The ideological skirmish set off when Gov. Kathleen Sebelius mentioned “universal coverage” in her State of the State address in January could resume once the Kansas Health Policy Authority delivers its reform proposals to the Legislature this fall. But dispatches from the authority’s just-concluded 20-city listening tour have only underscored the need to do something substantive about the state’s 267,000 uninsured. And it would be a shame if lawmakers rushed to judgment about the authority’s motives, expecting a “Kansachusetts” plan.
“This isn’t Massachusetts,” Marcia Nielsen, executive director of the authority, told the Kansas City Star. “I don’t think Kansans embrace government intervention needlessly. We’ve got to maximize market-driven solutions, ensuring that we provide incentives as opposed to mandates.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
46 Comments
Though I more define myself as a Fiscal Conservative, there is some Social Conservative opinions I have.Seeing the Bigger picture for this country, for me there should be a few “give-me’s” for a great nation.There should be no question about medical care, housing and food, in that everyone should have the same amounts available to them. Before another bridge to nowhere is ever build, another pothole is every filled, every citizen of the United States should have equal access to medical care to a responsible level. Only in the case where it is purely for a needless vanity should the line be drawn. I make the distinction because the likes of plastic surgery is warranted if the person has been disfigured in a accident and not just because they think their nose is too big.
Though it should not be limited solely to pure life threatening reasons though, both physical and emotional well-being should be a right. Basic need should be a deciding factor and in some cases be liberally administered. Each case should be view with how it would effect this person’s well being.
If we are to be a Great nation, we should act like it not just to the world but to our citizens.
Except medical care isn’t market-driven, it’s need-driven.
If you have a heart attack, you’re in no position to start negotiating with doctors for the best price on bypass surgery. When your kid gets apppendicitis, are you shopping around for the cheapest doctor?
You’re in a car crash. Now’s the time to negotiate! Give me a break.
I have the option to purchase bottled water, but I have the right to expect I can get a drink from the faucet.
Health care is that way.
If government is the only institution big enough to counter mis-applied “market forces,” then I’m willing to hope my vote will come up with a viable way to assure the basic right of health care. The “market” has failed.
If people didn’t murder people or steal from people, there’d be no reason for a “socialist” police force. If people were willing to watch their homes burn down, there’d be no reason for a “socialist” fire department.
Who ya gonna call? 9-1-1 or a half a dozen private fire-fighting companies…so you can negotiate and sign a contract with them to come put out the fire and rescue your daughter from your burning house?
You “socialist,” you!
The United States has the opportunity to look at the MANY countries who offer health care to every citizen and use the best of all the plans while not having to repeat what didn’t work. Kansas can and should learn a lot from Massachusetts.
There’s this “conservative”-driven absurdity that once universal health care is enacted, Americans will start getting sicker!
Getting sick is not market-driven. So treating the sick should not be dependent on a market-driven system.
Just how absurd would it be that, the next time you go to the bathroom you’d fisrt have to call up all the market-driven sewer companies and negotiate among them the best price for flushing your toilet?
“Conservatives” who think healthcare is market-driven need to get in touch with reality.
People get sick. People in a civilized society need to have a system that deals with people getting sick.
There’s not an automatic profit to be earned in police protection, fire departments, highway systems, water supplies, or sewers. To assume there must be a profit involved in healthcare coverage is “conservatism” gone wild.
Yes, the Fire Department will try to put out your house fire, and will try to rescue anyone still in the house, no matter if you have homeowners or fire insurance, or not.
Guess what?
The HOSPITAL will TREAT you, too, no matter if you have health insurance or not!In fact, the vast majority of care givers, in the hospital, will have no clue about your insurance status.
It is a privacy issue.
Health INSURANCE is NOT Health CARE!
I thought Hospitals were only required to give stablizing care?
Conservatives who want the healthcare status quo continued are usually those that have health insurance and have never experienced a catastrophic illness or are making a profit from the current health care system.
If you really examine the current health care system, we taxpayers are already paying for the uninsured through higher charges for ourselves. And for health care insurance, these insurance companies negotiate for the lower charges which leaves the difference in some cases that the insured person has to pick up.
