Reality Warp

http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/09/medicares-poison-pill?page=1

this from James Ridgeway at UnsilentGeneration.com……."In the end, I guess, it all boils down precisely the way it usually does in America: While a divided citizenry haggles over crumbs, the private companies take the cake."

King and his republican fellow travelers want the private companies to have the crumbs too.

http://unsilentgeneration.com/2009/12/21/aging-right-wingers-revolt-against-aarp/

King sez….."Remember, only the American people can stop the government from taking over our entire lives. We used to understand that in this country, even if almost half the country is now doing little more than expecting someone else to give them a handout, the mythical free lunch."

this handout thing you're talking about…….are you talking about the handout Bush and your fellow republican travelers gave to the drug companies under the too efficient, too free-markety Medicare Part D?

It all falls under the columbian universities Cloward and Piven
And who went to Columbia University?

If you were to want to end capitalism in the USA and around the world, how would you go about it?

Would you arm yourself, and assault the worlds governments, nope, do dangerous, you would work to collapse the system from within, rotting out the economic timbers, so you can raise yourself as champion, messiah if you will, who will end disease, part the waters, clean the air, and reform the nation and then the world in a marxist paradise.

But fools on other blogs only think marxist revolution can only come by force, not by coercion. I can not understand why anyone would think a politician has their best interest at heart, any politician, they are all liars and crooks. We should not trust any of them with our health, wealth or freedom, which is exactly what our founding fathers knew, and gave us a constitution to protect us from government, not the other way around.

Golly gee, Walter, I thought I was reading a ghost written story about myself when I started reading the Mother Jones link but found that that guy is in much worse shape than I ever will allow me to be in. Yep, my brother turned up with cancer of the esophagus about 2 weeks before I was diagnosed with Barrett's. He was gone 6 months later and I am still alive and kicking. I was put on some kind of thing that worked pretty well but I found, (back in 2001) that VA could provide me Omeprazole for just $8 per month instead of the over $100 for Prilosec. Same med but one little thing was different. My pharmacist told me to go with Omeprazole and I am still there. I threw my blood pressure med into the mix because it was costing $10 per month and the VA could do it for $8.

I had bypass surgery in 2005 and was told to take Vytorin to avoid the amount of cholesterol and triglycerides that were normal for me and it worked so well that they had to lower the power. Well it was about $95 per month when Part D went into effect and I just didn't see the sense in going Part D. Finally, this year I went Part D and found that for $19 per month with a $175 deductible I could get that Vytorin for $21 per month and the others for $4 per month. Also, I found that although my brother-in-law who took out the same thing when it all started and paid $11 per month for nothing for a couple of years is now getting the very same deal I got for the same $19. I was feeling pretty good about all this and then I read Mother Jones trying to make the Republicans out the bad guys and now I know how bad it all is.

Damn that pharmacist who showed me the three companies that would supply Vytorin and my other meds. The other two wanted over $40 per month with no deductible. Well now I meet the deductible in the first month and save a pile the rest of the year. I don't care for your left leaning writer for Mother Jones much more than I care for that Dowdy woman that does the same thing for the al Times of New York. I might add that I have a better deal there than I do with Medicare that paid for every penny of my by pass surgery and other very expensive heart procedures since the Democrats are taking up to $50 billion per year the next 10 years to pay for as close as they were able to get to single payer. You know that deal that Barney Frank said we don't have the votes to pass, single payer "insurance".

The worst part of Part D, to me, is that I didn't join in the beginning and will have to pay Medicare 36% of a month's premium for being a bad boy and not joining up in the beginning. I guess that $10 fine is because I voted for Bush twice. Right?

I will go on saving about $1000 per month with Part D until the Democrats do away with it. I wonder how they can do that. They aren't going to take that $500 billion from Medicare but there are those who think they might. I wonder how many of those Dems will still be in Congress after 2012. None is what I am after.

I hadn't read anything in Mother Jones for nearly 10 years and probable unless I die it will be another 10 when I read the next one. Thanks for helping me see that I had been right all this time.

