MEDICARE is a Federal program that was conceived by John F. Kennedy, but
put into effect by Lyndon Johnson. It is normally available only to
seniors, over the age of 64, it pays for health care but does NOT pay
for drugs.

MEDICAID, on the other hand, is not necessarily for seniors, it is
mainly designed for poor people, the handicapped, women with children,
e.t.c. Medicaid is financed by both the State and the Federal
government, it pays for health care too, but Medicaid is better than
Medicare, because Medicaid DOES pay for drugs. Candidates for Medicaid
must be dirt poor, to qualify they should have less than $1,000 in total
assets, but the stringent rules varies from State to State.

Senior citizens often qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. When
Medicare was first created, drug prices where not a major concern, but
they are now. It is common for senior citizens to pay thousands of
dollars per year just for medicine. Every winter, there are seniors on
Medicare who are forced to choose between eating, heating their homes or
paying for their medicines.

American citizens pay about twice as much on health care then do
citizens who reside in the rest of the developed world. Our health
care costs are so high because we pay the highest drug prices in the
entire world, the highest, by far. Americans pay up to 6 times more
money for the same exact drugs that are sold to the rest of the world.
All Fortune 500 companies suffered a combined loss of 66% in the year
2002, but not the drug companies. The drug industry and the insurance
industries remain the 2 most profitable industries in the nation.

The new Medicare bill that Republicans pushed thru Congress prevents the
government from reducing the price of drugs any more, so it is bound to
lead to even higher drug prices in the future. It's not a drug coverage
plan, it is a several hundred billion dollar giveaway to the
pharmaceutical industry, and the health insurance industry. The
Republican sponsored bill also sends billions of dollars to HMO's, who
will take in only the healthy seniors, leaving the unhealthy seniors in
an underfunded and eviscerated Medicare system. As the Medicare system
begins to unravel, starting in 2010, the Republicans will then argue
that the private system works better, and then they'll argue that
Medicare itself should be abolished all together. Eventually, the
Republicans will develop a scheme to destroy Social Security as well.

Abel Malcolm
http://www.retiredamericans.org

For more information, go to this link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...VGO73FIRD1.DTL

"In the end, through the long ages of our quest for light, it will be
found that truth is still mightier than the sword":

Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Educate yourself and go to these links:

http://www.buzzflash.com & http://www.moveon.org &
http://www.veteransforpeace.org & http://www.salon.com &
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm &
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_...ughtonfilm.htm &
http://www.TvNewsLies.org

We must recall the Medicare legislation to save ourselves

Lobbyists won when lawmakers turned down real health solutions

By Dr. Kate Scannell, Special to The Chronicle

Sunday, December 7, 2003

While we still possess momentum from the swift recall movement that
ousted our governor, let's tighten our grip on the still-warm sword and
fight for recall of the recent Medicare legislation.

Let's accomplish this swiftly, as we know we can, before the insurance
and pharmaceutical industries invest even more of their thirsty roots
into the new $400 billion legislation and gain further control over
American health care. Let's do this now to warn our politicians before
the next election cycle that they cannot act so cowardly when
legislating our health care, as powerful as party allegiances and
private businesses may be in shaping their own political careers. Like a
doctor who declines to fight a health insurance company to obtain
necessary treatment for her patient, our politicians have to realize
that placing the interests of pharmaceutical and insurance companies
above the health care needs of its citizens is wrong, unethical and
dehumanizing.

We should also rename the new legislation more appropriately, as the
spin on it has dizzied us into thinking that it is concerned largely
with drug benefits for the elderly. But many tentacles radiate outward
from the body of the new law, only one of which is a gnarled appendage
offering weak pharmaceutical support to the elderly. Several others
reach muscularly into current and future taxpayers' pockets while others
simultaneously shake hands with the drug and insurance companies. A few
tentacles are busy shooing away more affordable drug importations from
Canada. And in the end, all of them are up in the air -- between a
hostage-like and agreeable hands-off gesture -- promising not to tamper
with the drug companies' ever-escalating drug prices.

Taken apart, this bill, so heavily supported by the drug and insurance
industries, dictates that the financially strapped Medicare program --
unlike private insurers, large health care agencies or drug retailers --
will not be allowed to negotiate lower drug prices with the profitable
pharmaceutical industry.

The bill gives money to private insurance agencies to enroll elderly
patients. It also allows Americans more affordable drug imports from
Canada, but only if a governmental agency agrees to oversee the process.
The problem here is that the agency refuses to do so.

It proposes a $400 billion cost to taxpayers over the next 10 years that
will only sometimes alleviate some drug costs for some elderly patients
some of the time.