I was hospitalized for 3 times during March and April of 2007 for a total of 32 days. When I was in the hospital, my CT scans were paid by my health insurance but after I was discharged, I had 2 more CT scans as an outpatient. I assumed that since the CT scans were paid for while an inpatient and I had alreadymet my maximum out-of-pocket expenses, there would be no problem with these 2 CT scans being covered. Boy was I wrong!
Each CT scan was $3,800.00. My health insurance paid only $449.00 towards each CT scan. That leaves a balance of $3,300 owed. My health insurance carrier explained to me that the CT scan charges were excessively high and they would not pay any more towards these CT scans. I am now left holding the bag for the remainder of $3,300 x 2 = $6,600. And the hospital expects payment in 2 weeks from their first billing statement. When I called them to arrange payments, guess what – they are rude to me and have told me different versions of the same story each time I call in just to arrange to pay this enormous bill. So an honest person has no chance against the insurance company or the hospital when it comes to their charges and billing system.
But yet one of the hospital’s financial office personnel told me to divorce my husband then I would qualify for total write off of the entire $6,600. Now how is that going to help our healthcare system?
Our current healthcare system is profit-driven. That is why we have more corporate-ownded doctors’ offices and the doctors are merely employees of that corporation. Doctors have lost their place as the decider in their patients’ medical care – it is usually left up to an insurance company pencil-pusher to say if it will or will not be paid for. What kind of healthcare is that?
Conservatives are always talking about the socialized medicine being so bad with terrible doctors and waiting times but I see that happening today. There will always be terrible doctors but some health insurance plans lock you into one certain doctor and if you change from that doctor, then the insured is responsible for all charges from that time on. How is that any different than socialized medicine?
There has to be a better way to provide health care to every US citizen than we currently have. The healthcare system is broken but those that do not want to change it are those that truly don’t care about the other guy. They have theirs and that is all the care about.
The biggest financial risk facing families today is the liability of Nursing Home care for someone in the family.
As an ethical guide, and a “CYA” against lawsuits, Insurance agents ask about current finances.
You see, the purpose of Long Term Care Insurance is NOT so much to pay for the facility. (Yes, the facility is probably going to be nicer, and the wait to get in shorter, if the family can show a valid, in force LTC policy, but that is another issue.)
The PURPOSE of Long Term Care Insurance is to protect the ESTATE of the nursing home patient, period!
Those people who own little or no assets must, ordinarily, sign a waiver stating that they are purchasing the insurance for some other reason, such as quality of care or aversion to government assistance.
I know of people, on Medicaid, who also have a LTC policy which is paying part of the cost. Medicaid simply pays the difference. We could ask why the client/insurance bought the policy in the first place, but it was probably an old policy with no inflation coverage.
Anyway, Medicaid Estate Recovery, especially after the Deficit Reduction Act or DRA 2006, is forcing States to get even more aggressive in going after the estates of people who have used Medicaid services for nursing home care.
You are deluding yourselves if you think that some form of “payback” will not be in store, should “socialized medicine” or “universal coverage” come to pass.
For instance, I know several people who could afford health insurance and simply refuse to buy it.
Health Insurance coverage, as well as Long Term Care coverage, are liability issues for investment advisors these days.
The number one reason to cash out an IRA: Medical Bills or Nursing Home bills.
So, those without assets are warned, by the regulators, that they might not need LTC insurance.
In the meantime, advisors who do not tell clients who have assets to buy adequate LTC insurance or health insurance risk litigation by family members, long after the bull-headed, macho “self insured” businessman has Alzheimers and can no longer verify his decision to “work without a net.”
Some of you will point out that a “universal system” would force the well off to pay their share.
They DO pay, now, but they pay by risking their estates, if death comes sooner, or they risk bankruptcy, if the illness lasts a long time.
Again, health insurance is not health coverage.
Tell the fireman you don’t have any insurance on your house.
Did he pack up his hose and go away, or did he continue to fight the fire?
“Econ101,” –
Spoken like a guy whose living depends on the profit gained by selling commercial health insurance.
Yeah, you can go to the Emergency Room and (mostly) they can’t tun you away. What with that whole Medical Ethics thing and all. But they’ll send you a bill. Trust me. They’ll send you a bill and have collectors call you nightly.
Universal non-profit healthcare coverage eliminates the profit motive in an enterprise that is most decidedly *not* market-driven. (You didn’t address that part of my previous post, did’ja?)