King sez….." If we are at war, the Democrats think the answer is to lose the war (see Iraq)."

no mention how we were lied into that war?

roybot….thanks for your excellent example how socialized medicine works. If it wasn't for socialized medicine I doubt that you would still be alive.

the VA and Medicare…….a twofer for you

Omeprazole is prilosic. The part about " Same med but one little thing was different." was about how that little thing different made Prilosic into Nexium.

how exactly are you saving $1000/month with Medicare Part D?

Walter,

I may have got carried away about the monthly savings. However I am saving $1000 per year with it and I don't even spend the big bucks that many old people get to spend.

I can't see what is so important about how we got into a war when one party is trying so hard to lose something they inherited that was won. You know The Man keeps talking about the situation he inherited but never mentions the fact that he is trying to lose what he inherited that was won. I suppose you could explain all that to me, though.

Walter, do you really think that Medicare is socialized medicine? I have to pay an insurance company to pay for the amounts that Medicare doesn't pay for. I also get to have nearly $150 taken from my SS check each month for Medicare payment and I get to pay income tax on 85% or my SS payments because my wife won't stop working. I guess we could take the Democrat way out of that and just pay separately since we do get to pay that beautiful Democrat supported marriage penalty because we won't take the cheapest way out.

How much do you really know about how much anybody gets paid or gets to pay in order to get paid? Just what lefties say, huh?

Well the health care reform will benefit the economy because without it Medicare and Medicaid costs will rise. And they say the Senate's bill will reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion over the next ten years, while providing insurance for 31 million Americans . So instead of predicting gloom and doom think of the bright side. As for stimulus money – without it unemployment would have been ten fold as bad as is now.
Things might not look that bright to you right now and we still need more jobs – but takes time after all the Bush 8 years destroyed the economy! Reality is the economy taking a turn around now under Obama.

So have a Merry Christmas Da king and a Very Happy New Year- things are really starting to look brighter than they would have been if we had just stayed the course of do nothing.

roybot sez……"I may have got carried away……." What else is new?

roybot sez…."I can't see what is so important about how we got into a war when one party is trying so hard to lose something they inherited that was won." I guess it's just those of us who believe and want to protect the Constitution that have a problem with how we got into the war. Yes, I can understand how you and King and Pelosi want war criminals Bush/Cheney/Boehner to walk. Birds of a feather I say.

roybot sez…."Walter, do you really think that Medicare is socialized medicine?" Yes, me and about everybody except you realize it is. You got a twofer……the VA and Medicare. You have never had un-socialized healthcare. You should be made the poster boy FOR socialized medicine

By all means, King, have a happy holiday season….but before you start partying, I insist on taking one more shot….

"Plus, what's the last government program that came in under budget ? The last one was Bush's Medicare Part D, which the Democrats hate and want to kill. Any questions ? I guess Part D is too efficient, too free-markety. Democrats know we can't have that. Democrats know we need the heavy-handed, bureaucratic nightmare of centralized government to inefficiently administer things in order for them to work."

Yeah, too efficient….that Plan D….

"By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Veterans Administration, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, pays 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.[32] For example, Medicare pays $785 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin), while the VA pays $520. Medicare pays $1,485 for Zocor, while the VA pays $127."

Perhaps, this is why Democrats want Plan D reformed….

"The plan requires Medicare beneficiaries whose total drug costs reach $2,700 to pay 100% of prescription costs until $4,350 is spent out of pocket. (The actual threshold amounts will change year-to-year and plan-by-plan.) This coverage gap is known as the "Donut Hole." While this coverage gap will not affect the majority of program participants, a large minority (~25%) will find themselves without prescription drug coverage for much of the plan year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D

Ezra Klein of the Washinton Post speaks directly to King….

"It is insane that the people who voted for the deficit-financed, $700 billion Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit are allowed to scream about fiscal rectitude this year."

