MEDICARE MORASS

The following articles were posted to DailyKos recently.

2004 Rx: DRUGS AND SENIORS

Wed Dec 17th, 2003 at 20:13:57 UTC
 

MEDICARE POLL

From the Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003,  Wall St Journal,

The latest Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive Health-Care Poll, conducted in December, sampled the public's views on whether they are pleased or disappointed with the recently signed Medicare bill.

The pollsters asked how people felt about the new MEDICARE legislation.  Less than 22% of those under 50 were "disappointed,"  but 33% of those 50-64, and 51% of those 65 and older, were not happy about it.  The results show the older you are,  the less pleased you are with the new law,  and the less likely to have no opinion.

Nonetheless,  fully 33% of all Seniors don't know enough about the MEDICARE changes to have an opinion.  44% of those in the 50-64 group have no opinion.

If the large numbers of the uninformed make up their minds in the same ratios as their peers, Senior dissatisfaction with Bush's MEDICARE could reach 70% or more (based on 3:1 disapproval for those over 65).

Blame Everyone

The poll asked those who know enough about this law - 58% of the sample - who gets the credit or blame for it.  36% gave Pres Bush credit,  while 31% gave Democrats credit,  for the legislation.

Surprisingly,  46-47% blamed Bush, Republicans and Democrats for MEDICARE reform.  It looks like Democrats won't escape damage for any harm done,  despite Sen Kennedy and an attempted filibuster.

Drugs, Discounts & Canada

55-57% of those under 65 approved the new MEDICARE prescription drug benefit,  but approval drops to 48% among older people.  Significantly, the disapproval rate goes up with age,  reaching 44% among those over 64.

Bush's drug discount card gains 65-68% approval among those under 65.  Those over 65 split on this benefit,  44% approving and 45% not.

The poll also asked about "A law which prohibits importing less expensive drugs from Canada." On this those polled were agreed:  76-85% disapproved of such a law.  [The poll appears not to  mention this provision is in the new MEDICARE law. - wlb]

All of these readings were based only on those who were sufficiently informed.

Election Strategy

Clearly,  there is a large pool of antipathy about the Republican MEDICARE bill,  especially about prohibiting imported drugs.

A large fraction of the population, even among Seniors,  is still uninformed about the MEDICARE changes.  Chances are, when they do find out, they will disapprove.  The poll shows, however, Democrats are going to get the ax along with Bush and Congressional Republicans for the results.

This indicates to me that Seniors feel no one represented them in "reforming" MEDICARE. Moreover, Democrats are going to have to work hard to regain credibility on this issue. Probably the best way to do so is fighting for a drug importation bill.  This will have to be very visible in the 2004 session of Congress.

I believe MEDICARE will be a key issue in FLORIDA and ARIZONA.  We know those States may make the difference between winning and losing in 2004.
 

HANDCUFFING SENIORS
Wed Dec 17th, 2003 at 04:20:13 UTC

I want to complain about an unpopular topic.

You will recall Bush signed the MEDICARE "REFORM" legislation a few days ago. Today,  the Wall St Journal reports that Bushies are already hard at work,as directed by that law, on behalf of their client,  BIG PHARMA.

The Food & Drug Admin (FDA) has sent letters to USPS, FedX, VISA and MASTERCHARGE, asking those companies to inspect transactions that might involve importing of drugs.  In other words, these companies are being asked to act on behalf of the government to inspect packages that might contain drugs from overseas.  The FDA is asking credit card companies to stop charges for drugs purchased overseas.  FDA is particularly concerned to stop Internet purchases.

It appears the FDA is asking all these companies to report suspected importers to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Seniors who've been buying drugs from Canada are being threatened with criminal prosecution,  unless they buy drugs (they cannot afford) from US sources.

It's a good thing most of the companies are NOT buying the FDA's line so far,  saying it is a violation of their client's privacy.  Also the Republican Governor of NH intends to resist this sort of harassment.

Who else does the FDA intend to deputize for this possee?  After all, you really have to look out for those hardened criminals hiding under the gray hair.

I think this is a major issue.  It shows the Rethugs really mean it about everything - it's no joke. If you cannot afford American drugs,  well, you can just go to jail or die.

I felt compelled to write this,  as I am one of those directly affected by FDA's police action.

MEDICARE PRESAGES ELECTION

Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 21:38:37 UTC
 

As I watch the penultimate vote on MEDICARE, the budget waiver, I am impressed by the vote switching and by what amounts to 3 distinct patterns of voting.