People aren’t gonna start getting sicker once we remove the profit motive from the health insurance industry. People aren’t gonna start having more accidents. The only difference will be that the money people spend on healthcare will go to healthcare, not to your sales commissions or write-offs from hospitals and doctors or advertising campaigns for Restlesss Leg Syndrome.
The deep dark secret among those of us who advocate non-profit universal healthcare coverage is we think, perhaps, people should get what we pay for and pay for what we get.
Sounds pretty conservative to me.
Speaking of “restless leg Syndrome” it seems like big pharmacy creates diseases to make drugs for, what the hell is RLS? where was this disease 5 years ago. I cant remember the drug for RLS but I know one of its side effects is increased gambling what the hell kind of side effect is that? sounds like a bad stand up comedy bit. Why do prescription drugs have advertising shouldn’t the doctors prescribe the drug because you need not because you saw a ad?
Long Time
Some people, actually MANY people, make the decision NOT to get insuarnce.
By the way, only a handful of my customers are NOT on Medicare.
My commissions on individual health insurance, for the “under 65″ market, are barely enough to pay MY own premiums for coverage.
I do not deny that the current system has problems.
I strongly argue that your prescription does not match the illness.
Nothing you have proposed will increase access or quality of care.
You bring up your complaints, then you bring up your “solution” — which does not address your complaints at all.
Do you folks realize how often Medicare, Medicaid and the VA decline to pay a claim?
One other point:
Many countries that have “single payer” or nationalized health insurance systems have also come up with “no fault” liabilty or malpractice rules.
When the government is the only financial player, you will see very strict limits on awards for malpractice.
You will also see a ban on class-action lawsuits against drug companies.
Tom
(former) Senator Dole did Viagra commercials.
(soon to be former) Senator Craig might be doing “restless leg syndrome” commercials — with perhaps other “side effects”
LOL Econ101 :)
But if the drug companies knowingly market a drug that causes serious side effects (and there have been numerous examples of this – Vioxx for one), why shouldn’t the drug company be sued?
When it is proven by their own internal memos that they knew about the serious side effects, then that is when they should be held liable. But yet, Paul, wants all drug companies to get off without any liability?
This is profit driven market at its worst.
And I’m in the nursing home business, a private pay resident pays the most at the nursing home but when the surveyors come into the facility, it is not the private pay charts they want to see – it is the Medicare and Medicaid charts they want. The federal government does not give a damn about the privsate pay residents’ care- they only care to see what is going on with those residents that they are paying for.
And, Paul, I have always wondered – why should a person be entitled to leave an estate to their children if that person requires long term care? Isn’t the mantra of the Republicans is to let everyone take care of themselves? If the person needs long term care and they have an estate, why should they not pay for their own care? Why is it okay for that person to be able to leave their estate to their greedy kids and not have to pay for their own long term care?
I know of several people that have purposely planned to divert their estates in order to give their greedy kids the money and they go on Medicare or Medicaid and let the taxpayers pay for their care. That is not taking care of yourself, is it? It’s letting the lowly taxpayers CYA while your greedy kids count the money laughing all the way to the bank.
Where is it written that it is an entitlement for people to leave their kids their estate?
It’s actually not greedy lucee, it’s called the government forcing the taxpayer’s hand.
My grandfather saved the first nickel he earned. He still payed for his wife’s medical and rest home expense out of his own pocket from the money he saved all his life.
Every once in awhile, he would complain about the woman in the next room as my grandmother who was getting the same treatment and care, but on the government’s dime.
My grandfather didn’t like dealing with the government and stayed independent until the end. He spent almost all of his savings for care of his wife.
He wouldn’t have it any other way.
lucee
I don’t recall advocating much of anything, yet, on this thread.
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I am simply pointing out that those countries who do have “socialized medicine” HAVE capped malpractice awards, HAVE gone to “no-fault” malpractice systems, and have enacted tort reforms.
An unintended consequence, perhaps, but it is highly unlikely that a government that puts a lien on grandma’s house, because grandpa is in the nursing home, won’t come up with other ways to control costs and recover costs.
Kansas
I agree with you.
I have helped people to plan for both VA and Medicaid benefits.
While “means testing” has to occur, the results are perverse:
Two men, born on the same day, BOTH are engaged in combat at Iwo Jima. They both behave admirably in combat. Neither is seriously wounded. Both are honorably discharged.
