| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"grinder" |
| Date: |
22 Jun 2006 01:48:41 PM |
| Object: |
Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
Junior lied to Seniors (after all why should they be exempt) resulting in
drug companies cashing in at the expense of Seniors.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/big-dollars-little-sense.html
1) Virtually all of the Part D plans raised their prices for the majority of
the top 20 drugs in this study. From November 2005 to April 2006, the median
price increase among Part D plans for the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors
was 3.7 percent. 2) For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, VA
prices (allowed to negotiate prices) in April were lower than the lowest
prices charged by Part D plans (not allowed to negotiate prices). The median
price difference was 46 percent. In other words, for half of the 20 drugs,
the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was at least 46 percent higher
than the lowest price secured by the V A.
.
|
|
| User: "Titix" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 04:46:20 PM |
|
|
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up again
after the election.
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:dCBmg.10296$o4.5295@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Junior lied to Seniors (after all why should they be exempt) resulting in
drug companies cashing in at the expense of Seniors.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/big-dollars-little-sense.html
1) Virtually all of the Part D plans raised their prices for the majority
of
the top 20 drugs in this study. From November 2005 to April 2006, the
median
price increase among Part D plans for the top 20 drugs prescribed to
seniors
was 3.7 percent. 2) For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, VA
prices (allowed to negotiate prices) in April were lower than the lowest
prices charged by Part D plans (not allowed to negotiate prices). The
median
price difference was 46 percent. In other words, for half of the 20 drugs,
the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was at least 46 percent higher
than the lowest price secured by the V A.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 05:04:04 PM |
|
|
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Titix" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 06:50:26 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ntEmg.73013$qd2.10632@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Social Security is not a money for investment. It's an insurance that
seniors will have some money for
retirement.Enough of these privatization with other people's money. We've
seen what investment on
these companies do to peoples retirement money. Does Enron ring the bell?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 07:58:43 PM |
|
|
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:61Gmg.27174$VE1.16503@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ntEmg.73013$qd2.10632@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Social Security is not a money for investment. It's an insurance that
seniors will have some money for
retirement.Enough of these privatization with other people's money. We've
seen what investment on
these companies do to peoples retirement money. Does Enron ring the bell?
You failed to answer both questions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Titix" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 09:54:58 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:MZGmg.5123$w84.4882@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:61Gmg.27174$VE1.16503@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ntEmg.73013$qd2.10632@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for
the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to
confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do
away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a
good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up
again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Social Security is not a money for investment. It's an insurance that
seniors will have some money for
retirement.Enough of these privatization with other people's money.
We've
seen what investment on
these companies do to peoples retirement money. Does Enron ring the
bell?
You failed to answer both questions.
I don't want any of my S.S. money privatized. Like I said above it is not
for
profit making. It's an insurance. Does that answer your question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
23 Jun 2006 07:35:56 AM |
|
|
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:6KImg.49024$fb2.44664@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:MZGmg.5123$w84.4882@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:61Gmg.27174$VE1.16503@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ntEmg.73013$qd2.10632@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for
the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to
confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do
away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a
good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up
again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Social Security is not a money for investment. It's an insurance that
seniors will have some money for
retirement.Enough of these privatization with other people's money.
We've
seen what investment on
these companies do to peoples retirement money. Does Enron ring the
bell?
You failed to answer both questions.
I don't want any of my S.S. money privatized. Like I said above it is not
for
profit making. It's an insurance. Does that answer your question?
No. Shall I repeat the questions, or would
you rather just scroll up a bit?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 09:44:11 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:61Gmg.27174$VE1.16503@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ntEmg.73013$qd2.10632@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D
for the benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to
confused them. Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do
away with it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us
a good screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up
again after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Social Security is not a money for investment. It's an insurance that
seniors will have some money for
retirement.Enough of these privatization with other people's money.
We've seen what investment on
these companies do to peoples retirement money. Does Enron ring the
bell?
You failed to answer both questions.
The bush,jr stock market has backed and filled for five anf a half years and
counting.
