Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

How does everyone feel about the new medical landscape since Obamacare?

Posted Wednesday, October 26, 2016, at 6:46 PM
View 41 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Obamacare has made things much worse, which is par for the course with government involvement.

    Anyone with common sense and third grade math skilks should have known that adding people insurance agencies wouldn't normally cover and others who can't/won't pay, plus adding massive amounts of bureaucracy couldn't possibly offer more affordable insurance.

    But like most democrat policies, feelings count more than results, and obamacare was designed to fail anyway, so liberals could then claim the only remaining option was a full-on single payer system.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Oct 26, 2016, at 6:57 PM
  • They talk about making it more affordable, but I have to get one, sometimes two referrals before I can see the doctor I know I needed to see in the first place. Two extra doctor visits.

    How about those who cannot get around? We have a friend who needs help and we would carry to the doctor, but she needs to go to the hospital before she can get a doctor who will see her? Come on.

    I need to get a new CPAP but have to see a doctor and have a sleep study done before they will just replace what I already have and use every day (well,night). I'm going to overdose on air?

    Same thing with getting a new face mask. I need a prescription and can't get one without seeing the doctor? I guess someone must have used a face mask to commit a crime.

    I could go on and on and on and..... Some folks will think I am whining, but I and whoever else writes is just trying to make a statement and maybe get the attention of some of the lawmakers to STOP making laws!

    -- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Oct 26, 2016, at 7:34 PM
  • No Steve, you are not the only one. I now have several family members who can no longer afford insurance and are being penalized for not being able to afford it. THAT IS RIDICULOUS! Especially, when they could afford it before!

    The consequences of this disastrous law were delayed for political reasons. Citing Gruber, one of the architects of the ACA, it is all because of "lack of transparency and the stupidity of the American voter".

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Oct 26, 2016, at 7:50 PM
  • ObamaCare is basically just a money grab from our Government. They are either going to make you pay outrageous premiums and high deductibles or they are going to make you pay a penalty with your tax money. Either way the tax payer loses.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 11:35 AM
  • Quite Mike is Quite Right. It requires only rudimentary math skills to figure out that adding the people Insurance Companies do not want to insure (and that would be anyone requiring medical care) cannot make insurance cheaper while protecting profits for the Insurance Companies... It does require applying reason to develop the equation, rather than wishful thinking. On the other hand, "competition" is not going to change that equation. Providing medical care for people who cannot afford it is going to cost someone money. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always has to pay.

    We have no hope of getting a handle on the problem of medical costs, until we actually define the real problem. It is still a hard problem to figure out a solution for, but at least there would be a chance to ameliorate it.

    We all can agree, I think, on one thing. Medical costs will go up as more and better medical care is available. If you get more, it is going to cost more. I am sure that is not across the board. Better prevention, or outright cures up front, will, in some cases, cost less than long term palliative care. Still, on the whole, more advanced medical care will cost more.

    In my opinion, having *all* medical care paid through insurance is also a simple math problem. It is a waste of money. I think that, at this point, routine medical care is not much different than groceries. It is a necessity. What if someone offered you "grocery insurance?" For $150 a week, they would provide you with $100 in groceries. That would be about stupid, wouldn't it? Not only would you only get 2/3 of your money's worth of groceries, but the cost of groceries would be driven up because the stores would have to hire clerks to process your grocery insurance forms. Why can we not see that using insurance for routine medical costs is just as foolish?

    It seems obvious to me that only catastrophic medical costs require some social pooling of resources... be it insurance, or your feared single payer system. Here is where we run into problems. First, the Insurance Companies are huge and powerful, and they are making a lot of money for providing a "service" that we do not need. They will fight with their political donations to protect that "free" money. Everyone likes "free" money. As a people, we have been conditioned, by a long tradition (going back to Henry Ford) to believe that someone else, be it an Insurance Company or the dreaded single payer system, should pay for our medical care. And we will fight to protect that "free" money, never doing the 3rd grade math to figure out how not "free" it really is.

