Larry Taking Some Heat

Submitted by Illicitizen on Fri, 11/27/2009 - 12:49pm

Here it is.
I just don't buy the Medicare excuse.

Share on Facebook

nm

Submitted by Illicitizen on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 1:51pm.

x

Kissell is using republican "talking points"

Submitted by Foxtrot (not verified) on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 2:17pm.

Is it not just so nice to hear Kissell say that he is "in favor of health care reform"? 'Scuse me for perusing some of the more notable rightie websites and blogs (no, I try hard not to contribute, but alas, it is hard), but this statement is right out of their "talking points". Oh, I see, unless everything is perfect and all provisions acceptable to just everyone, everywhere, about everything..well then, let us just trash the effort.

Geezzz, y'all. Everyone wants to help make health care in the U.S. more available to everyone and everyone wants it to be affordable. But, there is something in this or that bill that I just do not like so, let's just put it all on the back burner.

I just do not get it. I want the public option big time. The repubs say that will eventually mean government takeover of 18% of the U.S. GDP so no way. I want to put restrictions on insurance companies with regard to their policies of rejecting pre-existing conditions and taking away coverage if you get sick. The republicans say that is too much government involvement in the private sector so no way. On and on.

It is easy to say that you believe that health care reform is needed. Guess it is difficult to do anything about it unless your own party is the entity that is trying to get it done or that you believe you will not get elected if you do not cowtow to the right.

Sorry for the rant. I have to get out of the house, y'all !!!!!!!!!!!!

Republican'ts had 8 years to do reform

Submitted by loftT on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 2:18pm.

All they did was pass the biggest F-ing entitlement program EVER Medicare part D.

Progressives are the true conservatives.

Medicare part D

Submitted by Foxtrot (not verified) on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 2:31pm.

That is not such a bad plan, though. Yes, there are some arguments against it from naysayers (few I have seen are legitimate, though), but a lot of my friends that are on it say it does help them. I think it depends on the number/amount of prescription drugs you have to take. Everything is relative, isn't it?

I think what you are saying is that it is absurd for the repugs to be all uppity about costs of government involvement in health care when this program was passed and pushed during their watch.

It's a bad plan

Submitted by loftT on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 2:59pm.

because it costs so much (sweetheart deal for insurance and big pharma) and has that donut hole. Otherwise, I'm pointing out that it's THE BIGGEST ENTITLEMENT in 40 years and the R's passed it. Stress point:THE BIGGEST ENTITLEMENT in 40 years and the R's passed it

So, who's the Socialist now?

Progressives are the true conservatives.

EXACTLY

Submitted by Foxtrot (not verified) on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 3:00pm.

Thanks, LoftT

Part D, as legislated, prohibited Medicare from negotiating

Submitted by Stan on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 3:25pm.

drug prices...as, for example, the VA does. Not only was this a costly program but it also lines Pharma's pockets. The Repugs did big Pharma a huge favor...or payback, as the case might be argued. As I recall from a report a few years ago the VA could provide a veteran a years supply of lipitor for the same $$ it would cost J Public for a one month supply at the local drug store...as an example. @$140 for a year versus @$1200 for the rest of the public.

Anyone who needs expensive drugs needs to look outside our borders. Same drugs way less expensive...unless mf'd exclusively in the US...as best I can tell.

Stan Bozarth

Good reporting

Submitted by Foxtrot (not verified) on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 3:29pm.

Hopefully the answer will not be taking away the benefit of the VA recipients have in prescription drugs.

I see what you are saying and you do have an extremely good point. I know that the average citizen is not looked at in the same way a war vet is looked at here. But, I think you are saying if the VA recipients have this, others should also. Is that it?

Yes. That's what I'm saying.

Submitted by Stan on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 3:51pm.

Why shouldn't Medicare be able to negotiate drug prices...is the question. I certainly don't want to take away Veterans benefits.

Many people aren't aware of the staggering cost of prescription drugs. Those who are aware usually have a chronic disease that requires medication for, perhaps, their entire life.

I'm not going to detail it but my wife has a rare and chronic blood disease. The cost of her meds exceed $1000/month....US retail. She's not eligible for Medicare. I don't care what they cost...because with them she can live a normal (whatever that is) life.

Stan Bozarth

TOTALLY agree

Submitted by Foxtrot (not verified) on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 4:00pm.

And, this is an example of why the "public option" absolutely MUST be passed.

Thanks.

If Larry's vote was knee-jerk

Submitted by loftT on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 2:12pm.

because the words "cut" and "Medicare" were found somewhere in 1990 pages of the House bill...maybe he should look at what he voted against...

from your link:

But Tricia Neuman, director of Medicare policy for the non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation, says it's not so black-and-white. Many cuts, for example, would come in reducing what some say are overpayments to private insurers who offer Medicare Advantage plans.

"There are no explicit reductions in benefits for people on Medicare," says Neuman, adding, "There are real improvements in Medicare benefits that are part of this package."

Progressives are the true conservatives.