Your privatized Republican ripoff would not have gained one nickel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
23 Jun 2006 07:34:24 AM |
|
|
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QzImg.98449$QU3.66375@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:61Gmg.27174$VE1.16503@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ntEmg.73013$qd2.10632@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D
for the benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to
confused them. Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do
away with it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us
a good screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up
again after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Social Security is not a money for investment. It's an insurance that
seniors will have some money for
retirement.Enough of these privatization with other people's money.
We've seen what investment on
these companies do to peoples retirement money. Does Enron ring the
bell?
You failed to answer both questions.
The bush,jr stock market has backed and filled for five anf a half years and
counting.
Your privatized Republican ripoff would not have gained one nickel
You also failed to answer the questions. Instead
you choose to go off on some leftist rant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "d2e2" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 07:03:25 PM |
|
|
Titix wrote:
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:ntEmg.73013$qd2.10632@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Social Security is not a money for investment. It's an insurance that
seniors will have some money for
retirement.Enough of these privatization with other people's money. We've
seen what investment on
these companies do to peoples retirement money. Does Enron ring the bell?
Does Delta pensions ring a bell?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "d2e2" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 07:02:27 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Because I know that the free market system cannot function if it is too
tightly regulated and realize that unless it is very tightly regulated
those operating corporations will find away to avoid paying my heirs,
the question seems rediculous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
23 Jun 2006 07:38:31 AM |
|
|
"d2e2" <d2e2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2THmg.28790$EX2.25166@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Would you deny others the option of
spending and investing their own money?
In other words, would you support people
making their own choice. You can let the
government invest your money, and I will
invest my money.
Because I know that the free market system cannot function if it is too
tightly regulated and realize that unless it is very tightly regulated those
operating corporations will find away to avoid paying my heirs, the question
seems rediculous.
How well has the government done in
"investing" your money?
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
23 Jun 2006 10:02:51 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:3hRmg.77549$qd2.6563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"d2e2" <d2e2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2THmg.28790$EX2.25166@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a
good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up
again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Would you deny others the option of
spending and investing their own money?
In other words, would you support people
making their own choice. You can let the
government invest your money, and I will
invest my money.
Problem is not everybody is the investing guru you are. I bet the retirees
at Enron are glad as hell they have SS to fall back on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
23 Jun 2006 10:18:35 AM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:voTmg.1240$ii.712@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:3hRmg.77549$qd2.6563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"d2e2" <d2e2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2THmg.28790$EX2.25166@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Would you deny others the option of
spending and investing their own money?
In other words, would you support people
making their own choice. You can let the
government invest your money, and I will
invest my money.
Problem is not everybody is the investing guru you are.
You don't have to be an investing guru
to beat government SS returns. The
current plan gives my children nothing
from all my SS investments. The partial
privatizing plan would provide my
children with whatever I had left. Isn't
it a good idea to help our children?
I bet the retirees at Enron are glad as hell they have SS to fall back on.
My understanding of the plan would not
allow investments in a single stock. Is that
incorrect?
The problem is I am denied that choice. Why
do you support that denial?
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
23 Jun 2006 03:10:50 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:gDTmg.98619$QU3.26954@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:voTmg.1240$ii.712@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:3hRmg.77549$qd2.6563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"d2e2" <d2e2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2THmg.28790$EX2.25166@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for
the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to
confused them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do
away with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a
good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up
again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Would you deny others the option of
spending and investing their own money?
In other words, would you support people
making their own choice. You can let the
government invest your money, and I will
invest my money.
Problem is not everybody is the investing guru you are.
You don't have to be an investing guru
to beat government SS returns. The
current plan gives my children nothing
from all my SS investments. The partial
privatizing plan would provide my
children with whatever I had left. Isn't
it a good idea to help our children?
I bet the retirees at Enron are glad as hell they have SS to fall back
on.
My understanding of the plan would not
allow investments in a single stock. Is that
incorrect?
The problem is I am denied that choice. Why
do you support that denial?