"When the CBO scored Medicare Part D, it concluded that the bill "would increase mandatory outlays by $407 billion for fiscal years 2004 to 2013 and would raise federal revenues by $7 billion over that period." In other words, it was a vote to add about $400 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years, and trillions more in the decades after that."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_lessons_of_medicare_part_d.html

Fiscally conservative Republicans voted to add $400 billion to the deficit with Plan D…..Democrats are voting for health insurance reform which will reduce the deficit by some $130 billion. Yet, such a fiscally conservative, free-market friendly Democratic bill is characterized by King thusly….

"Democrats know we need the heavy-handed, bureaucratic nightmare of centralized government to inefficiently administer things in order for them to work. "

Ho, ho, ho.

Rev, I am guessing that you haven't heard Jeff Sessions talking about the healthcare bill this morning. It seems that the head of CBO talked with him last night and that he told Sessions that they had determined that the Dems are trying to have their cake and eat it to. It seems that CBO has finally seen what I thought was there all along. Yep, the Dems are wanting to take the$500 billion from Medicare by counting it as a savings and then spend that same money. Sure they can save over $100 billion the first 10 years of that program but they are toying with $1 trillion Medicare dollars by counting half of it twice.

I would say that the vote tomorrow morning better come as early as possible of some Dems are going to learn just what Dirty Harry and his boys are doing and start thinking about their votes. Of course, the size of these numbers isn't as large, in sound, as it was a year ago.

But Walter, have you failed to see that they take over $140 from my SS check each month for my Medicare payment? Also, they take the normal amount out of my checks from the part time jobs I have. I consider socialism to be something that allows money from somebody to keep me going. I have been paying on SS for over 60 years because I have been working that long. Some of that was at self-employed rates which people notice when paying them.

How do you figure that paying that long doesn't make one eligible for some non-socialized money. How old are you anyway? I guess you are many years from 65 or whatever will be your age to collect SS.

Walter, this is the first time I have seen one of you left leaners throw Boehner into the group you blame the war in Iraq for. There are a few more Republicans in the House, why not include all of them. Not one of them has played the Jon Carry game, of, I voted for it before I voted against it as so many Dems have done. I love the way you use the deflection method in your claim about who was responsible for the war in Iraq and fail to talk about the way Obama is trying to lose the inherited win in Iraq. I will take your second refusal to talk about that one as a lack of knowledge about the whole thing.

roybot…..speaking of Vytorin…..from the Canton Repository……"Vytorin, a top moneymaker for Merck, combines two types of brand-name cholesterol pills, Zetia and Zocor, which is available as an inexpensive generic drug. At their peak, Vytorin and Zetia generated more than $5 billion a year in combined sales.

But research released in January 2008 indicated Vytorin was no more effective at limiting plaque buildup in arteries than Zocor, which costs about one-third as much.

Public release of the unfavorable data had been held up for so long that a congressional committee investigated."

http://www.cantonrep.com/world/x1679099850/FDA-Review-finds-no-proof-Vytorin-causes-cancer

you gotta wonder what kind of kickback roybot's doctor got from Merck for prescribing the more expensive Vytorin instead of the just as effective generic Zocor

this is the part I like….."Public release of the unfavorable data had been held up for so long that a congressional committee investigated."

King sez……"Remember, only the American people can stop the government from taking over our entire lives." But first we have to wrest control of the government from the corrupt Big Pharma.

of course King would label you a communist for that…..you know, anti-free-markety

roybot, as far as playing the Jon Carry game…….King was against the Iraq war until he found out that Sadam DID NOT have WMDs, no connection to 9-11 or al qada and that the whole pretense for war was based on outright lies told to the American people by the war criminals Bush/Cheney/Boehner…….then he became a big supporter. Or maybe it was the slaughter of tens if not hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqi civilians by the American military that got King's support.

I consider the needless deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians because of the lies told by Bush/Cheney/Boehner to be immoral.

I can understand why you don't

Walter

What outright lies?

