approve it's product. In the meantime, how people have suffered and/or died while waiting for
the FDA? Competition is what betters a product or service, government regulation only serves to

There's nothing wrong with our government funding medical research which give us life saving
medicine. There's nothing wrong with our tax dollars going to education spending of any kind, but
what's seriously wrong is the way Republicans have structured our funding for medical research when
it comes to the Pharmaceutical industry. We, the American tax payers, fund the research that leads
to the discovery of most of these drugs, and then the Pharmaceutical industry thanks us by gouging
us, by charging us up to 7 times more than what they charge people in other parts of the world. They
(Repugs) take us, the American people, for chumps.

Quoted message said:

hinder that process while increasing costs. When medicare was started in 1965, it's beginning
costs was about 1 billion dollars and it's projected cost for 1990 was 3 billion (12 billion when
adjusted for inflation), but the

The reason why Medicare costs are skyrocketing is because the cost of drugs are skyrocketing. When
Medicare was first created, nobody forsaw the rising cost of drugs. The new Medicare bill does
NOTHING to bring down the cost of drugs. We already pay over 1.6 trillion dollars a year on health
care, but we don't get it. I quote Dennis Kucinich who said that we need universal health, a non-
profit system designed specifically for the some 50 million Americans who presently have no health
insurance.

Quoted message said:

This is done because the government regulates the pharmaceutical industry to near paralysis, then
having to "save" them, they subsidize money. Had they stayed out of it in the beginning, everyone
would be better off.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with our government subsidizing medical research. But there's
something seriously wrong with government regulations that deliberately pump up the price of drugs,
drugs which we the tax payers subsidized the research of. If the price of drugs should be raised on
anyone, it should be for non-Americans only, but the Republicans have structured it to be the exact
opposite, Americans pay the highest prices while the rest of the world pays only a fraction, for the
same exact drugs that are made here.

Quoted message said:

I am not republican, first off, but I do agree that medicare for future generations should be
abolished. It does nothing but raise costs and provide more substandard care for everyone,
including those not on it.

I hope you are not a Republican, in all likelihood ideologically driven by a false religious
concept. Because if you are, I'm wasting my time trying to educate you. I repeat myself, you are
advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Medicare, because of its "single payer" system,
is already the most cost efficient medical service in the country, for the health care that it
offers. Medicare works, all it needed was prescription drug coverage, and the Repugs screwed that up
by engineering a bill instead that would eventually dismantle Medicare, a bill that amounts to
hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate giveaways to the greedy Pharmaceutical and Insurance
Industries. A give-away that was engineered at the expense of the American tax payer and to the
detriment of the unfortunate senior citizens who will suffer the effects of Medicare's dismantling.

Abel Malcolm 911forthetruth.com911forthetruth.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"In the end, through the long ages of our quest for light, it will be found that truth is still
mightier than the sword":

Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Educate yourself and go to these links:

buzzflash.combuzzflash.comOpen ↗ & moveon.orgmoveon.orgOpen ↗ & veteransforpeace.orgveteransforpeace.orgOpen ↗ &
salon.comsalon.comOpen ↗ & huppi.comLiberalFAQ.htmOpen ↗ &
house.govcaughtonfilm.htmOpen ↗ & tvnewslies.orgtvnewslies.orgOpen ↗

Abel Malcolm said:

Your Name <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<0UGLb.55152$jp6.299=

[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

=20

Quoted message said:

Medicare, one generally has to work to earn it's benefits, medicaid on =

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the other hand, does not require one to have ever worked or paid into =

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the program nor ever do so. Give people a reason to do less or nothing =

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and get rewarded for it and the line will be never ending.

=20

This is not true. People on Medicaid pay taxes too, so that means they've paid their dues. We are
the richest nation on earth, there's no reason why we should discard our sick citizens into the
trash bins, sick citizens who have in all likelihood served their country, such as Veterans who
come back home crippled and with medical problems or Factory workers who are the unfortunate
victims of industrial accidents, and so on.

Not everyone on Medicaid pays taxes nor are they required to. Many have=20 and many will do so. The
American people are the richest on the planet,=20 the American Government, on the other hand, isn't.
How many trillions is =

the nation in debt? An ordinary citizen couldn't get any where near that =

without being arrested, but then who can arrest the U.S. Government?=20 It's people. I do not
advocate discarding anyone, rich or poor, sick or=20 healthy. My point is that people provide better
solutions privately than =

any government has, does, or ever will. Stealing from the more=20 financially abundant to give to
the lesser does not have the same=20 effectiveness as people giving on their own free will where to
to whom=20 they choose. A culmanation of a small number of private citizens can and =

has shown to provide better treatment and results than any government=20 agency or program.
Government is not designed to be efficient, because=20 it isn't really held accountable for it's
actions, unlike a private=20 organization or business. If government doesn't work, the
politician can =

still go home without being held accountable, so more damage can be=20 administered. A private
company which produced half the bad results as=20 the U.S. Government would be completely out of
business, sued into the=20 billions, shut down by (hypocritically) government, and many citizens=20
could be arrested. No government agency or program falls victim to this. =

The individual politicians are NOT held accountable, except when=20 re-election nears, instead, the
program is deemed to need more funding.=20 Funding a failing endeavor in private industry is
business suicide, yet=20 government does it and it is considered to be necessary. I'm sure you=20
have heard the stories of the little rich kid brat who gets into trouble =

so someone gives them more money to compensate, yet the trend continues. =

It is easy to figure out that doing something different might be a good=20 idea, except when it
comes to government. People seem to believe that=20 throwing more money into a brat agency or
program will make up for the=20 problems. That doesn't make sense.

Quoted message said:

=20

Quoted message said:

How many people who are just a hair above the qualifiers will change=20 their situation to
qualify, there by adding more burden on the already =

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

failing system? Give people the opportunity to do less or more poorly =

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and be rewarded for it and too many people will. I do not blame these=20 people, but the system
itself. Government security programs only provid=

e=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

=20

A lot of people who are "just a hair above the qualifier" do indeed change their situation to
qualify, that's the only way they'll get life saving treatment. =20

Do you know how many people have or have had the oppurtunity to change=20 the situation for the
better WITHOUT relying on welfare and handouts?=20 How many people actually do? A self inflicted
vistim is not a true=20 victim. To further rely on a system that has produced pathetic results=20
and worsened the American economic system is foolish. People need to=20 wake up and realize that the
government really isn't going to take care=20 of them. It is each of our own responsibility to take
care of ourselves.

Quoted message said:

You say you blame the system, not the victim, yet you want to just throw away the whole baby with
the bathwater, you want to eliminate the system altogether.

If it's Rosemary's baby, then yes, get rid of it.=20

Yes, the system has and is failing, it gets continually worse as each day= progresses. I had a car
that I really liked. Sometimes it would breakdow=
n. Eventually it broke down a lot. I could have chosen to continue to fix= the car every couple of
months, spending a multitude more than the car w= as actually worth, or just buy a new car. Which
would be the better idea?= Would continuing the process of continued failure be more beneficial
tha= n starting a different process? At what point does one take into account = the amount of
failure as compared to a new approach? Continuing to do the= same exact same thing expecting
different results is foolish and insane.= Yet you are arguing to do that? I say let the people
have their money that they earned. Properly educate= d people can do much better for themselves
financially than SS and Medica= re ever has. Unfortunately, young people aren't taught that with
an inves= tment of $25.00 a week, starting at age 18, at age sixty five they can be= a multi-
millionaire. Simple economics. Instead, they are taught to rely = on government theft of funds,
live in poverty when they retire, enjoy the= golden years with their can of 9 Lives. How many SS
recipients are even = close to the millionaire scenario because of SS? NONE. I would be much ha=
ppier being a retired millionaire than I would be living on SS check of w= hat...1,200.00 dollars
a month and poor medical coverage of Medicare. As = for the current recipeints of SS and
Medicare, I am ashamed that they hav= e been bamboozled into such a scheme by something they were
taught to tr= ust. My wish is that future generations have the oppurtunity to do better= for
themsleves, BY themselves. Free from government theft and mismanagem= ent of funds.

Quoted message said:

=20

Quoted message said:

the illusion of security, I believe retirees deserve much better than=20 this. I know I couldn't
live on $1,200.00 a month, never mind that a lo=

t=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of people get less than this.
=20

I assume you are talking of Social Security with your reference to "illusion of security". In the
1930's, about one-fourth of our senior citizens were roaming around the streets, eating out of
garbage cans, or eeking out a miserable existence living unwanted in their children's homes. Senior
citizens used to be the poorest segment of our society, Social Security changed all that, now they
have their dignity. Social Security is NOT an illusion, it is the most successful program there is.
And the program was not meant for people to get rich out of, it was only meant as a last resort
safety net for those who have reached the end of their lives and those who have run out of luck.