    This is all complicated by the fact that the majority of people do a poor job of handling their money. I learned, during my 35 years of handling payroll, that the way people live is only partially a reflection of how much income they have. Where one employee might have a nice home in the suburbs, and drive a decent vehicle (that is paid for), take vacations, eat out, and otherwise live the good life, other people, with the same exact income, drive a vehicle that costs more than their single wide, both of which are in constant danger of being repossessed, and cannot stretch a paycheck to last the full two weeks between paydays. The difference is in how those people handle their money.... For those people, insurance might be a wasteful way to pay for medical care, but it is the only way they will be able to pay for that care, when they need it.

    This is not an easy problem to address. It would be abhorrent to say that someone else has to handle their money for them... although that is what mandatory insurance, or the excoriated single payer system amounts to... On the other hand, as much as some people might want to see it, we are not, as a society, willing to allow people to go without medical care, regardless of whether it is their own fault they cannot afford it. So, what is a reasonable solution to how we provide routine medical care? Catastrophic medical costs are a whole separate problem.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 12:12 PM
  • *

    "There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always has to pay."

    What an undemocratic thing to say.

    The obvious answer is to have the government provide single payer health care. After all, they do such a great job with the VA.

    Seriously, the problem will never be solved as long as everyone expects top of the line state of the art care for every little and big thing until death do them part. The people individually or as a group will have to pay in some form or another for the care that is provided. And adding government to the mix adds layers of bureaucracy to the mix reducing efficiency.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 12:40 PM
  • Change only happens after pain.

    If a behavior causes no discomfort, there is no reason to examine whether it would be beneficial to change that behavior.

    Our society has somehow decided that it is cruel to allow people to feel the pain of their poor decisions.

    If that man with the expensive car and trailer is constantly bailed out, whether by parents who spoiled him, or government program, he will never learn the lesson. If he watches the tow truck drive away with that car on the hook, he MIGHT think about why that happened, and what to do to prevent its reoccurring.

    Healthcare is not much different.

    Most healthcare problems are linked to poor lifestyle choices. If you're 5'4 and 350 pounds you shouldn't look to others to pay for your blood thinners to treat your hypertension.

    It may seem barbaric, but letting reailty teach people a lesson is often the most beneficial thing that can be done for them.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 12:50 PM
  • I am living in Tennessee for the most part because Insurance Companies created the environment that forced my husband and I to close his medical practice. The requirements of Insurance companies, particularly those in managed care, forced us to provide almost unlimited services with renumeration so low that we could not afford the staff necessary to fulfill those demands.Toward the end I was doing the work of five people. That was 1998 on the West Coast. Specialists were spared but Primary Care Physicians were forced to join very large groups or move to another State......We chose the latter.. I have since watched the same environment move here....

    The Insurance Companies are doing well.......Seeing the writing on the wall my husband chose to join one.

    Medical care is now about the bottom line of the insurance industry with the pharmaceutical industry on their heels. Don't think for a moment without reform that medical expenses will go down. We are now in the world of mergers and acquisitions, unrestrained price gouging in pharmaceuticals and insurance companies deciding your medical care and what you will pay for it......

    I agree that with the addition of so many previously uncovered participants the insurance costs will grow and someone must pay.....But that is only one reason for the increase we are now seeing. I am reminded of the dozens of times I watched MARTIN SHKRELI of TURING PHARMACEUTICALS justify the exorbitant increase in Daraprim by reiterating that the insurance companies will pay for it...How many drug companies have now followed suit...... Who ultimately pays the insurance and drug companies ? We do....

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 1:56 PM
  • Steve, the seemingly unnecessary steps you mentioned you must take to get the medical care you need is entirely the choice of your insurance plan.

    On top of all you go through the medical office must also fulfill demands placed on it by the insurance company to prove that THE INSURANCE COMPANY is in complete control.

    Welcome to the money-making monster overseeing our health care.I can assure you from the conversations I have had over the years with physicians that they never foresaw by allowing insurance plans into their offices they were losing control of their way of providing medical care.

    The Affordable Care Act did not create this...The ACA was created to include the many people that have had no medical coverage and to help reduce the costs of coverage for the rest of us.

    As we move through another year of the ACA, insurance companies less intent on cutting costs than preserving profit are pulling out eliminating competition and moving to higher end markets.

    Direct your frustration where it belongs....Direct it at the wedge we allowed between ourselves and our desire to seek unencumbered medical care. Direct it at the politicians in 2003 who lured by lobbyists voted to prevent our ability to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs as all other countries do. Direct it at those who refuse to collaborate to create a system that works ....