One goes on to start a family business and becomes very wealthy. He also takes very good care of his health.
The other becomes a chain-smoking alcoholic and chronic gambler, always in trouble with the law, and always broke.
The VA will pay an “improved pension” to the poor veteran, based on combat service, which will help cover nursing home costs. (Generally, only Veterans or spouses who are receiving the help of another person on a routine basis, or are in a facility, can qualify for this money.)
Likewise, the poor Veteran will probably also qualify for Medicaid, with very little financial planning involved.
The “rich” Veteran will have to work with estate planners and attorneys, and wait 5 years before filing any claim, to qualify for Medicaid.
The “rich” Veteran will not qualify for the “Improved VA Pension” unless some serious financial planning is involved.
YES, I realize that we simply can’t afford to provide for everyone, and that means testing will occur.
However, once again, society will be rewarding bad behavior, it seems.
and lucee
Those who are on Medicaid are “wards of the state” and the inspectors, of course, check on them, if they are MEDICAID inspectors.
Generally, the best long term care facilities no longer accept medicaid clients, if that is all they have.
Many will allow a person to enter on “private pay” and then transition to Medicaid.
Further, Medicare NEVER pays for custodial care, under ANY circumstances, period.
“He who pays the piper calls the tune” —
Government will not do a better job in dictating care than insurance companies or individuals.
Trade offs will occur.
Unintended consequeces will happen.
As an advocate for “change” you will minimize those dangers.
I think we all get that.
I LOVE how people who haven’t a clue about the medical profession suddenly hear about a condition on TV and boy howdy they’re experts on the subject because GASP they have never heard of it before.
RLS has been around a very long time, it just had no real good treatment. I think quinine or quinidine was the old treatment for it and you can get that really cheap.(I can never remember the difference between the two). After I had my son, I had RLS. It’s also a symptom of Iron Deficient Anemia. I cured it by taking a $.02 pill of Iron. Guess what’s the first line some doctors are trying to use now? You guessed it, the 200 dollar med.
YOu know why the people who have insurance right now don’t want to have universal healthcare? Because they believe they should be first in line because they can afford it, and if we go to universal healthcare, they might be bumped back because the poor can now get in too.
Why not just come out and say that. Instead, you say the wait is too long in the countries that have it- well that’s because a third of their people aren’t being neglected too. Immediate care isn’t neglected, but things that can wait may take longer. We still have a wait in the US too, but you can’t tell them that.
It’s actually not greedy lucee, it’s called the government forcing the taxpayer’s hand.
Actually, Kansas, it is people with money expecting the taxpayers to pay for their long term care so that they can leave their estates to their greedy kids. Why should I pay for someone’s long term care if they have the money to pay for it?
It is like our current health care system, those that have money to pay for healthcare has access to it. Same goes for long term care.
I have seen private pay long term care residents plan to divert all their money, investments and estate so that their kids will get it and not have to pay for their long term care. There are professionals in the business planning such diversion plans.
Why should the kids get the money any more than the long term care facility getting it to take care of mom or dad? Republicans don’t want welfare for anyone but they see nothing wrong with the wealthy planning to divert their estates in order to get out of paying their own way when it comes to long term care.
Further, Medicare NEVER pays for custodial care, under ANY circumstances, period.
Posted by: Econ101
They do if they qualify for skilled nursing care Paul. Medicare pays for 100 days and there are certain requirements such as a hospitalization prior to nursing care.
I wonder if you actually do understand the long term care industry or if you just understand how to profit off people’s money?
Better question to ask Lucee, is why the kids shouldn’t get the money as heirs.
They are entitled under the law, regardless the amount of money inherited.
Not everyone is wealthy, but would like their children to have what’s left of their estate.
After a lifetime of paying taxes, I’m pretty sure the elderly deserve the government cares, regardless of their income status.
Sorry we disagree, but you are wrong about parents giving their children their money, it happens world wide, the U.S. is no exception to the rule.
I am simply pointing out that those countries who do have “socialized medicine” HAVE capped malpractice awards, HAVE gone to “no-fault” malpractice systems, and have enacted tort reforms.
An unintended consequence, perhaps, but it is highly unlikely that a government that puts a lien on grandma’s house, because grandpa is in the nursing home, won’t come up with other ways to control costs and recover costs.
