Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Medicare Part D, sponsored by Republicans, subsidizes prescription medication costs for Medicare recipients. It became law in 2003 ( in time for the 2004 campaign) and was implemented in 2006, just 4 years before the oldest boomers began turning 65 to the tune of 10,000 people a day.
No Medicare beneficiary paid into this new perk and Payroll taxes were not increased to offset the cost. It was and remains all deficit spending.
It's a tad fascinating how candidates for president promise and vow all sorts of things as if they are dictators capable of autonomous action. Allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription medications was and remains a non -starter with Congress and crosses political lines. There isn't enough pork to get it done. No one knows this better than Obama.
Why hasn't the tea party advocated for negotiating prices, given it would make a serious dent in deficit spending?
Your point, while true, is not applicable. The point is that the Affordable Care Act could have included legislation allowing for prescription drug price negotiations...
There is any number of things that the ACA could have (and, in my opinion, should have) corrected. Biut politics is the art of what's possible. Saying that the ACA "doesn't allow" something when in fact it's the GWB-era act that doesn't allow it and the ACA simply doesn't address it - it's not technically a lie, but it's not what I'd call particularly truthful, either.
There is any number of things that the ACA could have (and, in my opinion, should have) corrected. Biut politics is the art of what's possible. Saying that the ACA "doesn't allow" something when in fact it's the GWB-era act that doesn't allow it and the ACA simply doesn't address it - it's not technically a lie, but it's not what I'd call particularly truthful, either.
Actually, legislation to allow price negotiation was put forth and Democrats....propelled by Big Pharma and Barack Obama......did not allow the legislation to be considered. We're not talking about an abstract or a wish or hindsight 20/20 here Dane. We're talking about a real possibility, as put forth by proposed legislation, and it was purposefully denied by Democrats.
Medicare Part D, sponsored by Republicans, subsidizes prescription medication costs for Medicare recipients. It became law in 2003 ( in time for the 2004 campaign) and was implemented in 2006, just 4 years before the oldest boomers began turning 65 to the tune of 10,000 people a day.
No Medicare beneficiary paid into this new perk and Payroll taxes were not increased to offset the cost. It was and remains all deficit spending.
It's a tad fascinating how candidates for president promise and vow all sorts of things as if they are dictators capable of autonomous action. Allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription medications was and remains a non -starter with Congress and crosses political lines. There isn't enough pork to get it done. No one knows this better than Obama.
Why hasn't the tea party advocated for negotiating prices, given it would make a serious dent in deficit spending?
Personally, I think it's something that House Republicans should put forth. Since Democrats railed against the "no negotiation" provision under GWB, it would seem that Democrats in the Senate would vote for such a proposal now, right? We'll never know until the proposal is passed in the House, but it would make for one hell of a problem for Barack Obama if it made it to his desk.
There were many disappointments in the ACA surrounding drug-makers. First, reformers didn’t get the ability for Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices, which would have lowered rates dramatically. Nor did reformers succeed in legalizing re-importation of drugs, which would have allowed American consumers to legally purchase drugs at Canadian prices, which are much lower than their American counterparts.
However, in return for keeping these lucrative preserves, the drug industry agreed not to oppose health reform, which kept tens of millions of dollars in negative ads off the air. And big pharma also agreed to two major financial concessions. One involved giving senior citizens on Medicare Part D 50 percent discounts on branded drugs in the “doughnut hole,” which will result in billions of direct consumer savings. Second, drug manufacturers provide roughly $2.8 billion a year (which, alas, is not indexed to inflation) in direct payments to the government, divided among companies by market share.
There were many disappointments in the ACA surrounding drug-makers. First, reformers didn’t get the ability for Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices, which would have lowered rates dramatically. Nor did reformers succeed in legalizing re-importation of drugs, which would have allowed American consumers to legally purchase drugs at Canadian prices, which are much lower than their American counterparts.