You are not denied that choice. Invest in whatever you want.
I guess this needs stating again.
SS is not an investment program.
It is an insurance program.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
23 Jun 2006 04:04:44 PM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:eVXmg.1337$ii.1332@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:gDTmg.98619$QU3.26954@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:voTmg.1240$ii.712@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:3hRmg.77549$qd2.6563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"d2e2" <d2e2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2THmg.28790$EX2.25166@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Would you deny others the option of
spending and investing their own money?
In other words, would you support people
making their own choice. You can let the
government invest your money, and I will
invest my money.
Problem is not everybody is the investing guru you are.
You don't have to be an investing guru
to beat government SS returns. The
current plan gives my children nothing
from all my SS investments. The partial
privatizing plan would provide my
children with whatever I had left. Isn't
it a good idea to help our children?
I bet the retirees at Enron are glad as hell they have SS to fall back on.
My understanding of the plan would not
allow investments in a single stock. Is that
incorrect?
The problem is I am denied that choice. Why
do you support that denial?
You are not denied that choice. Invest in whatever you want.
How much of my SS tax am I allowed
to invest myself? Let's try and stay on
point.
I guess this needs stating again.
SS is not an investment program.
It is an insurance program.
Why do you deny people the choice
of how they handle a small part of
their SS taxes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Titix" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
24 Jun 2006 01:23:25 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:FHYmg.23860$gv2.13788@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:eVXmg.1337$ii.1332@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:gDTmg.98619$QU3.26954@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:voTmg.1240$ii.712@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:3hRmg.77549$qd2.6563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"d2e2" <d2e2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2THmg.28790$EX2.25166@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D
for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to
confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do
away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in
other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us
a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up
again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Would you deny others the option of
spending and investing their own money?
In other words, would you support people
making their own choice. You can let the
government invest your money, and I will
invest my money.
Problem is not everybody is the investing guru you are.
You don't have to be an investing guru
to beat government SS returns. The
current plan gives my children nothing
from all my SS investments. The partial
privatizing plan would provide my
children with whatever I had left. Isn't
it a good idea to help our children?
I bet the retirees at Enron are glad as hell they have SS to fall
back on.
My understanding of the plan would not
allow investments in a single stock. Is that
incorrect?
The problem is I am denied that choice. Why
do you support that denial?
You are not denied that choice. Invest in whatever you want.
How much of my SS tax am I allowed
to invest myself? Let's try and stay on
point.
I guess this needs stating again.
SS is not an investment program.
It is an insurance program.
Why do you deny people the choice
of how they handle a small part of
their SS taxes?
No body is denying you if you want to invest any amount you can afford.
Out of SS is no, no. When you pay your car insurance you don't tell your
insurer that you want to take part of that money to gamble in stock market.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
24 Jun 2006 09:07:12 AM |
|
|
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:xT4ng.156237$F_3.24454@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:FHYmg.23860$gv2.13788@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:eVXmg.1337$ii.1332@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:gDTmg.98619$QU3.26954@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:voTmg.1240$ii.712@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:3hRmg.77549$qd2.6563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"d2e2" <d2e2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2THmg.28790$EX2.25166@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D
for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to
confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to do
away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in
other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give us
a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come up
again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Would you deny others the option of
spending and investing their own money?
In other words, would you support people
making their own choice. You can let the
government invest your money, and I will
invest my money.
Problem is not everybody is the investing guru you are.
You don't have to be an investing guru
to beat government SS returns. The
current plan gives my children nothing
from all my SS investments. The partial
privatizing plan would provide my
children with whatever I had left. Isn't
it a good idea to help our children?
I bet the retirees at Enron are glad as hell they have SS to fall
back on.
My understanding of the plan would not
allow investments in a single stock. Is that
incorrect?
The problem is I am denied that choice. Why
do you support that denial?
You are not denied that choice. Invest in whatever you want.
How much of my SS tax am I allowed
to invest myself? Let's try and stay on
point.
I guess this needs stating again.
SS is not an investment program.