Posted by: Econ101
But, Paul, it is the Republicans that want the cap on malpractice claims and to get rid of those big bad lawyers such as John Edwards – so I would think that you would be thrilled to have some form of universal health care to acquire such a malpractice cap limit?
Let’s face it, those that have health insurance do not want everyone else to have it. But the current healthcare system, the poor gets healthcare at a high cost to taxpayers. It is the working poor or middle class that cannot pay their health care bills if a catastrophic illness hits them. Why do you think bankruptices are climbing? Medical bills ranks as the top reason for filing bankrupcty.
Kansas – why should people that have estates to leave their kids expect the taxpayers to pay for their long term care?
It is not written anywhere that a parent has to leave their kids anything.
Long term care is the same as paying their mortgage, food, utilities if they were not in a long term care facility.
Why should they be given a free ride for the remainder of their lives (which could be 10-15 years) and their kids get all the money mom and/or dad left them?
It’s okay if a Republican gorges themselves at the govenrment’s trough, but they sure squeal like pigs when anyone else there next to them.
lucee
You just proved MY point, NOT yours.And, NO you are very wrong, even in your Medicare statement:
Medicare does NOT pay for custodial care, is what I said.
You Think you are making a point by saying that that Medicare “pays” for “skilled nursing care” — definitions are everything, and Skilled Care is NOT Custodial Care.
Also, Medicare pays for the first 20 days. AFTER that, you will find virtually everyone transfered to custodial care or sent home.
IF you are approved, past 20 days, you must show “continuous improvement under a doctors plan of care” nearly every DAY or be booted!
Oh, by the way, day 21 through day 100 will cost you $124.00 per day, even with Medicare’s doubtful approval of that long a stay!
luceeYou have a quirky way of proving your opponents right, while such proof wafts over your oblivious head completely unnoticed.
Frankly, malpractice is a fact of life.
I have admitted, on this blog, that my family is the victim of such.
However, it is a policy choice we are talking about here, and the decision to let the state or federal government gain more control over medicine IS a decision to cap malpractice awards, limit liability for equipment and drug manufacturers, and perhaps to to a complete “no fault” system of malpractice injury compensation.
I am telling you that YOU are making this choice.
These are LIBERAL fortresses, Democrat interest groups, that will be hurt by your policy change.
I did not make a value judgement, one way or the other, I just gave full and fair disclosure, to you and others reading here, that the choice to socialize is the choice to put many trial lawyers out of business.
By the way, the Medicaid planning works like this, in Kansas:
You are penalized 1 month for every $4,000.00 transfered OUT of your name in the last 5 years, if that transfer was less than full market value. (a gift)
So, the wealthy person who gifts $240,000 today, would have to wait 5 years to qualify for Medicaid, if I am doing my math right.
The “rich” person who transfers $1,000,000.00 and files a claim TOMORROW would face a penalty of 250 months before qualification, or about 21 YEARS.
That person should WAIT 5 years to file.
The “penalty” can be longer than the “look back” period.
NEVER NEVER NEVER apply prior to the 5 year anniversary of any large transfer, to a trust or individual or otherwise.
Some attorney please correct me if I am wrong here, I love free legal advice! lol
By the way, the recovery rules are not the same as the qualification rules.
Generally, Medicaid planning consists of a guess as to how much it will take to pay for Long Term Care over a 5 year period. You KEEP that amount, or contract with your facility to accept payments in that amount. Everything above that amount you give to your kids or put into a trust.
They are PAYING for 5 years, in this case.
After a life time of paying taxes, I think 5 years of private pay is enough.
By the way, Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelious has made Kansas a “Partnership State” making it easier to qualify for Medicaid if you have Long Term Care insurance, and protecting you against Medicaid Estate Recovery, up to your policy limits.
“”"Except medical care isn’t market-driven, it’s need-driven.
If you have a heart attack, you’re in no position to start negotiating with doctors for the best price on bypass surgery. When your kid gets apppendicitis, are you shopping around for the cheapest doctor?”"”
I agree. It is stupid to think you can “negotiate” with a doctor like you can a used car salesman. Hell, when you in pain, you want relief! When I was in Canada with my loving wife and developed a severe ear infection with was painful as all hell, I did not drive around looking for a Canadian doctor to dicker with on what it cost. I didn’t give a damn! But thank God Canada has healthcare right. Their clinics are open 7 days a week until about 8PM and I was able to be treated for $50 instead of having to go to an ER and pay $400 or suffer until Monday.