The implications of the first item are obvious. We already know that
drug companies jack up prices whenever they can and that they already
discriminate against the 43 million uninsured Americans and the elderly
on Medicare who pay higher prescription costs than, say, people enrolled
in an HMO plan. That's because, unlike HMO enrollees, these
disenfranchised people are not represented by powerful negotiators
demanding equal prices through bargaining with the drug companies. With
our new bill, this terrible situation worsens. Unlike private
businesses, the federal government has explicitly agreed not to
represent Medicare patients at the bargaining table.

You think that the $400 billion that we will pay largely to insurance
and drug companies over the next 10 years is awesome? It's a pittance
compared with the added trillion-plus cost that is predicted before 2023
-- three years shy of the year in which the Medicare hospital benefit is
expected to run out of money -- as the elderly population expands with
its increasing drug usage and longevity.

What were our politicians thinking -- if they were? And what does it
mean when our federal government agrees not to represent the interests
of its citizens in matters that shape the entire crumbling system of
health care in this country when it breaks with its tradition of
regulating all other prices for Medicare services (like hospital and
doctor fees)?

Also, passing legislation that allows the United States to import drugs
at substantial savings from Canada only if those drugs are evaluated by
a governmental office that will not perform this function is
disingenuous at best, and slick politics at worst.

Finally, paying private insurance companies to enroll elderly patients
smacks of corporate welfare. Besides, we have already witnessed the
dismal failure of for-profit health care systems when it comes to taking
care of the elderly. And someone is going to have to explain how this
new costly venture will differ from the existing Medicare program in
which health plans and doctors are paid with federal monies to care for
the elderly.

Already, we Americans spend twice as much on health care as the average
cost in other developed countries. Without price controls on the
pharmaceutical industry, we also pay among the highest drug prices in
the entire world. As of 1999, administrative costs fully claimed 31
percent of our nation's health care expenditures. And for each $100
that we spend on pharmaceuticals, we donate $17 as pure profit for the
drug companies and we pay $31 to subsidize their drug advertising and
administrative costs.

Technically, we can't refer to our politicians' further giveaway to the
pharmaceutical industry in the new bill as traditional "corporate
welfare," because drug companies remain the most profitable industry in
the country. For example, in 2002 they collectively reaped $35.9
billion in profits while all Fortune 500 companies suffered a combined
loss of 66 percent in profits. But however they are named, these
government entitlements to the drug industry tax us all, and they strain
the capacity of our health care system. Such entitlements may not
surprise when you consider that the drug industry employs more
governmental lobbyists than there are congressmen. That it will spend
$73 million over the next year to lobby Congress and the FDA, an
additional $48.7 million to influence state-level politics, and $17.5
million more to manipulate health care systems in foreign countries.

What is particularly ominous about the new Medicare bill is the fact
that our federal government shied away from protecting us against drug
company tyranny both at the Canadian border and at the negotiating
table. It shrunk from its responsibility to uphold its citizens' best
interests in promoting health care in the spirit of compassionate
justice. And need we say anything more than, "Et tu, AARP?"

We need to repeal the new bill. To get rid of middlemen insurance
companies with their devastating administrative costs, and to mandate
cost controls on the out-of-control drug industry. We need to remind
our politicians about basic principles of government like genuine
representation and advocacy on behalf of the people they represent. We
need our politicians to say no to the drug companies, to separate the
interests of the state from interests of powerful corporations, and to
separate health care from bipartisan politics. We would all do well to
remember what Wendell Berry declared: "Rats and roaches live by
competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of
human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."

Kate Scannell is an East Bay physician and author of "Death of the Good
Doctor."
URL:
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/07/LVGO73FIRD1.DTL

"In the end, through the long ages of our quest for light, it will be
found that truth is still mightier than the sword":

Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Educate yourself and go to these links:

http://www.buzzflash.com & http://www.moveon.org &
http://www.veteransforpeace.org & http://www.salon.com &
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm &
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_...ughtonfilm.htm &
http://www.TvNewsLies.org

AbelMalcolm@webtv.net wrote:

the other hand, does not require one to have ever worked or paid into
the program nor ever do so. Give people a reason to do less or nothing
and get rewarded for it and the line will be never ending.

their situation to qualify, there by adding more burden on the already
failing system? Give people the opportunity to do less or more poorly
and be rewarded for it and too many people will. I do not blame these
people, but the system itself. Government security programs only provide
the illusion of security, I believe retirees deserve much better than
this. I know I couldn't live on $1,200.00 a month, never mind that a lot
of people get less than this.