There were 21 reasons sited for invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussain, only 1 was WMD's and as far as I am concerned the jury is still out on that one, some of the reports that have been translated indicate that Iraq still had the desire, and they did have the uranium to pursue a nuclear program, they did use chemical weapons, and biological weapons do not need a large infrastructure.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens killed– where is your source for this outright lie?
The Iraqi army did not number in the hundreds of thousands, and we certainly did not kill each and every one of them let alone a like number of citizens.

As for Al Qaida, guess what Walter, SH and Iraq did have contact and ties, after the world trade center bombing, one of the AQ bombers was released (the Jordanians thought they could use him as a double agent) and he fled directly to Iraq and disappeared, only to turn up as a being paid off by the Iraqi government. Read "The Connection" where many of the documents that have been discovered in Iraq are published.

Lastly, BOTH the Clintons said Hussain had to go, John Kerry, Al Gore, Reid, Pelosi, all these people agreed and voted to take out Hussain, yet you and all the progressive fools want to re-write history so that you can blame only Bush and Cheney. But history will in the end prove you wrong, wrong on Iraq, and wrong in the marxism you want for this nation.

Walter, my pharmacist who just happens to be one of those with enough preparation to mix drugs, herself, was very unhappy when I mentioned your story about Vytorin. She went into an impassioned lecture about Vytorin doing exactly what had been claime, and that was lower cholesterol in the blood stream and all that plaque was nothing but bull where Vytorin is concerned. She was very nice to me when she gave me her recommendations concerning the cost of Vytorin and what companies would provide it. She went so far as to include those who would include Zetia and Zocor (I guess nobody told you that you have to take both of them to get what you get from Vytorin) and I found that I could change over but it would cost me more in the long run.

I would like to put your knowledge about pharmaceuticals up against the husband and wife team that run the pharmacy I buy from. Of course, either of them know a bit more than you and the people who wrote all those fancy stories you are basing your info on, but then they don't get published often. Do you?

I was like King in being against that war in Iraq until so many Democrat Congressmen and women started voting to allow to happen. I guess all of them, even Hillary, were in favor of it when they voted for it but against it later on just like old Jon Carry was.

I forgot to mention that Vytorin keeps my triglycerides way down in the "safe" area and neither Zetia or Zocor affects triglycerides that way. I think I will just stay with Vytorin if you and the Canton Repository don't mind.

Hey, Walter, and everybody else, have a Merry Christmas and rest up for more fun after King has his little vacation from the blog.

Andrea, you need to quit channeling Harry (traitor) Reid, and read what the CBO says

Your 132 billion savings is actually according to the CBO a 170 billion deficit in other works Harry is lying by 300 billion.

By James Rowley and Nicole Gaouette

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — The Congressional Budget Office challenged claims by health-care overhaul proponents that Medicare savings in Senate legislation would help finance expanded coverage and postpone the bankruptcy of the medical program for the elderly.

The nonpartisan agency said the $246 billion it projected the legislation would save Medicare can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program.

Nor could those savings be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, set to run out of money in 2017, the budget office said in a letter to Senate Republicans.

“What we’ve seen is a colossal manipulation” by Democrats “of the accounting scores of CBO” and the independent actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican who requested the analysis from CBO. He called the letter “a potential game-changer.”

The estimated Medicare savings in the legislation overstate “the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” the CBO said in the letter.

“The true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs would be a good deal smaller,” the budget office said.

Reid Aide’s Response

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the CBO letter doesn’t reflect on the overall health-care bill, which the Senate is set to approve tomorrow.

“Today’s letter deals explicitly with Medicare, not the overall short and long-term budgetary impact of the legislation,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in an e-mail.

Manley said the CBO still projects that the bill will reduce the deficit the first 10 years by $132 billion and by $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the second decade.

At a press conference, Sessions said the CBO report shows that the legislation the Senate is poised to pass wouldn’t create “a $132 billion surplus, but would add $170 billion to the deficit.”

Sessions described the Democrats’ accounting as “a $300 billion misrepresentation. That $300 billion converts a $132 billion alleged surplus, a reduction of the debt by the legislation, to a $170 billion increase in the debt,” Sessions said.

Trust Fund

The budget office said that whenever the Medicare trust fund runs a surplus, the savings are turned over to the U.S. Treasury, which issues bonds to borrow for the future needs of participants in the health-care program for the elderly. The trust fund is currently running annual deficits.

North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has said that the Senate legislation would postpone the Medicare trust fund’s projected 2017 insolvency by several years.

To credit such projected savings as helping to extend Medicare’s solvency “ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund” to pay for future Medicare expenses, the budget office said.

Arguments that the Medicare savings would both extend Medicare’s solvency and help finance “new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double count a large share of those savings,” the CBO said.

Jeff…the bill reduces the deficit over ten years. What you are arguing about is Medicare itself. You are shouting that because Congress didn't solve every detail of Medicare's projected problems that the health reform legislation doesn't reduce the deficit. You are mistaken….the bill does project deficit reduction.

Now, if you have some good ideas on how Medicare's solvency can be guaranteed…..by all means…..share them. But the bill the Senate just approved reduces the national deficit by $132 billion over ten years.

The bill reduces the debt if you accept the assumptions the CBO is given. To belive the assumptions is the problem.

Jeff sez….."There were 21 reasons sited………" is there anyway you could give us a web site with those 21 reasons so we could see them with our own eye sight?

"Read "The Connection" where many of the documents that have been discovered in Iraq are published." Is that by John Stossel?

here's the 21 reasons…….

1. to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
2. for regime change.
3. to further the war on terror.
4. because of iraq’s violation of united nations resolutions.
5. because of saddam hussein’s evil dictatorship and actions.
6. because of a lack of weapons inspections in iraq.
7. to liberate iraq.
8. because of iraq’s ties to al qaeda.
9. because iraq was an imminent threat.
10. to disarm iraq.
11. to conclude the gulf war of 1991.
12. because hussein was a threat to the region.
13. for the safety of the world.
14. to support the united nations.
15. because the united states could (easy victory).
16. to preserve peace around the world.
17. because iraq was a unique threat.
18. to transform the region.
19. as a warning to other terrorist nations.
20. because hussein hates the united states and will act against it.
21. because history calls the united states to action.

I like #15…….because the united states could (easy victory).

Rev, it seems that you missed what Ehlmendorf said today about that deficit reduction which just isn't there. It is impossible to have you cake and eat it too and that is just what Reid is trying to do here. He wants to take Medicare money that hasn't been appropriate yet and spend it somewhere else. I think you are believing Reid which anybody in his right mind would refuse to do.

Here is Ray Stevens singing about all this problem and what we need to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo

I read a very good article this evening about how the lobbyists from the insurance companies must have been who were meeting with Reid the past two weeks in the re-writing and re-writing of the bill. At any rate they have fixed it so they come out ahead and the people come out in the hole. Ray Stevens is right.

I have a Christmas present for Rev and Walter here that the rest of you may enjoy reading, also.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31921&lk=4560164-4560164-0-40017-wF9VBg-owC8tTc6gVSS2fvVocIDJm1cw

roybot…….the people that should be thrilled are you, King and Jeff. Wasn't that the big republican concern at the beginning of the debate….that the healthcare insurance companies would get the shaft? I would think that this legislation is just what Fox News and the republican party asked for.

roybot sez…."I read a very good article this evening about how the lobbyists from the insurance companies must have been who were meeting with Reid the past two weeks in the re-writing and re-writing of the bill." That can't be right….King said the unions were writting the legislation. You calling King a liar?

"I have a Christmas present for Rev and Walter here……" Gloating from a guy that has been a beneficiary of socialized medicine ( VA and Medicare) his entire adult life. Nice.

"I was like King in being against that war in Iraq until so many Democrat Congressmen and women started voting to allow to happen." You won't read lefty publications like Mother Jones, ThinkProgress and MediaMatters yet you listen to what lefty politicians say? Really roybot, honesty has really never been a big issue in your life has it. You learn that from your time in the military?