It is an insurance program.
Why do you deny people the choice
of how they handle a small part of
their SS taxes?
No body is denying you if you want to invest any amount you can afford.
Strawman. That is not the issue.
Out of SS is no, no.
That is the issue. Now tell me, why do you
support denying me the option of investing
a small part of my SS taxes?
When you pay your car insurance you don't tell your
insurer that you want to take part of that money to gamble in stock market.
I have the option of lowering the coverage, and
investing the difference. I have no such option
with SS. Address the point please ... instead
of diverting into irrelevant issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Titix" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
24 Jun 2006 08:17:06 PM |
|
|
Bob, S.S. was created to protect older Americans, everybody contributes to
it. It's an insurance.
Yes, you can lower your coverage in a car ins. but S.S. is a set % of ones
paycheck, even though
it has upper ceiling (which I think should be abolished). if you want
to invest in stock market fine but it can not (and should not) come out of
SS. I know the Repubs
call it a socialist program, but it's a program that has proven itself,
without it we would have millions
in worst poverty not to mention millions more homeless, people that have
worked all their lives.
Socialist program or not, it has proven its worth. Now, the reason I don't
think we should not invest
part of SS is because that would certainly cause its collapse, and I believe
that's the intention of
the Republican party.
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:kKbng.24023$gv2.15606@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:xT4ng.156237$F_3.24454@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:FHYmg.23860$gv2.13788@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:eVXmg.1337$ii.1332@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:gDTmg.98619$QU3.26954@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:voTmg.1240$ii.712@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:3hRmg.77549$qd2.6563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"d2e2" <d2e2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2THmg.28790$EX2.25166@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D
for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to
confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to
do
away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in
other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give
us
a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come
up
again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Would you deny others the option of
spending and investing their own money?
In other words, would you support people
making their own choice. You can let the
government invest your money, and I will
invest my money.
Problem is not everybody is the investing guru you are.
You don't have to be an investing guru
to beat government SS returns. The
current plan gives my children nothing
from all my SS investments. The partial
privatizing plan would provide my
children with whatever I had left. Isn't
it a good idea to help our children?
I bet the retirees at Enron are glad as hell they have SS to fall
back on.
My understanding of the plan would not
allow investments in a single stock. Is that
incorrect?
The problem is I am denied that choice. Why
do you support that denial?
You are not denied that choice. Invest in whatever you want.
How much of my SS tax am I allowed
to invest myself? Let's try and stay on
point.
I guess this needs stating again.
SS is not an investment program.
It is an insurance program.
Why do you deny people the choice
of how they handle a small part of
their SS taxes?
No body is denying you if you want to invest any amount you can afford.
Strawman. That is not the issue.
Out of SS is no, no.
That is the issue. Now tell me, why do you
support denying me the option of investing
a small part of my SS taxes?
When you pay your car insurance you don't tell your
insurer that you want to take part of that money to gamble in stock
market.
I have the option of lowering the coverage, and
investing the difference. I have no such option
with SS. Address the point please ... instead
of diverting into irrelevant issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
25 Jun 2006 09:22:36 AM |
|
|
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:mulng.72659$4L1.51477@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Bob, S.S. was created to protect older Americans, everybody contributes to
it. It's an insurance.
I agree that's how it started.
Yes, you can lower your coverage in a car ins. but S.S. is a set % of ones
paycheck,
Agreed. However, why would you deny me
the option of taking part of that % and
investing it in something other than government
securities?
It would still be there to protect me, and
has a couple benefits. It would be worth
much more money, and I would be able
to pass it on to my children.
even though
it has upper ceiling (which I think should be abolished). if you want
to invest in stock market fine but it can not (and should not) come out of
SS. I know the Repubs
call it a socialist program,
It is a socialist program, but some socialist
programs can be good. That's not a rational
argument for not giving people the choice to
invest part of their SS in something other
than government securities.
but it's a program that has proven itself,
without it we would have millions
in worst poverty not to mention millions more homeless, people that have
worked all their lives.