other countries years before and at a fraction of the cost than in
America. Does government regulation really make a safer/more effective
drug? Or would a private company doing it's own research, depending on
it's product being superior to it's competitors in order to keep it's
continued profits? The FDA takes 8-10 years of research (after the drug
company has done it's own) and about 300 million + dollars from the drug
company to approve it's product. In the meantime, how people have
suffered and/or died while waiting for the FDA? Competition is what
betters a product or service, government regulation only serves to
hinder that process while increasing costs.
When medicare was started in 1965, it's beginning costs was about 1
billion dollars and it's projected cost for 1990 was 3 billion (12
billion when adjusted for inflation), but the actual cost was 98
billion. 1993 was about 76 billion. I really wouldn't expect anybody to
forecast that far in advance and be very accurate, that wasn't their
downfall. Their downfall was attempting to do so in the first place.
Private companies usually forecast quarters and a year, maybe two at a
stretch, but never 35 years.

insurance companies provide a consumable product and/or service used on
a frequent basis. Many people take drugs daily, and use their insurance
quite frequently, to be without it would be very costly. On the other
hand, companies like GM produce a product designed to last several
years. Most people don't buy a car every month or every year. Highly
consumed products with relatively low competition will of course be
profitable, no matter the economy.

continue to do so. The best thing the government can do to lower the
cost of the medical industry is to get out of it completely. That
includes medicare and medicaid.

industry to near paralysis, then having to "save" them, they subsidize
money. Had they stayed out of it in the beginning, everyone would be
better off.

generations should be abolished. It does nothing but raise costs and
provide more substandard care for everyone, including those not on it.

the ratio of people paying in was about 40 people per 1 recipient. Today
the ratio is approaching one tenth of the people paying in, and with the
baby boom generation (3-4 times larger than any other generation)
nearing (if not already) retirement, more people wanting benefits and
less people paying in is a disaster. The first answer to fix this
problem is to raise the tax and/or cut costs ie. less benefits or to
extend the retirement age, which has been done already. 98% of the
American population is either dead or broke at age 65. According to the
Social Security Administration, living retirees aged 65 or above, 23%
are still working, 30% are dependant on charity, 45% are dependent on
relatives and 2% are financially independent enough on their own (one of
those two are around the poverty line and the other has an income of
$30,000 or more a year). Social Security has revealed itself to not be
providing the necessary benefits for our retirees and so far the problem
has only become worse. Forced saving at an unbelievable low return has
not provided the solution nor will it ever. Many employers have IRAs
and/or annuities and pensions for this reason. These generally provide
better than any government sponsored program.

Your Name <Email@address.org> wrote in message news:<0UGLb.55152$jp6.29959@newssvr31.news.prodigy .com>...
This is not true. People on Medicaid pay taxes too, so that means
they've paid their dues. We are the richest nation on earth, there's
no reason why we should discard our sick citizens into the trash bins,
sick citizens who have in all likelihood served their country, such as
Veterans who come back home crippled and with medical problems or
Factory workers who are the unfortunate victims of industrial
accidents, and so on.


A lot of people who are "just a hair above the qualifier" do indeed
change their situation to qualify, that's the only way they'll get
life saving treatment. You say you blame the system, not the victim,
yet you want to just throw away the whole baby with the bathwater, you
want to eliminate the system altogether.

I assume you are talking of Social Security with your reference to
"illusion of security". In the 1930's, about one-fourth of our senior
citizens were roaming around the streets, eating out of garbage cans,
or eeking out a miserable existence living unwanted in their
children's homes. Senior citizens used to be the poorest segment of
our society, Social Security changed all that, now they have their
dignity. Social Security is NOT an illusion, it is the most
successful program there is. And the program was not meant for people
to get rich out of, it was only meant as a last resort safety net for
those who have reached the end of their lives and those who have run
out of luck.

Republicans have turned the whole concept of 'serving the public'
upside down on its head. Government regulations should serve the
voting public, but because of the Republicans (and the large financial
contributions they get from the Insurance and Pharmaceutical
industry), drugs are difficult to obtain and prices are astronomically
high. There is a difference between regulating for the public good,
and regulating to screw the public. That's a difference between
Heaven and Hell. You can not say that all regulations are bad. All
regulations that come from Republicans, on the other hand, ARE bad.