However, in return for keeping these lucrative preserves, the drug industry agreed not to oppose health reform, which kept tens of millions of dollars in negative ads off the air. And big pharma also agreed to two major financial concessions. One involved giving senior citizens on Medicare Part D 50 percent discounts on branded drugs in the “doughnut hole,” which will result in billions of direct consumer savings. Second, drug manufacturers provide roughly $2.8 billion a year (which, alas, is not indexed to inflation) in direct payments to the government, divided among companies by market share.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that non-negotiation of prices....and prohibiting re-importation....was actually a good thing that came from Obamacare?
Medicare Part D, sponsored by Republicans, subsidizes prescription medication costs for Medicare recipients. It became law in 2003 ( in time for the 2004 campaign) and was implemented in 2006, just 4 years before the oldest boomers began turning 65 to the tune of 10,000 people a day.
No Medicare beneficiary paid into this new perk and Payroll taxes were not increased to offset the cost. It was and remains all deficit spending.
It's a tad fascinating how candidates for president promise and vow all sorts of things as if they are dictators capable of autonomous action. Allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription medications was and remains a non -starter with Congress and crosses political lines. There isn't enough pork to get it done. No one knows this better than Obama.
Why hasn't the tea party advocated for negotiating prices, given it would make a serious dent in deficit spending?
You're kidding right ?
The Dems had the majority in 2009 and this deal was made directly by the WH.
You didn't vote a Tea Party candidate into the WH.
So are you asking why the Tea Party didn't stop the Dems from making a back room deal ?
There were many disappointments in the ACA surrounding drug-makers. First, reformers didn’t get the ability for Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices, which would have lowered rates dramatically. Nor did reformers succeed in legalizing re-importation of drugs, which would have allowed American consumers to legally purchase drugs at Canadian prices, which are much lower than their American counterparts.
However, in return for keeping these lucrative preserves, the drug industry agreed not to oppose health reform, which kept tens of millions of dollars in negative ads off the air. And big pharma also agreed to two major financial concessions. One involved giving senior citizens on Medicare Part D 50 percent discounts on branded drugs in the “doughnut hole,” which will result in billions of direct consumer savings. Second, drug manufacturers provide roughly $2.8 billion a year (which, alas, is not indexed to inflation) in direct payments to the government, divided among companies by market share.
There were many disappointments in the ACA surrounding drug-makers. First, reformers didn’t get the ability for Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices, which would have lowered rates dramatically. Nor did reformers succeed in legalizing re-importation of drugs, which would have allowed American consumers to legally purchase drugs at Canadian prices, which are much lower than their American counterparts.
However, in return for keeping these lucrative preserves, the drug industry agreed not to oppose health reform, which kept tens of millions of dollars in negative ads off the air. And big pharma also agreed to two major financial concessions. One involved giving senior citizens on Medicare Part D 50 percent discounts on branded drugs in the “doughnut hole,” which will result in billions of direct consumer savings. Second, drug manufacturers provide roughly $2.8 billion a year (which, alas, is not indexed to inflation) in direct payments to the government, divided among companies by market share.
Your point, while true, is not applicable. The point is that the Affordable Care Act could have included legislation allowing for prescription drug price negotiations for Medicaid reimbursements (remember, it was expanded and thus more costly to taxpayers), and it did not. It could have also rewrote the Medicare Part D prohibition, and it did not. I do agree with your criticism of both parties.
(Dane, I expect better from you.)
Your original post was, charitably put, misleading. You clearly imply that the government is not allowed to negotiate prices for drugs in Obamacare leaving the impression that Obamacare is a government insurance program. It is not, of course. There are a good number of people out there that subscribe to the notion that Obamacare is a government takeover of medicine and you may be among them (I don't think so thoug; I think you are just opposed to anything that has Obama's fingerprints on it). I wanted to make the distinction clear. Medicare = government = no negotiation. Obamacare = private sector insurance = negotiation possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
