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.
Here is another intereting link. Unintended consequences of extending best pricing to Medicare part D would be to increase the prices manufacturers would charge to VA and other current best pricing classes.
All one needs to know about health care US style, at present, is that we pay more than any other industrialized (if we still meet that criteria) country, and are less satisfied with our current system than are respondents in any other industrialized country.
"All one needs to know" about other industrialized countries is that their drinks are served to them lukewarm. No ice. And they're "satisfied" with that.
This was produced by them Dems and is not reliable. I can tell you that the reimbursement in NJ by Medicaid prior to Med D was AWP-12.5% plus a fee. The reimbursement under Med D is far less.
This data is somewhat old but there is no reason to believe it has changed much.
Why must it not be reliable if produced by "them dems". So basically you will not accept any information of anyone who does not already agree with you? Then why solicit other opposing views?
"All one needs to know" about other industrialized countries is that their drinks are served to them lukewarm. No ice. And they're "satisfied" with that.
Nuff said.
.
That's nice to know. Nothing to do with the subject, but good to know.
Why must it not be reliable if produced by "them dems". So basically you will not accept any information of anyone who does not already agree with you? Then why solicit other opposing views?
I think it is biased, I think it adds to the argument but is not definitive. I wouldn't offer a minority report (Republican) as support for my position because it is biased. I think the most persuasive support for any argument is a publication that is associated with the oppositions point of view. i.e. National Review supporting Universal Health Care (hypothetical, it has not happened) would be very persuasive to a conservative. Absent that an impartial source, cbo for example would be persuasive. But using say, the Huffington Post to support a criticism of Bush wouldn't be very persuasive.
Why must it not be reliable if produced by "them dems". So basically you will not accept any information of anyone who does not already agree with you? Then why solicit other opposing views?
Oh by the way thank you for pointing out my type o, should read "the Dems".
That was produced by the Republicans and therefore not reliable.
Aw, come on and admit that some things said by Republicans are true. I am not ready to pay excess taxes to pay for that kind of health care. Although I am retired and have been for some time my wife is still employed and we get to pay on 85% of my SS checks. What the hay, I paid income taxes on all that money for years and now get to pay again.
[quote=roysoldboy;8858735]Aw, come on and admit that some things said by Republicans are true.
I will admit that if you will admit that somethings said by Dems are true.
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.