Negotiate BEFORE you are sick —
Just like you negotiate with your car insurance or your homeowners insurance, BEFORE a car wreck or house fire.
It is very important that we move to a National Health Plan BUT it is also important that we get it RIGHT the first time. YOu cannot afford to screw up healthcare. Lives are at stake. The FIRST and foremost thing to do in setting up Health USA is to make sure it is ran by professional doctors and accountants and NOT political appointees. While it should be funded by government, it must be as insulated from politics as possible. It should be ran much like the Social Security Administration is ran. That office is ran very efficiently and always has been no matter who is in Congress of the White House. The politicians generally leave their hands off it. And I am not really for Health USA being totally free. It should be set up in a way that encourages healthy lifestyles and preventing disease. For example free yearly physicals and mamograms and rectal exams. Perhaps 2 free doctors visits a year but after that co-pays would apply.
I have probably better health insurance than most. I have myself and family on my plan for which I pay ZERO in premiums for. We get everything we want for a small co-pay of $30 for a doctor visit and $7 for prescriptions. But even I see the need for national healthcare. For one thing, since I was diagnosed with diabetis 4 years ago, if I ever tried to change employers, I would not be able to get insurance of any kind from a new employer. This is a trap many people are in. I am not looking to quit my job but others might be and cannot. And, if they get laid off through no fault of their own, they are cooked. Nobody will sell a diabetic a policy.
KevwrongLarge group plans Have to take you.Individual or small group, you are right.
“”"”Better question to ask Lucee, is why the kids shouldn’t get the money as heirs.
They are entitled under the law, regardless the amount of money inherited.
Not everyone is wealthy, but would like their children to have what’s left of their estate.”"”
My own view is this- the kid can bust his ass and earn it just like I had to do. All that you should leave is enough money to pay off your final bills and bury you decently.
Paul, you’re out of your damn mind. You can’t negotiate your health insurance policy. You can’t possibly negotiate every emergency that could happen to you either.
“Risk Management” is negotiation.
Why is it morally acceptable, for you liberals, for the government to decline to cover something, but acceptable for private insurance to do the same thing?
And, if Government does it ALL, there will be NO choice, therefore, NO negotiation!
SorryWhy is it NOT acceptable for private insurance to decline to cover something, but OK for Government to decline the same thing?
Never ever forget the saying,
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Never ever forget the saying,”I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”Posted by: American Way | September 03, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Tell that to the Iraqi people.
“And, if Government does it ALL, there will be NO choice, therefore, NO negotiation!”
Posted by: Econ101 | September 02, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Perhaps you weren’t paying attention, “Econ101,” when Big Pharma wrote no negotiation into Medicare Plan D.
They *had* to write it in because, otherwise, Medicare’s buying power could force pharmaceutical companies into selling medications for prices comparable to what they’re available in, say, Canada.
It’s an absolutely good thing that the US government subsidizes Big Pharma’s basic research into new medications. It’s an abuse of the system that the US taxpayer must depend on fake “market forces” to achieve a return on their tax dollars’ investments that finally solved erectile dysfunction, restless leg syndrome, and too-many periods.
Long Time
I sell Part D.I have been to government mandated classes on Part D.YOU do not know what you are talking about.There is negotiation on price, in several places.The GOVERNMENT sucks at negotiation, so the government is left out of the deal.The Drug Companies negotiate with the Part D sponsoring company for the “tier” in which the drug will be carried.The sponsoring insurance company gets quatity discounts and rebates, from the drug company, which help keep costs down.You are grossly uninformed on this subject.In EVERY Part D plan document I can find several areas where competition and negotiation come into play.Competition reduces prices.The government can only creat shortages and screw things up.
And,LongtimeCanada has NOT had to enforce ANY price caps on ANY drugs in a long time.The market prices are cheaper in Canada for several reasons.Among them:Drug companies pretty much CAN”T get sued in Canada.Also, the standard of living in socialist Canada is far, far less than the standard of living in the USA.About 30% less, by some estimates.Again, you do NOT know what you are talking about.—And Canadians can shop for their drugs, they are NOT the same price everywhere, proof that the government does NOT set the price!
owmval luqvrsg yfhncax bhwlrgpik ydjfrzkv oaxmvhs yuzoxc