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Fri, Oct 28, 2016, at 7:12 AM
  • What do you mean by our ability to negotiate prescription drugs? We were able to do that before?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Oct 28, 2016, at 9:49 AM
  • Under a program proposed by Bush and passed by the Congress in 2003 affective 2006-7 Medicare was declared unable to negotiate prescription drug pricing for senior citizens.....Because of this Bill Medicare reduced pricing could not pass on to the medical community at large the way it does in other procedures and services. Instead the participants responsible for this decision were misled by lobbyists who pressed for limited negotiation by individual insurance companies to cover their subscribers with no measure of clout like the US Government would have had.

    My understanding is that President Obama although very concerned and hoping to reverse this unfortunate decision had to let it go in order to get the bones of The Affordable Care Act passed. It would be to our benefit to allow Medicare to negotiate drug pricing. When Medicare negotiated pricing for other services pricing dropped for those services noticably. Unfortunately Insurance companies ( particularly in managed care ) sopped up the gravy on that train......Health insurance rates did not go down with the drop in pricing but the payment physicians received for their services did. I was there watching it happen.

    So, we are now left with outrageous prescription drug prices on the climb to becoming obscene because so many of our politicians have lost sight of what exactly their job descriptions are......

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Fri, Oct 28, 2016, at 11:46 AM
  • Interesting, thanks.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Oct 28, 2016, at 1:09 PM
  • Here is one thing that has perplexed me ever since I ran across it.

    My insurance allows for full payment of a "wellness" visit but if they find something wrong, it kicks into a pre-existing category and they don't pay for everything.

    So....if you feel fine, go in for a colonoscopy because it is recommended after a certain age and they find a polyp or something they want to test, you are then stuck with the bill, regardless of if it is benign or not. How does that encourage getting checked up?

    Using that same example, I asked the doctor to NOT take a sample, just let me know they saw something and give an opinion. They said they can't do that, they HAVE to take the biopsy.

    Why is that not elective? If I go in with a severe pain in my shoulder an they determine it is broken, I am not forced to have an operation. I can say thanks for telling me and move on, so why is it different when they are up your butt?

    The end result, I don't have a colonoscopy.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM
  • Steve,

    This makes no sense at all to me and is something I have not run into before...Does it matter if this test is clear and the next one isn't ? Would it be covered then ?...I also thought pre-existing conditions were at this point covered....I would be interested in reading your policy....Seems we are in the same boat procedurewise....I just told my insurance company Friday that I am not going to have the recommended colonoscopy but for reasons completely unrelated to yours....

    BTW....A tidbit from the drug pricing conversation mentioned above ( I have several ).....A few months after Republican Billy Tauzin wrote the Bill that was passed by Congress disallowing medicare negotiations on Drug pricing he left Congress and accepted a 2 million dollar a year job as president of Phrma the lobbyists responsible for guess what.......We really must get the money out of politics.......

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 3:13 PM
  • It would seem to me that "we the people" should be able to sue him for what appears to be gross misconduct and conflict of interest. (if that is prosecutable) if nothing else, I hope he is not getting any "retirement" pay from "us".

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 4:01 PM
  • *

    He is if he was in Congress. There is no law saying they have to biopsy a polyp. But that is the standard of care. You could sign an informed consent refusal to have the polypectomy and biopsy if one was found. The doctor doing the procedure, however, would likely not do it for fear of being sued later if someone diagnosed colon cancer. CYA!

    -- Posted by fair share on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 5:01 PM
  • Another tidbit I have regarding the same bill is the 7 months pay that another ( Republican ) had to pay in fines for his behavior in the same Bill.....Promoting Bush's privatization ( think Cheney ) theory.

    Steve, if we could really talk I think we would be on the same side....Unfortunately the DIVIDE prevents us from taking control and getting the people out who are in this to get rich and really don't care about the country....They are just using us to pad their pockets .

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 5:07 PM
  • Steve, Its your insurance not ACA......

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 5:09 PM
  • Palindrome posted a lot of very true information. My wife is also in the medical profession and has told me similar things about how insurance works.