There's nothing wrong with our government funding medical research
which give us life saving medicine. There's nothing wrong with our
tax dollars going to education spending of any kind, but what's
seriously wrong is the way Republicans have structured our funding for
medical research when it comes to the Pharmaceutical industry. We,
the American tax payers, fund the research that leads to the discovery
of most of these drugs, and then the Pharmaceutical industry thanks us
by gouging us, by charging us up to 7 times more than what they charge
people in other parts of the world. They (Repugs) take us, the
American people, for chumps.


drugs are skyrocketing. When Medicare was first created, nobody
forsaw the rising cost of drugs. The new Medicare bill does NOTHING
to bring down the cost of drugs. We already pay over 1.6 trillion
dollars a year on health care, but we don't get it. I quote Dennis
Kucinich who said that we need universal health, a non-profit system
designed specifically for the some 50 million Americans who presently
have no health insurance.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with our government subsidizing
medical research. But there's something seriously wrong with
government regulations that deliberately pump up the price of drugs,
drugs which we the tax payers subsidized the research of. If the
price of drugs should be raised on anyone, it should be for
non-Americans only, but the Republicans have structured it to be the
exact opposite, Americans pay the highest prices while the rest of the
world pays only a fraction, for the same exact drugs that are made
here.

I hope you are not a Republican, in all likelihood ideologically
driven by a false religious concept. Because if you are, I'm wasting
my time trying to educate you. I repeat myself, you are advocating
throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Medicare, because of its
"single payer" system, is already the most cost efficient medical
service in the country, for the health care that it offers. Medicare
works, all it needed was prescription drug coverage, and the Repugs
screwed that up by engineering a bill instead that would eventually
dismantle Medicare, a bill that amounts to hundreds of billions of
dollars in corporate giveaways to the greedy Pharmaceutical and
Insurance Industries. A give-away that was engineered at the expense
of the American tax payer and to the detriment of the unfortunate
senior citizens who will suffer the effects of Medicare's dismantling.

Abel Malcolm
http://www.911forthetruth.com

Abel Malcolm wrote:

and many will do so. The American people are the richest on the planet,
the American Government, on the other hand, isn't. How many trillions is
the nation in debt? An ordinary citizen couldn't get any where near that
without being arrested, but then who can arrest the U.S. Government?
It's people. I do not advocate discarding anyone, rich or poor, sick or
healthy. My point is that people provide better solutions privately than
any government has, does, or ever will. Stealing from the more
financially abundant to give to the lesser does not have the same
effectiveness as people giving on their own free will where to to whom
they choose. A culmanation of a small number of private citizens can and
has shown to provide better treatment and results than any government
agency or program. Government is not designed to be efficient, because
it isn't really held accountable for it's actions, unlike a private
organization or business. If government doesn't work, the politician can
still go home without being held accountable, so more damage can be
administered. A private company which produced half the bad results as
the U.S. Government would be completely out of business, sued into the
billions, shut down by (hypocritically) government, and many citizens
could be arrested. No government agency or program falls victim to this.
The individual politicians are NOT held accountable, except when
re-election nears, instead, the program is deemed to need more funding.
Funding a failing endeavor in private industry is business suicide, yet
government does it and it is considered to be necessary. I'm sure you
have heard the stories of the little rich kid brat who gets into trouble
so someone gives them more money to compensate, yet the trend continues.
It is easy to figure out that doing something different might be a good
idea, except when it comes to government. People seem to believe that
throwing more money into a brat agency or program will make up for the
problems. That doesn't make sense.

the situation for the better WITHOUT relying on welfare and handouts?
How many people actually do? A self inflicted vistim is not a true
victim. To further rely on a system that has produced pathetic results
and worsened the American economic system is foolish. People need to
wake up and realize that the government really isn't going to take care
of them. It is each of our own responsibility to take care of ourselves.


Yes, the system has and is failing, it gets continually worse as each dayprogresses. I had a car that I really liked. Sometimes it would breakdown. Eventually it broke down a lot. I could have chosen to continue to fixthe car every couple of months, spending a multitude more than the car was actually worth, or just buy a new car. Which would be the better idea?Would continuing the process of continued failure be more beneficial than starting a different process? At what point does one take into account the amount of failure as compared to a new approach? Continuing to do thesame exact same thing expecting different results is foolish and insane.Yet you are arguing to do that?
I say let the people have their money that they earned. Properly educated people can do much better for themselves financially than SS and Medicare ever has. Unfortunately, young people aren't taught that with an investment of $25.00 a week, starting at age 18, at age sixty five they can bea multi-millionaire. Simple economics. Instead, they are taught to rely on government theft of funds, live in poverty when they retire, enjoy thegolden years with their can of 9 Lives. How many SS recipients are even close to the millionaire scenario because of SS? NONE. I would be much happier being a retired millionaire than I would be living on SS check of what...1,200.00 dollars a month and poor medical coverage of Medicare. As for the current recipeints of SS and Medicare, I am ashamed that they have been bamboozled into such a scheme by something they were taught to trust. My wish is that future generations have the oppurtunity to do betterfor themsleves, BY themselves. Free from government theft and mismanagement of funds.