Socialist program or not, it has proven its worth. Now, the reason I don't
think we should not invest
part of SS is because that would certainly cause its collapse, and I believe
that's the intention of
the Republican party.
I don't think it would collapse, and I doubt that
is the intention of the Republican party. I do know
that the Democratic party has no plan to fix the
current ponzi scheme called Social Security, and
the Dems are definately marching us slowly toward
Socialism/Communism. That is not good. Social
Security surpluses have been financing this joke
of a fiscal policy by both Democrats and Republicans,
and the day of reckoning will be here in a few years.
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:kKbng.24023$gv2.15606@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:xT4ng.156237$F_3.24454@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:FHYmg.23860$gv2.13788@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:eVXmg.1337$ii.1332@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:gDTmg.98619$QU3.26954@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:voTmg.1240$ii.712@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:3hRmg.77549$qd2.6563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"d2e2" <d2e2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2THmg.28790$EX2.25166@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Bob wrote:
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:McEmg.101703$H71.2177@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Everybody knew from the beginning that this prescription part D
for the
benefit of the drug companies
not seniors, that's the reason they made it so complicated to
confused
them.
Why do you think they
want to privatize Social Security? it's not to fix it, it's to
do
away
with
it, but before that the wall street
will make billions. It's things like this that make people in
other
countries call Americans dummies.
We allow the people that are supposed to represent us, to give
us
a good
screwing and we vote them
back in to give us some more. Look forward for the S.S. to come
up
again
after the election.
Do you prefer that you or your government
spend/invest your money? Would you rather leave
any "privatized" Social Security money to your
heirs, or leave them no "privatized" Social
Security money?
Yes I prefer that Government both spend and invest my money!
Would you deny others the option of
spending and investing their own money?
In other words, would you support people
making their own choice. You can let the
government invest your money, and I will
invest my money.
Problem is not everybody is the investing guru you are.
You don't have to be an investing guru
to beat government SS returns. The
current plan gives my children nothing
from all my SS investments. The partial
privatizing plan would provide my
children with whatever I had left. Isn't
it a good idea to help our children?
I bet the retirees at Enron are glad as hell they have SS to fall
back on.
My understanding of the plan would not
allow investments in a single stock. Is that
incorrect?
The problem is I am denied that choice. Why
do you support that denial?
You are not denied that choice. Invest in whatever you want.
How much of my SS tax am I allowed
to invest myself? Let's try and stay on
point.
I guess this needs stating again.
SS is not an investment program.
It is an insurance program.
Why do you deny people the choice
of how they handle a small part of
their SS taxes?
No body is denying you if you want to invest any amount you can afford.
Strawman. That is not the issue.
Out of SS is no, no.
That is the issue. Now tell me, why do you
support denying me the option of investing
a small part of my SS taxes?
When you pay your car insurance you don't tell your
insurer that you want to take part of that money to gamble in stock
market.
I have the option of lowering the coverage, and
investing the difference. I have no such option
with SS. Address the point please ... instead
of diverting into irrelevant issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
25 Jun 2006 10:55:57 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:w0xng.6612$Ud4.3866@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:mulng.72659$4L1.51477@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Bob, S.S. was created to protect older Americans, everybody contributes
to
it. It's an insurance.
I agree that's how it started.
It never changed.
Yes, you can lower your coverage in a car ins. but S.S. is a set % of
ones
paycheck,
Agreed. However, why would you deny me
the option of taking part of that % and
investing it in something other than government
securities?
It is an insurance policy. It is NOT an investment vehicle. Never has
been. Never will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
25 Jun 2006 11:06:58 AM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:hmyng.1068$NP4.544@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:w0xng.6612$Ud4.3866@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:mulng.72659$4L1.51477@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Bob, S.S. was created to protect older Americans, everybody contributes to
it. It's an insurance.
I agree that's how it started.
It never changed.
Yes, you can lower your coverage in a car ins. but S.S. is a set % of ones
paycheck,
Agreed. However, why would you deny me
the option of taking part of that % and
investing it in something other than government
securities?