    The insurance and pharmaceutical industries have the biggest lobby in Washington. They don't spend all that money and time for nothing! Just pay attention to who has the commercials on the evening news and you will see how it also affects the media.

    It would seem to me that the biggest problem is that the customer(the one paying) and the patient (the one receiving the care) are no longer the same person. Most any business works to satisfy their customer. Medical practices, though filled with genuine caring people, is still a business. If the customer is the insurance company or the government, (when single payer is adopted) then pleasing the customer, in order to be paid, takes priority. Not, that the care provider isn't trying to do what is best for their patients, they are. But, procedures and policies are put in place based on the "customer". You can see this relationship at work in the VA system where patients die in a waiting line waiting for needed procedures. The same scenario exists in other countries where the government controls healthcare.

    Cash only and self pay clinics are beginning to catch on that restores the correct relationship between doctor customer/patient. These providers charge a fraction what insured providers charge for basic services. You would still need a high deductible insurance plan for catastrophic events in order to qualify for an HSA. A HSA (Health Savings Account) can help with putting aside the money it takes to pay for the deductibles and services you need on a pre-tax basis.

    Some of my family members are already using cash only. Especially, since the ACA has caused insurance premiums to skyrocket to a level they can no longer afford to pay. They tell me, some of the local doctors and dentists will give them reduced prices if they inform them they have no insurance and will pay cash.

    There are good people out there trying to do good for everyone they can. The system is corrupt! Expecting a corrupt system to solve a corruption problem is foolish. Seek out the good folks and tell others about them :)

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 8:04 PM
  • I have no doubt what Palindrome is telling me is accurate but where we differ (somewhat) is that the ACA has no blame in this. I believe it is one of the problems, along with insurance.

    BUT I would not be alive without insurance getting me admitted quickly when I had heart attacks.

    But letting government take it over does not seem wise since they seem to do nothing well. My opinion, of course and that is always open to debate. :-)

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 8:37 PM
  • Steve.....

    Seriously.....ACA is trying but the insurance industry is VERY hungry. ACA has been trying to help by protecting the MOST of us with the BEST coverage,,,,,ACA is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction. By helping as many of us as possible to have the most reliable care as is possible it will eventually learn what is best.......ACA is not about profit.....It is about us......When Bush wanted to privative health care in 2001 it was about profit.....Don't fool yourself about that decision....

    If you believe ACA is to blame it is probably because so many people are working against it's best efforts for their own agendas.

    Ask yourself why Congress has different coverage....

    ACA is working against the money in politics to give us all the best care.....The insurance industry is working for their highest profit with the most control.....

    What besides propaganda makes you believe ACA is not trying to work for your benefit ? What ?

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 9:34 PM
  • Palindrome, I believe I can answer your question.

    What makes ME think that ACA is not working for my benefit is the increase in costs of premiums caused by a requirement, by law, of coverage(s) that I, or my family members, don't need or want. That is not propaganda, that is fact.

    We understand that the insurance companies passes the costs on to us for other peoples coverage. They have to, or lose money. No one can run a business for long by losing money. What level of profit they make is another issue. One that, possibly, a law could address. The ACA does not address that, it just shares/spreads the costs among people. Some, in my family, can't afford those costs and so, no longer have insurance at all.

    Government control (aka Socialism) spreads misery, not wealth. Whenever possible, people run away from areas where the misery has gotten to an intolerable level and move to another state or country if the know of one.

    To me the ACA is the coup de gras of any chance we may have had to eliminate corruption in the medical industry. It is heading us in the direction of government control. Placing healthcare under government control is NOT the answer. Unless, of course, you are under the delusion that the people who are corrupt/swayed by the lobbyists money, will not be corrupt/swayed by plundering taxpayer money. The folks who are running the insurance companies are likely going to move into a bureaucrats position and continue to plunder the people, just wearing a different hat.

    Government run healthcare does a poor job. The VA system should be proof enough of that.

    The answer is to work against the corruption and plunder that is driving the costs up. Drug companies, lawyers, mal-practice insurances/law suits (at all levels), education costs, equipment costs, regulatory costs, taxation, accounting, etc..etc.. These are the things that make healthcare costs go through the roof. These are the areas the law could make a difference for the better.