because you can't afford anything else? Where is the dignity in choosing
between medication, heating oil, food, or property taxes/rent?
Ok, SS was good in the 1930's due to the economic trouble of the time.
Unwanted seniors? I realize that some people have held this view, but I
doubt everyone did. I'd rather my elder family members be cared for at
home if possible than shipped to a home (nursing or convalescent). Too
many to go and just end up worse. Go there to die, how pleasant.
Fortunately, my family has more love and compassion than that, they have
shown that time and time again (I do realize that there are times when
it gets to a certain point, it is unavoidable).
If SS is the most successful program there is, then we are all in trouble.

I agree, government regulations should serve the public, the ones that are outlined in the Constitution would do wonderfully. Government regulation is the problem in the first place, it seems the government isn't regulated. The nation was not built on government coercion and welfare, but on the absence of it. If you really think there is much difference between the Rep. and the Dem. anymore, something is wrong. Politics has become a game. Name one politician in Washington DC that has lived up to all or even most of their campaign promises for the past 30 plus years. ANYTIME theU.S. government has interfered in privatelives and private industry, things have gotten worse. Everything from incompetence to political pay offshave dismembered everything it touches. It goes beyond party affiliation, it is the currently illegal and unconstitutional government in itself.
Do you know ALL the regulations that the Rep. implemented? How about ALL the Dems? Until you can honestly tell me me you do, I doubt you can claimthe following:



medical industry? The education system is a failure when compared to
other countries. Sat scores have not greatly improved since the sixties.
Private and home schools consistently out perform public education by a
widely superior margin. Top 5% of graduating Ivy Leaguers are usually
either home schooled or private schooled. Medical industry has improved,
and why is that? I'm sure the fact that the medical industry has a LARGE
private sector could perhaps play somewhat of a role.

Canadians frequently travel to U.S. for treatment. Why do you think that
is? Maybe bypassing a 3 month waiting list and bypassing being treated
like cattle is a good thing. The cost of their healthcare is outrageous.
Why. Plain and simple, it is run by the goverment. Back in the 1940's,
you could have a doctor make a house call for under $5. Today it is a
mininum of what, $60 dollars to sit in their waiting room? Are you
going to tell me that they are gouging too? The fact that Medicare only
pays about a third of the doctors bill doesn't play a role? When the
doctor raises his costs to you because of increases in insurance, rent,
taxes, lack of (full or partial) payment on behalf of the patient and/or
Medicare etc., who gets blamed? Usually he becomes the greedy one.
Pharmeceuticals can research, produce and manufacture medications at a
fraction of the cost in other countries, but yet here it is much more
costly and therefore results in a higher price in order to retain a
profit margin, they become the bad guys? You do realize that
pharmeceuticals are first and foremost a businesses. Businesses tend to
want to make a profit. A close second is the actual product. Why is
this? If you had the magic bullet in medication but yet continued to
lose money, how long do you think you could stay in business? Profit is
first, product is a very close second. When government interference
increases their costs, you will find out. When pharmeceuticals decreases
their costs, you will find out.

many of the lawmakers take meds too. It is a side effect of government
meddling.

X, probably all you will get is X. X meaning whatever you choose. The
question is, what are you looking for? How dumb the republicans are?
That is what I have seeen so far. How useful is that? Maybe looking to
see how intelligent ALL people can be and how wonderful they are no
matter their political affliliation, the world might seem better.
Affiliation with a particular party seems to be a really poor way to
judge people. Does being a Republican make any difference on how much
good someone can do in the world? If a Republican cured cancer, would it
be void since he/she is a republican. I don't care what someone's chosen
party is. It is plain nonsense. I am more concerned with the person who
joined the party and much less concerned with the party someone joined.
People make a difference, not a party. Life is more than just politics.
Labelling something will only serve to limit it, be wary of who and what
you limit. You might be pleasantly suprised at what will result.

by 2 things mainly; Goverment interference and regulation
(unconstitutional) and medicare (unconstitutional). If the government
left regulation to private industry and stayed completely out of the
welfare program, the people can and will take care of themselves. If the
government were put in it's place and only where it is constitutionally
allowed, today's ills and problems would be a fraction of what it is,
just as they were BEFORE it over-stepped it's constitutional bounds.
Medicare should be in the hands of private industry where each person
can choose a policy, but then that is called health insurance anyway and
SS should be eliminated for future generations, since better investment
programs exist out there.