It is an insurance policy. It is NOT an investment vehicle. Never has been.
Never will.
Why do you want to deny people the
freedom to choose how they want part
of their SS taxes handled?
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: SS IS AN INSURANCE PROGRAM!!! |
26 Jun 2006 10:05:51 AM |
|
|
It is NOT an investment vehicle.
Now let's all say it together.
SS is an insurance program.
SS is an insurance program.
SS is an insurance program.
SS is an insurance program.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starkiller©" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
25 Jun 2006 11:20:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:06:58 -0500, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:hmyng.1068$NP4.544@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:w0xng.6612$Ud4.3866@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:mulng.72659$4L1.51477@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Bob, S.S. was created to protect older Americans, everybody contributes to
it. It's an insurance.
I agree that's how it started.
It never changed.
Yes, you can lower your coverage in a car ins. but S.S. is a set % of ones
paycheck,
Agreed. However, why would you deny me
the option of taking part of that % and
investing it in something other than government
securities?
It is an insurance policy. It is NOT an investment vehicle. Never has been.
Never will.
Why do you want to deny people the
freedom to choose how they want part
of their SS taxes handled?
Liberals believe that average citizens are too stupid to know how to
manage their own money.
As my former employer, a hardcore leftist once said in regards to pay
raises: "Hell if I give these guys raises they wouldn't know what to
do with the money and besides, they'd all start calling in sick every
Friday since they'd have made beer money by Thursday."
Regards
Starkiller©
The Divas Revolution
http://www.divasrevolution.com/forums/
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
26 Jun 2006 10:07:52 AM |
|
|
"Starkiller©" <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8pdt92t85rb1hjj90lk84i3tnptqjebv7k@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:06:58 -0500, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:hmyng.1068$NP4.544@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:w0xng.6612$Ud4.3866@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Titix" <nospam@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:mulng.72659$4L1.51477@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Bob, S.S. was created to protect older Americans, everybody
contributes to
it. It's an insurance.
I agree that's how it started.
It never changed.
Yes, you can lower your coverage in a car ins. but S.S. is a set % of
ones
paycheck,
Agreed. However, why would you deny me
the option of taking part of that % and
investing it in something other than government
securities?
It is an insurance policy. It is NOT an investment vehicle. Never has
been.
Never will.
Why do you want to deny people the
freedom to choose how they want part
of their SS taxes handled?
Liberals believe that average citizens are too stupid to know how to
manage their own money.
And I have no idea why hoople-heads cannot wrap their mind around the fact
SS is an insurance program and not an investment vehicle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
28 Jun 2006 04:28:22 PM |
|
|
Gee, my prescriptions have gotten lower in price...across the board....
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:dCBmg.10296$o4.5295@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Junior lied to Seniors (after all why should they be exempt) resulting in
drug companies cashing in at the expense of Seniors.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/big-dollars-little-sense.html
1) Virtually all of the Part D plans raised their prices for the majority
of the top 20 drugs in this study. From November 2005 to April 2006, the
median price increase among Part D plans for the top 20 drugs prescribed
to seniors was 3.7 percent. 2) For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to
seniors, VA prices (allowed to negotiate prices) in April were lower than
the lowest prices charged by Part D plans (not allowed to negotiate
prices). The median price difference was 46 percent. In other words, for
half of the 20 drugs, the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was at
least 46 percent higher than the lowest price secured by the V A.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Feney" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 02:29:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Junior lied to Seniors (after all why should they be exempt) resulting in
drug companies cashing in at the expense of Seniors.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/big-dollars-little-sense.html
1) Virtually all of the Part D plans raised their prices for the majority of
the top 20 drugs in this study. From November 2005 to April 2006, the median
price increase among Part D plans for the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors
was 3.7 percent. 2) For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, VA
prices (allowed to negotiate prices) in April were lower than the lowest
prices charged by Part D plans (not allowed to negotiate prices). The median
price difference was 46 percent. In other words, for half of the 20 drugs,
the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was at least 46 percent higher
than the lowest price secured by the V A.