    Throwing more money at it, whether through taxation or increased premiums, does not address the root cause(s) of the problem.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 10:20 PM
  • *

    The reason Congress has different coverage is because ACA is crap. If it was as great as some people think Congress would be first in line. Why would an insurance company be in be in business if not to make a profit? I would much rather have the government keep their nose out of my business. Does anyone really think adding layers of government bureaucracy will increase efficiency and reduce costs? Probably the same people who think we shouldn't drive SUVs but it is okay for spotted Al Bore to spew his carbon footprint all over the sky taking his private jet to global warming summits. The only reason for having the ACA is so it will fail. And then the government takes over the whole thing.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sun, Oct 30, 2016, at 10:28 PM
  • L4L,

    I agree that we must work against the greed driving up the costs in medical care. We need Congress to remember who and what they are working for. Get to know the politicians and what policies they support. Take a look at what politicians voted against Medicare negotiation....Start there......

    In one election cycle alone Lamar Alexander received over $245K from the pharmaceutical industry in contributions while voting down the Medicare negotiation bill. Bill Frist voted down the bill stating he believed in market competition....

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Mon, Oct 31, 2016, at 12:02 PM
  • Marsha Blackburn voted also against Medicare negotiation......

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Mon, Oct 31, 2016, at 12:21 PM
  • Jenkins, Wamp and Duncan also.......

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Mon, Oct 31, 2016, at 12:25 PM
  • Knowing some of those personally, I can't help but wonder what else was in the bill? Rarely do they come out without numerous attachments to slide something through on the coat tails.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Oct 31, 2016, at 3:08 PM
  • It was a very controversial Medicare Bill with the negotiation portion a key factor.....This was not an add on, slip in.....There is a lot written about it online......

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Mon, Oct 31, 2016, at 3:23 PM
  • I don't think the part of which you speak was an add-on. Was there nothing else tacked on to the bill? That would be rare. I'll try to research but honestly, it will be this weekend at the earliest.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Oct 31, 2016, at 3:47 PM
  • I sent you a story on FB in your messages.........

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Mon, Oct 31, 2016, at 4:24 PM
  • I have been learning about the Medicare negotiation bill(s). I am not surprised one bit by corruption on part of either party of politicians.

    What I have learned so far (which I believe I have correct) is that this bill is only applicable to Medicare part D.

    Medicare Part D was a voluntary benefit added during the Bush administration to aid seniors in the purchase of prescription drugs. Another benefit added by the Bush administration was the HSA (Health Savings Account) to aid in purchase of drugs and deductible payments.

    The government has negotiating powers for Medicaid and VA drugs but not Medicare part D. The bill was passed without that provision and signed into law. Neither party has changed that.

    Obama promised to include price negotiations in his administration, but has broken that promise.

    There are several sites with info. on this issue.

    Basically, the argument is that the price negotiations would cut the profits needed for new drug research and development. Personally, I don't buy that argument. Because, drug companies are always going to invest in research in order to be able to obtain more patents.

    I am somewhat familiar with how the patent system works, especially in light of drug and chemical companies.

    A patent gives the inventor the right to prevent anyone else from using or producing the item for which the patent is applicable. So, it behooves a company with highly marketable products, to maintain that advantage.

    Here is how it is done:

    A patent is issued for drug "X". No one else can make that drug as long as the patent is in force. The patent holder can set the price. The customer(government/insurance/patient) must pay that price if they want to use that particular drug.. Additionally, foreign countries may not be bound by U.S. patents, but cannot sell in the U.S. without paying the patent holder.

    The patent typically expires in seventeen years. After this time, another company may use the recipe to create the same drug (generic)at a much cheaper price. Now that drug "x" can be made generically, the original creator, with the aid of the FDA releases information showing the hazardous side effects, environmental impacts, or other equally deplorable aspects of drug "x" and move to have the drug banned/outlawed. Of course, all this time the original inventor has been doing research and can now offer his latest patented drug "y" as a replacement, restarting the cycle.

    Again, the problem is that the negotiations are taking place between the government, insurance companies, and drug companies and not the doctor and patient. If the price is too high and there are other cheaper alternatives, the patient should have control over that choice.