Andrea,
I hope you had a nice Christmas.

Can you clear something up for me ? You said "Things might not look that bright to you right now and we still need more jobs – but takes time after all the Bush 8 years destroyed the economy!"

I hear Democrats say this over and over, but I've never heard one of them ever explain how Bush destroyed the economy. I know he ran up deficits, which is bad, but those didn't "destroy the economy" in 8 years. What specific Bush actions destroyed the economy ?

I see Rev and Walter intentionally misread my statement about Medicare Part D as an endorsement of that program. Figures, but they are wrong. I only said Part D has come in under budget, not that I would have implemented it when it wasn't funded. There's nothing I have complained about more on this blog than deficits and the growing federal debt. Both of you know that. Shame, shame.

And anybody who thinks the Senate health care reform bill will cut the deficit by $132 billion over ten years (without more taxes being levied or more services being cut)…..name the amount of the wager. My betting window is open.

Like most of what Congress does, that $132 billion figure is arrived at via misdirection (10 years of costs and only 6 years of benefits) and dubious assumptions (the doctor fix and Medicare cuts).

I bet the same people who believe in that $132 billion deficit reduction also believe that the Senate health care reform bill will save money, while adding 31 million to the health insurance rolls and creating a huge new welfare program at the same time. Dream on, folks.

walter says, "I would think that this [health care reform] legislation is just what Fox News and the republican party asked for."

Really ? Then you must not be watching Fox News or listening to Republicans.

I think the official story is Bush destroyed the economy through all his "deregulation," King. However, I'm still awaiting word on the specific deregulating acts he committed and how they destroyed the economy but I think it was the Reverend who pointed out it was more the "spirit" of deregulation Bush instituted more than anything that could be specifically identified.

this from yahoo news…..By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.

"As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy."

Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit."

Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."

you gotta wonder why republican Orrin Hatch didn't join his fellow republican King in pointing out it came in under budget?

King sez….."I see Rev and Walter intentionally misread my statement about Medicare Part D as an endorsement of that program."

no, I was just pointing out how stupid it was to say…." I guess Part D is too efficient, too free-markety."

King sez……"Then you must not be listening to Republicans." I was listening to republicans….it was you that were worried about insurance companies getting screwed.

this is what John Stossel from Fox endorsed…..

Universal coverage, multiple layers of protection

We have evolved a mixed financing system, with multiple tiers of protection to ensure that no Singaporean is denied access to basic healthcare because of affordability issues.

The first tier of protection is provided by heavy Government subsidies of up to 80% of the total bill in acute public hospital wards, which all Singaporeans can access. The second tier of protection is provided by Medisave, a compulsory individual medical savings account scheme which allows practically all Singaporeans to pay for their share of medical treatment without financial difficulty. Working Singaporeans and their employers contribute a part of the monthly wages into the account to save up for their future medical needs and this is portable across jobs and after retirement. As at Dec 2008, the average Singaporean had S$14,900 (approximately US$10,000) in his/her Medisave account. This is sufficient to pay for about 10-12 subsidised acute hospitalisation episodes (for illustration, the 50th percentile bill size for a subsidised CABG surgery and hip replacement surgery in the US is about US$1,850 and US$2,600 respectively. Click here for more information on bill sizes for patients in public hospitals)

The third level of protection is provided by MediShield, a low cost catastrophic medical insurance scheme. This allows Singaporeans to effectively risk-pool the financial risks of major illnesses. Individual responsibility for one’s healthcare needs is promoted through the features of deductibles and co-payment in MediShield. ElderShield, a severe disability insurance, is also available for subscription by Singaporeans to risk-pool against the financial risks of suffering a severe disability. Many middle and higher income Singaporeans have also supplemented their basic coverage with integrated private insurance policies (“Integrated Shield plans”) for treatment in the private sector. Singaporeans must subscribe to the basic MediShield product before they can purchase the add-on private Integrated Shield Plans. This industry structure preserves the national risk pool and guards against ‘cherry picking’ of healthy lives by private insurers. Similarly, “ElderShield Supplements” allow policyholders to enhance the disability benefits coverage offered by the basic ElderShield product.