Dignity?? Where's the dignity in eating cat food ( I met several)=20 because you can't afford
anything else? Where is the dignity in choosing =

between medication, heating oil, food, or property taxes/rent? Ok, SS was good in the 1930's due to
the economic trouble of the time. Unwanted seniors? I realize that some people have held this view,
but I=20 doubt everyone did. I'd rather my elder family members be cared for at=20 home if possible
than shipped to a home (nursing or convalescent). Too=20 many to go and just end up worse. Go there
to die, how pleasant.=20 Fortunately, my family has more love and compassion than that, they have =

shown that time and time again (I do realize that there are times when=20 it gets to a
certain point, it is unavoidable). If SS is the most successful program there is, then we are
all in trouble=
=2E

Quoted message said:

=20

Quoted message said:

Due to government regulation. Many, many times drugs are available in=20 other countries years
before and at a fraction of the cost than in=20 America. Does government regulation really make a
safer/more effective =

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

=20

Republicans have turned the whole concept of 'serving the public' upside down on its head.
Government regulations should serve the voting public, but because of the Republicans (and the
large financial contributions they get from the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industry), drugs
are difficult to obtain and prices are astronomically high. There is a difference between
regulating for the public good, and regulating to screw the public. That's a difference between
Heaven and Hell.=20

I agree, government regulations should serve the public, the ones that ar=
e outlined in the Constitution would do wonderfully. Government regulatio=
n is the problem in the first place, it seems the government isn't regula=
ted. The nation was not built on government coercion and welfare, but on =
the absence of it. If you really think there is much difference between t=
he Rep. and the Dem. anymore, something is wrong. Politics has become a g=
ame. Name one politician in Washington DC that has lived up to all or eve=
n most of their campaign promises for the past 30 plus years. ANYTIME the=
U.S. government has interfered in privatelives and private industry, thi=
ngs have gotten worse. Everything from incompetence to political pay offs=
have dismembered everything it touches. It goes beyond party affiliation=
, it is the currently illegal and unconstitutional government in itself. =

Do you know ALL the regulations that the Rep. implemented? How about ALL = the Dems? Until you can
honestly tell me me you do, I doubt you can claim= the following:
=20

Quoted message said:

All regulations that come from Republicans, on the other hand, ARE bad.

Quoted message said:

=20

Quoted message said:

drug? Or would a private company doing it's own research, depending on=

=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it's product being superior to it's competitors in order to keep it's=20 continued profits? The
FDA takes 8-10 years of research (after the drug=

=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

company has done it's own) and about 300 million + dollars from the dru=

g=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

company to approve it's product. In the meantime, how people have=20 suffered and/or died while
waiting for the FDA? Competition is what=20 betters a product or service, government regulation
only serves to=20
=20

There's nothing wrong with our government funding medical research which give us life saving
medicine. There's nothing wrong with our tax dollars going to education spending of any kind, but
what's seriously wrong is the way Republicans have structured our funding for medical research when
it comes to the Pharmaceutical industry. We, the American tax payers, fund the research that leads
to the discovery of most of these drugs, and then the Pharmaceutical industry thanks us by gouging
us, by charging us up to 7 times more than what they charge people in other parts of the world.
They (Repugs) take us, the American people, for chumps.

Where in the Constitution does the power to fund education and the=20 medical industry? The
education system is a failure when compared to=20 other countries. Sat scores have not greatly
improved since the sixties. =

Private and home schools consistently out perform public education by a=20 widely superior margin.
Top 5% of graduating Ivy Leaguers are usually=20 either home schooled or private schooled. Medical
industry has improved, =

and why is that? I'm sure the fact that the medical industry has a LARGE =

private sector could perhaps play somewhat of a role.

Quoted message said:

=20

Quoted message said:

hinder that process while increasing costs. When medicare was started in 1965, it's beginning
costs was about 1=20 billion dollars and it's projected cost for 1990 was 3 billion (12=20 billion
when adjusted for inflation), but the=20
=20

The reason why Medicare costs are skyrocketing is because the cost of drugs are skyrocketing. When
Medicare was first created, nobody forsaw the rising cost of drugs. The new Medicare bill does
NOTHING to bring down the cost of drugs. We already pay over 1.6 trillion dollars a year on health
care, but we don't get it. I quote Dennis Kucinich who said that we need universal health, a non-
profit system designed specifically for the some 50 million Americans who presently have no health
insurance.

Universal healthcare. Name one country where that is really successful.=20 Canadians frequently
travel to U.S. for treatment. Why do you think that =

is? Maybe bypassing a 3 month waiting list and bypassing being treated=20 like cattle is a good
thing. The cost of their healthcare is outrageous. =

Why. Plain and simple, it is run by the goverment. Back in the 1940's,=20 you could have a doctor
make a house call for under $5. Today it is a=20 mininum of what, $60 dollars to sit in their
waiting room? Are you=20 going to tell me that they are gouging too? The fact that Medicare only=20
pays about a third of the doctors bill doesn't play a role? When the=20 doctor raises his costs to
you because of increases in insurance, rent,=20 taxes, lack of (full or partial) payment on behalf
of the patient and/or =

Medicare etc., who gets blamed? Usually he becomes the greedy one.=20 Pharmeceuticals can
research, produce and manufacture medications at a=20 fraction of the cost in other countries, but
yet here it is much more=20 costly and therefore results in a higher price in order to retain a=20
profit margin, they become the bad guys? You do realize that=20 pharmeceuticals are first and
foremost a businesses. Businesses tend to=20 want to make a profit. A close second is the actual
product. Why is=20 this? If you had the magic bullet in medication but yet continued to=20 lose
money, how long do you think you could stay in business? Profit is=20 first, product is a very
close second. When government interference=20 increases their costs, you will find out. When
pharmeceuticals decreases =

their costs, you will find out.

Quoted message said:

=20

Quoted message said:

This is done because the government regulates the pharmaceutical=20 industry to near paralysis,
then having to "save" them, they subsidize =

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

money. Had they stayed out of it in the beginning, everyone would be=20 better off.
=20

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with our government subsidizing medical research. But there's
something seriously wrong with government regulations that deliberately pump up the price of drugs,
drugs which we the tax payers subsidized the research of. If the price of drugs should be raised on
anyone, it should be for non-Americans only, but the Republicans have structured it to be the exact
opposite, Americans pay the highest prices while the rest of the world pays only a fraction, for
the same exact drugs that are made here.

I wouldn't say government reg. deliberately pump up the price, because=20 many of the lawmakers take
meds too. It is a side effect of government=20 meddling.

Quoted message said:

=20

Quoted message said:

I am not republican, first off, but I do agree that medicare for future=

=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

generations should be abolished. It does nothing but raise costs and=20 provide more substandard
care for everyone, including those not on it.
=20

I hope you are not a Republican, in all likelihood ideologically driven by a false religious
concept. Because if you are, I'm wasting my time trying to educate you.=20

Somewhat of a narrow outlook, don't you think? If all you search for is=20 X, probably all you will
get is X. X meaning whatever you choose. The=20 question is, what are you looking for? How dumb the
republicans are?=20 That is what I have seeen so far. How useful is that? Maybe looking to=20 see
how intelligent ALL people can be and how wonderful they are no=20 matter their political
affliliation, the world might seem better.=20 Affiliation with a particular party seems to be a
really poor way to=20 judge people. Does being a Republican make any difference on how much=20 good
someone can do in the world? If a Republican cured cancer, would it =

be void since he/she is a republican. I don't care what someone's chosen =

party is. It is plain nonsense. I am more concerned with the person who=20 joined the party and much
less concerned with the party someone joined.=20 People make a difference, not a party. Life is more
than just politics.=20 Labelling something will only serve to limit it, be wary of who and what =

you limit. You might be pleasantly suprised at what will result.

Quoted message said:

I repeat myself, you are advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Medicare, because of
its "single payer" system, is already the most cost efficient medical service in the country, for
the health care that it offers. Medicare works, all it needed was prescription drug coverage, and
the Repugs screwed that up by engineering a bill instead that would eventually dismantle Medicare,
a bill that amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate giveaways to the greedy
Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industries. A give-away that was engineered at the expense of the
American tax payer and to the detriment of the unfortunate senior citizens who will suffer the
effects of Medicare's dismantling.

You seem to not realize that todays outrageous medical costs are caused=20 by 2 things mainly;
Goverment interference and regulation=20 (unconstitutional) and medicare (unconstitutional). If the
government=20 left regulation to private industry and stayed completely out of the=20 welfare
program, the people can and will take care of themselves. If the =

government were put in it's place and only where it is constitutionally=20 allowed, today's ills and
problems would be a fraction of what it is,=20 just as they were BEFORE it over-stepped it's
constitutional bounds.=20 Medicare should be in the hands of private industry where each person=20
can choose a policy, but then that is called health insurance anyway and =

SS should be eliminated for future generations, since better investment=20 programs exist out there.

Quoted message said:

Abel Malcolm 911forthetruth.com911forthetruth.comOpen ↗

=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"In the end, through the long ages of our quest for light, it will be found that truth is still
mightier than the sword":

Gen. Douglas MacArthur=20
=20
Educate yourself and go to these links:=20

buzzflash.combuzzflash.comOpen ↗ & moveon.orgmoveon.orgOpen ↗ & veteransforpeace.orgveteransforpeace.orgOpen ↗ &
salon.comsalon.comOpen ↗ & huppi.comLiberalFAQ.htmOpen ↗ &
house.govcaughtonfilm.htmOpen ↗ & tvnewslies.orgtvnewslies.orgOpen ↗

=20

=20