    We are headed towards single payer. Which will be disastrous to the quality of healthcare, economy, and fiscal well being. Both Trump and Clinton are in favor of single payer which is one more reason I oppose both these candidates.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Mon, Oct 31, 2016, at 9:05 PM
  • President Obama tried to get negotiation added to ACA and only managed to get the " Donut Hole ". Republicans had too many promises to keep.....

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Mon, Oct 31, 2016, at 10:07 PM
  • L4L.....

    So you read about the 2003 creation of Medicare Part D and your response is to blame Obama for not being able to overturn the scandalous Republican sell-out of the American people and to throw up a smokescreen about patents even though you " don't buy the argument "....

    Absolutely pathetic evaluation.......

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Tue, Nov 1, 2016, at 8:25 AM
  • President Obama tried to get negotiation added to ACA and only managed to get the " Donut Hole ". Republicans had too many promises to keep.....

    -- Posted by Palindrome


    What a complete crock of____, given that Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Nov 1, 2016, at 9:27 AM
  • Palindrome I would assume your obvious need to defend Obama is the source of your criticism of my "evaluation".

    The information I posted about patents is not a smoke screen. It is the reality of how these companies use "The Law" to add to their profit margins. I have experienced this first hand with chemical companies.

    You seem to have the need to defend Obama and the democrat/socialist ideology. I on the other hand do not have a need to defend the GOP and their corruption. I recognize the corruption in both parties and try to bring peoples attention to the "Plundering" that both parties are committing.

    Obama, Harry Reid, and others, as well as the GOP folks you mention above, have all taken money from the drug and healthcare industries. Obama alone got over $20 million.

    The "donut hole" you refer to is actually a micro-reality check for the failed ideology of socialism. Socialism fails because "sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend." That is precisely what happens with the donut hole. People run out of other peoples money to spend and then (gasp) they have to pay for their own drugs.

    The reality is that people don't really care what something costs as long as they are not paying for it. Ultimately however, they are. It is just that the failure comes "later" instead of "sooner". The failure of the current generation to pay their way is passed on to the next generation by spending THEIR CHILDRENS money in the form of debt.

    Obamacare is no different. It is dependent upon young healthy citizens, who need little to no healthcare, to pay for the older more dependent ones. Not surprisingly, they are not going for it and must be forced "by law".

    The real problem is that "we the people" are being plundered.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Nov 1, 2016, at 11:45 AM
  • It was never about the votes.......

    It was about the ability to get ACA enacted in light of the overbearing influence of PHRMA and the clout it had formed during Part D negotiations in 2003...... That influence coupled with the untimely death of Ted Kennedy who was a major contributor of the law forced this hand. Unfortunately not starting that battle was the price that was paid at the time....And a flaw.... But it is not over yet. Considering what we are witnessing as prices escalate unnecessarily it is probably just a matter of time before pharmaceutical negotiation is back on the table..... Yay !

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Tue, Nov 1, 2016, at 12:02 PM
  • It's always about the votes.

    Obamacare, every rotten, expensive bit of it is ENTIRELY the democrat's baby.

    To assign blame to anyone else except democrats is a dishonest attempt at obfuscation.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Nov 1, 2016, at 1:04 PM
  • L4L,

    I have no need obvious or otherwise to defend. My interest is in researching the issue of escalating drug pricing, what has occurred politically to allow such obscene pricing since I was working in the field, and what can be done to bring about responsible correction.

    Nothing more and nothing less........

    In this case I am disgusted by what I have discovered.......

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Tue, Nov 1, 2016, at 1:05 PM
  • Well then Palindrome, you are going to have to work against corruption on both sides of the isle.

    Drug costs and healthcare costs have shot up more (double digit inflation)over the last few years that in the years prior to that. The natural progression of thought should be; What has changed in the last few years that has brought a rapid acceleration? the answer should be obvious.

    If you want to work against corruption in BOTH parties. I would suggest starting with these two links just for information on the American Anti-Corruption Act.



    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Nov 1, 2016, at 2:32 PM
  • I have been an avocate of getting the money out of politics for quite some time.....

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Tue, Nov 1, 2016, at 6:28 PM
  • Money is the problem and will always be the problem. Medicine doesn't make money off of healthy people.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Fri, Nov 4, 2016, at 9:11 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: