The $720 Billion Medicare Plan D -a history you've heard before

[underpants]

AS I heard this mentioned on news shows last night I noticed that the agreed upon story was about how confusing it was. No mention was made of the lies and cover-up in the selling of the plan. It's like there is a trend or something......

The executive summary- Everyone wanted to say they did a drug bill. Insurance and Big Pharma had one ready to go. Congress said it couldn't "cost" more than $400 Billion, the White House Wal-marted the price down to $395. Richard Foster said he figured it would cost about $550. His boss, a Bush appointee, told him to keep quiet about or he would lose his job-if he DID keep quiet his boss offered to get him his dream job at OMB. Foster didn't speak until after the bill passed and was signed.


Washinton Post leads off Sept.11, 2004-from during the campaign
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12758-2004Sep10.html

The Medicare prescription drug benefit has given Bush some political ammunition on an issue that voters tend to identify with Democrats. But many senior citizens have expressed confusion about the new plan, which the administration has spent millions explaining and promoting.

Kerry's assertion of illegal behavior has not been proved in court. Federal investigators, in a legal opinion, said this week that the Bush administration withheld information on the law, and they have proposed that the former head of the Medicare agency, Thomas A. Scully, should repay seven months' salary as a penalty.

The investigators found that Scully had pressured a government actuary, Richard Foster, not to disclose his cost estimates of the drug bill. Lawmakers in both parties have said the bill might not have passed if Foster's information had been known.

Bush administration officials have said they do not intend to enforce the proposed penalty. They have said Scully acted within his legal authority and have argued that it is unconstitutional for Congress to force the executive branch to disclose information.

Forbes has more detail-March 12, 2004 Wonder why Kerry had to bring this up 6 months later?
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/03/12/rtr1297339.html

WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) - Top Democrats said on Friday Congress should reconsider its approval of the Medicare prescription drug bill in response to a published report that a federal expert was threatened with dismissal if he had disclosed how much it might really cost.

Knight Ridder reported that the government's top expert on Medicare costs, Richard Foster, was warned he would be fired if he told lawmakers about Bush administration cost estimates that could have doomed the measure as too expensive.

In the midst of congressional debate on the measure in November, the administration embraced an estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. The legislation squeaked by in the House of Representatives, and had an easier time winning Senate passage.

But five months earlier, according to Knight Ridder, Foster had estimated that a similar plan the Senate was considering would cost $551 billion over 10 years.


In January, a month after Bush signed it into law, administration disclosed the prescription drug benefit was expected to actually cost $534 billion, triggering a furor.

[indepat]

1. What would an administration pressuring lies about costs not lie about?

[izzie]

2. I my self need pills after trying to figure it out.

I think I will just stay with Maine RPlus and now some one said I can not do that. So to hell with it all. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[underpants]

3. Oh it is really simple

you pay your copay and the deductible and then Medicare pays 75% up $2,2500 then you pay ALL expenses until you get to $5,101 then Medicare will pay 95%*

*if your doctor takes the Medicare plan provider you pick**
** if your pharmacy takes that Medicare provider plan***
*** if your drugs are covered by that Medicare provider plan****
**** they can change your policy every 60 days but rest assured you are LOCKED IN for a year*****
***** Competition is the capitalist way you do love America right? You ain't one of them old Communist Soviets is you???? ******
****** there will plenty of money for those who are raking in the bucks on this to pay off the people who voted this into law*******
******* Still Love 'Murka??? Don't think we ain't watching to see if you go running off to Canada or sump'tin.

[zann725]

5. That's NOT the way I read it. For those Disabled...on SSDI...

whose income often puts them JUST about $1,000 annually above ALL "poverty level" benefits (including private drug co. "access" programs), AND any REAL Medicare Drug Discount (both NOW...AND in 2006). For most of those on SSDI, they are currently paying about 85% of RETAIL prices on Drugs. On NEW 2006 plan, most SSDI recipients FIRST have to pay the first $3,500 in drugs, BEFORE their "catatrosphic" discounts BEGIN.

I've read EVERYTHING I can (including Social Security's booklet, AND personally talked to several Pharmaceutical "access" programs for drug discounts for those in need, and if you're in the "Single", average SSDI income level, you fall approx. $1,000 annually above THEIR poverty line, and therefore are disqualified for any true benefits.

For a lot of people (Elderly AND Disabled), these groups WILL be "cutting their pills in half" in their MINDS only.

[underpants]

7. I know I know

I was just kidding.

There was a great cartoon last week showing people in 1993 looking at Hillary's national plan and saying it was too confusing and then the same people today buried in HMO plans.

Odd huh?

[flpoljunkie]

4. Concord Coaliton says 75% of seniors already have drug plans, so why did

the Republicans force this giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies?

The answer, is of course, in the question--giveaway to the drug companies.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/facing-facts/alert_v9_n4.html

To judge by the breadth of congressional support for a universal drug benefit, you might suppose there was a universal need. But this is not the case.

Today, in fact, fully three-quarters of the elderly already have prescription drug coverage. About half have coverage through employer retiree health plans or through other federal and state programs, mainly Medicaid. Another one-quarter have coverage through Medicare HMOs or private Medigap policies. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 70 percent of Medicare beneficiaries spend less than $1,000 out of pocket each year on prescription drugs; less than 5 percent spend more than $5,000.

Yes, there are people in genuine need. Some elders have serious medical conditions, require expensive drugs, and have poor insurance coverage or no insurance coverage. If they live on limited incomes, they face economic ruin. These are the horror stories we hear about in congressional testimony. With drug costs rising faster than incomes, we are going to be hearing more of them in the years to come.

The genuinely needy could be helped at a fraction of the cost of the universal entitlement that Congress is now debating. But apparently, Congress’ goal is to do something for most seniors, not to help those seniors who are most in need. Or, as House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas describes it, the purpose is “to put the money where the people are.”

[Al-CIAda]

6. The corporatists made it illegal to negotiate with Big Pharma.

Documented bribery, threats and blackmail committed on the floor of congress.

Welcome to fascism.