The plan performed exactly as designed. Big Pharma made Big Bucks.
It pays to be a Bush Backer. Huge ROI.
.
|
|
|
| User: "js" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 02:32:54 PM |
|
|
Chuck Feney wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Junior lied to Seniors (after all why should they be exempt) resulting in
drug companies cashing in at the expense of Seniors.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/big-dollars-little-sense.html
1) Virtually all of the Part D plans raised their prices for the majority of
the top 20 drugs in this study. From November 2005 to April 2006, the median
price increase among Part D plans for the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors
was 3.7 percent. 2) For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, VA
prices (allowed to negotiate prices) in April were lower than the lowest
prices charged by Part D plans (not allowed to negotiate prices). The median
price difference was 46 percent. In other words, for half of the 20 drugs,
the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was at least 46 percent higher
than the lowest price secured by the V A.
The plan performed exactly as designed. Big Pharma made Big Bucks.
It pays to be a Bush Backer. Huge ROI.
Doesn't anyone want to make an effort to answer three simple questions?
What did they compare
Was it the right comparison to make
Are seniors better or worse off?
js
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 03:16:16 PM |
|
|
"js" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151004774.428641.305640@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chuck Feney wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Junior lied to Seniors (after all why should they be exempt) resulting
in
drug companies cashing in at the expense of Seniors.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/big-dollars-little-sense.html
1) Virtually all of the Part D plans raised their prices for the
majority of
the top 20 drugs in this study. From November 2005 to April 2006, the
median
price increase among Part D plans for the top 20 drugs prescribed to
seniors
was 3.7 percent. 2) For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors,
VA
prices (allowed to negotiate prices) in April were lower than the lowest
prices charged by Part D plans (not allowed to negotiate prices). The
median
price difference was 46 percent. In other words, for half of the 20
drugs,
the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was at least 46 percent
higher
than the lowest price secured by the V A.
The plan performed exactly as designed. Big Pharma made Big Bucks.
It pays to be a Bush Backer. Huge ROI.
Doesn't anyone want to make an effort to answer three simple questions?
What did they compare
The top 20 most prescribed drugs.
Was it the right comparison to make
No. They should have compared drugs nobody uses.
Are seniors better or worse off?
Worse off.
js
.
|
|
|
| User: "Titix" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 04:56:19 PM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:kUCmg.10333$o4.9034@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"js" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151004774.428641.305640@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chuck Feney wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Junior lied to Seniors (after all why should they be exempt) resulting
in
drug companies cashing in at the expense of Seniors.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/big-dollars-littl
e-sense.html
1) Virtually all of the Part D plans raised their prices for the
majority of
the top 20 drugs in this study. From November 2005 to April 2006, the
median
price increase among Part D plans for the top 20 drugs prescribed to
seniors
was 3.7 percent. 2) For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors,
VA
prices (allowed to negotiate prices) in April were lower than the
lowest
prices charged by Part D plans (not allowed to negotiate prices). The
median
price difference was 46 percent. In other words, for half of the 20
drugs,
the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was at least 46 percent
higher
than the lowest price secured by the V A.
The plan performed exactly as designed. Big Pharma made Big Bucks.
It pays to be a Bush Backer. Huge ROI.
Doesn't anyone want to make an effort to answer three simple questions?
What did they compare
The top 20 most prescribed drugs.
Was it the right comparison to make
No. They should have compared drugs nobody uses.
Are seniors better or worse off?
Worse off.
js
So is the country as a whole. Over $3 for a gallon of gasoline hurts many
people, some
can not afford to drive anymore and have no other mode of transportation. Go
figure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Perscription drug plan shafts seniors. |
22 Jun 2006 08:49:35 PM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Titix wrote:
Over $3 for a gallon of gasoline hurts many people, some can not
afford to drive anymore and have no other mode of transportation.
Go figure.
But none of them live in southern California, because traffic hasn't
lightened up a bit.
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