Finally, Medifund is a medical endowment fund set up by the Government to act as the ultimate safety net for needy Singaporean patients who cannot afford to pay their medical bills despite heavy subsidies, Medisave and MediShield."

King, as John Stossel points out it works.

" Gloating from a guy that has been a beneficiary of socialized medicine ( VA and Medicare) his entire adult life. Nice."

Walter, how old is one when he becomes an adult? Is serving in the military because the law says one must considered being on the public dole?

I turned 21 at the end of 1953 and was in the Army less than a year later. I guess you call that being on the public dole. I went on Medicare in 1997 when Blue Cross threw me there because of my age. I finally went to VA medical for meds only in 2001 because my pharmacist told me that I should do so because as soon as he retired he would do that for all his meds. It did save me about $40 per month. I just went off VA meds because they won't provide my more expensive meds so I finally went to Part D. I will get to pay a 36% fine to Medicare for not going on when it was made available.

I guess since I became an adult at 65, according to Walter I am just as cheap as anyone else who takes from the federal government.

Have you noticed any of the differences in the Senate bill and the House bill? Which one do you think will be the one that our Congress selects? I don't think there will be a conference committee since the bills are so vastly different. I think that Nasty Nancy will go along with Dirty Harry's version and twist arms till she gets enough votes for approval of Dirty Harry's work.

I say that they have to have something in order to get the groundwork set for later establishment of single payer and Harry's will be more palatable to more people. Something has to be done as soon as possible to please the President and to get 'er done soon enough for enough people to forget by November.

there you go again roybot…….who said anything about being on the public dole.

as far as your single payer comment….as jeff and John Stossel point out….it works

larry,
That's pretty much the standard response I get when I ask Dems how Bush destroyed the economy. They say "deregulation" without pointing out any deregulation that Bush enacted. As I remember it, Bush only promoted regulation, as with Fannie Mae. Dems were against that. The main thing I find fault with Bush about is that he didn't reverse some of the bad policy that was implemented before he became President, even though Dems would have excoriated him if he had.

walter,
Can you provide a link to that Stossel article ? I'd like to read the whole thing.

And when did I say I was worried about insurance companies getting screwed ? I think you're making things up again.

I'm also sorry that Medicare Part D came in under budget, but it did. That's a fact. Again, that doesn't mean I supported that new unfunded liability. I didn't, no matter how hard you try to mislead. If it had been funded, I might have had a different opinion.

King is back and Jeff is gone……..coincidence? Ask "Jeff" for the whole article

King sez….."The last one was Bush's Medicare Part D, which the Democrats hate and want to kill. Any questions ? I guess Part D is too efficient, too free-markety." If you didn't endorse Part B because it was too efficient, too free-markety why would you make fun of democrats for not endorsing it?

Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost.

so "pure giveaways" are good if they are funded? Only from King

Your onto me, walt. Actually, every poster here is me, except for you. It's a conspiracy.

I make fun of Democrats for not endorsing Part D because the Dems party platform is "pure giveaways." That's' what they do. Then they object when Bush does it, and they objected because THE GOVERNMENT COULDN"T NEGOTIATE DRUG PRICES (as I said, too free-markety). It's called hypocrisy. Simple, really, but keep spinning if you wish.

so you think that contracts that the government puts out there should be all no-bid?

Only from King

No, I think birds should be allowed to fly and build nests in trees.

What are you talking about now ?

what is part D other than a no bid contract?

It's a voluntary insurance plan with various benefits, options, and subsidies, like numerous other prescription drug insurance plans.

I'm not following how you turn voluntary insurance into a no-bid contract.

King sez…."THE GOVERNMENT COULDN"T NEGOTIATE DRUG PRICES"

then sez….." I'm not following how you turn voluntary insurance into a no-bid contract."

duh

So, you don't know either. That's what I figured.