There are the liberal Democrats, the conservative Republicans and a small band of (for want of a better description) McCainites.  This last group tends to oppose pork barrel spending and big government.  The Perot and Ventura voters align with McCain.  The other groups are highly ideological and political.

MEDICARE is now likely EITHER to be a big issue in the 2004 election, or an insignificant non-issue.  However it is played, I believe the votes cast show how the Presidential elections starts.

Note: As I write,  the Waiver was passed 61-39,  and I take that as the odds for Bush winning.

STATES FOR BUSH - 188 ELECTORS

POP POP FIZZ FIZZ: MEDICARE RELIEF

Fri Nov 21st, 2003 at 15:06:04 UTC
 

Today's Wall St Journal prints a "commentary" that suggests the privatization "tests" will never occur.  Similar "news" is appearing in other sources as well.

The idea is that liberals shouldn't worry,  because the "premium support" provisions will never go into effect.  Supposedly, there never will be "tests" of moving Medicare recipients into a private system.

The article does point out that several REPUBLICAN Senators - Kyl and Spector, for example - are trying to get their States ruled out for such tests.  This is intended to show that privatization won't fly even in conservative States like Arizona.

Of course,  Republicans pushed for "tests" of electric power deregulation, too.  Those "tests" weren't supposed to go into mass production.  We Californians know about those "tests",  as they cost us more than $9 billion;  we are still paying for them on our electric bills.  Those who got burned by ENRON know about "tests," too.

Need I mention voucher "tests?"  The ones conducted so far were not successful,  but the Republicans are still pushing for more.

So, if you can't stand the pressure,  and want your PROZAC NOW,  consider the relief offered by the "commentators."  They don't really mean it;  it will never happen.

Yeah.

WSJ subscribers can read the article at:

I have read the NYT summary of the proposed Medicare legislation,  which would add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

As the final agreement stands,  I am opposed to it.

The bottom line for me is this:  I won't benefit from this bill.  I don't know who will. In the long run,  the "premium support" provisions of this bill may make medical care unaffordable for me.

I am 63.  I take several prescription drugs for high blood pressure and diabetes,  both chronic conditions,  and some other drugs for the secondary effects of those diseases.  I have been forced to realize I will never get off those drugs,  unless I am ready to die.  I don't like it,  but that is the way it is.

These drugs are costly,  even though some are generic.  Almost all the drugs I use are patented and made by FOREIGN (mostly European or Israeli) manufacturers.  Generally, drugs made by non-US companies are cheaper than their US equivalents,  and they are just as effective.  I buy these drugs from a variety of sources.

I took early Social Security.  I didn't apply for disability benefits,  because I cannot afford paying a lawyer to fight for approval. But,  most of my $579 social security benefit is taken up in paying medical costs,  currently approx $437/month (2003 actual average).  I am uninsured,  because I could not pay the $1226/mo premium last demanded (in 2002) by Calif. Blue Shield.

I cannot afford buying US made drugs,  whether here or overseas.  Buying foreign made drugs knocks at least 1/3 off the price in then US,  and even more abroad (e.g., in Canada).

If this bill forces me to buy drugs in the US,  especially US made drugs, then I cannot afford to pay for my prescriptions.  The additional cost would push my medical expense total to around $600/mo.

*

I look upon this supposed Medicare improvement as nothing more or less than a huge subsidy to the US drug companies.  They are the prime beneficiaries.  This is made blatantly clear in the provision that prevents the government from entering direct negotiations with the drug companies about prices.

I think far more PEOPLE would benefit,  if drug importation from foreign sources were regularized. The fact is,  drugs purchased in Canada are anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 less expensive than the same ones bought in the US.  This price reduction overwhelms any benefit from the proposed Medicare legislation.

The Republican Medicare "deal" starts an "experimental" program in 6 areas for 6 years to privatize MEDICARE.  Previous attempts like this have failed.  The MSA program is also poorly used, and generally a failure.  All these programs do is subsidize insurance companies,  thus increasing the cost of medical care.  The MSA program has the effect of "cherry picking" the well, thus removing people from the community-based rating concept altogether.

I am utterly opposed to this philosophy.

This is legislation which might improve medical care for the well-off,  while limiting it for the middle class.  The trade-offs in this legislation will leave the poorest even more destitute.

Therefore, for philosophical and practical reasons,  I believe the proposed Medicare legislation should be voted down.  I think Senate Democrats should filibuster this bill,  if it comes to that.

This is not my idea of "medicare reform."