I receved this email from a friend in New Jersey
PJ
-----------------------------------------------------
For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make sure that
seniors have access to prescription drugs and reasonable healthcare.
Now, in an attempt to score political points, the Republican
Congressional leadership is pushing through a bill that appears to
offer a solution. Actually, the bill undermines the entire Medicare
program, pushing people into the very HMOs which contribute heavily to
Republican lawmakers and barring the government from negotiating for
lower drug prices.

Given the danger to seniors, one might expect that the millions-strong
American Association of Retired People (AARP) to be on the case.
But after huge contributions from pharmaceutical companies and HMOs,
and pressure from Republican lawmakers, the AARP is selling out its
membership and backing the bill.

In response, 85 members of Congress (so far) have canceled their AARP
memberships, or announced that they will never join (if they're not
yet old enough to be eligible). [1] Today, we urge you to do the
same. If the AARP won't stand up for the elderly when it comes to
health care, what good is it? You can reach the AARP at:

NJ Branch: 609-987-0744
National hotline: 1-800-424-3410

If you're a member, tell them you're quitting.

If you're too young to be eligible, tell them you'll never join.

You also may want to let your Representative and Senators know that
you're keeping the AARP accountable. You could also tell them
that you expect them to demand real health care reform -- not this
industry-backed bill.

You can reach your members of Congress at:

Representative Donald M. Payne
DC Phone: 202-225-3436

Senator Frank Lautenberg
DC Phone: 202-224-3224

Senator Jon S. Corzine
DC Phone: 202-224-4744


Please let us know how you feel about this -- we're collecting
individual comments to share with the media, at:

http://moveon.org/aarp.html?id=2136-....APKD4NthfLzuw

The AARP has endorsed a bill that would make two fundamental changes
in Medica

1. First, it would force people to make a stark choice: either pay
sharply increased premiums to stay in traditional Medicare, where
they can choose their doctor; or be forced out, into an HMO.

Newt Gingrich, the former House Republican leader, said in 1995
that he wanted to let Medicare to "wither on the vine." This
change would lead to that result, with cost incentives driving
people out. (Not coincidentally, AARP CEO William Novelli
recently wrote the forward to Gingrich's book. [2])

2. Second, it offers a prescription drug benefit, but requires people
who want this coverage to buy it from private insurance plans.

This part of the bill also bars the government from doing the one
thing it could do to actually reduce the cost of these drugs --
negotiate for lower prices, using the size of the Medicare program
as leverage. Drug prices are soaring now, and unless they're
brought under control, they will eventually bankrupt Medicare.

AARP itself sells insurance and also sells prescription drugs, so
the group stands to reap huge financial gains from this change.

The bill has been opposed by a host of liberal groups [3] as well as
by major conservative groups, including the Club for Growth, The
Heritage Foundation, the American Conservative Union, The Cato
Institute, and the National Taxpayers Union. It's also been assailed
by virtually every one of the Democratic presidential candidates. [4]

In endorsing this bill, the AARP has broken faith with its members. In
a recent poll, 65% of AARP members said they're opposed to it. [5]
The group has also violated its own written principles. In July, CEO
William Novelli wrote to Congress stating the requirements for AARP's
support of a Medicare bill. [6] Yet the bill AARP has just endorsed
fails to meet nine separate requirements stated in that letter. [7]

We need to hold the AARP responsible for selling out its members. If
the organization sees sufficient backlash from its members and
prospective members, it could still change course and effect the
outcome of this legislation. Please call your local AARP branch
today.

Sincerely,
--Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
November 20th, 2003

-----

[1] 85 Representatives wrote to Novelli, canceling their memberships:
http://www.moveon.org/HouseAARPletter.pdf [2] From the foreword by
Novelli to Gingrich's new book, "Saving Lives
and Saving Dollars".

[3] See http://www.moveon.org/medicare.html for a complete list of
organizations.

[4] See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov17.html
[5] Poll: a majority of AARP members oppose the Medicare bill:
http://www.moveon.org/Medicaresurveypr.pdf
[6] AARP July letter on minimum acceptable standards
http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-0...nmedicare.html
[7] How AARP goes back on its word
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/Docu..._11_17_03.html
[8]
http://www.aarp.org/leadership/Artic...factsheet.html

You answered the question in your first sentence!
That the Democrates have worked for "YEARS" for a RX bill.

If it takes that long to come up with a bill then they are real dumb!!! Plus
they can't even agree among themselves on a 'good' Bill

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush!!!!!!
don


"Peanutjake" > wrote in message
...
> I receved this email from a friend in New Jersey
> PJ
> -----------------------------------------------------
> For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make sure that
> seniors have access to prescription drugs and reasonable healthcare.
> Now, in an attempt to score political points, the Republican
> Congressional leadership is pushing through a bill that appears to
> offer a solution. Actually, the bill undermines the entire Medicare
> program, pushing people into the very HMOs which contribute heavily to
> Republican lawmakers and barring the government from negotiating for
> lower drug prices.
>
> Given the danger to seniors, one might expect that the millions-strong
> American Association of Retired People (AARP) to be on the case.
> But after huge contributions from pharmaceutical companies and HMOs,
> and pressure from Republican lawmakers, the AARP is selling out its
> membership and backing the bill.
>
> In response, 85 members of Congress (so far) have canceled their AARP
> memberships, or announced that they will never join (if they're not
> yet old enough to be eligible). [1] Today, we urge you to do the
> same. If the AARP won't stand up for the elderly when it comes to
> health care, what good is it? You can reach the AARP at:
>
> NJ Branch: 609-987-0744
> National hotline: 1-800-424-3410
>
> If you're a member, tell them you're quitting.
>
> If you're too young to be eligible, tell them you'll never join.
>
> You also may want to let your Representative and Senators know that
> you're keeping the AARP accountable. You could also tell them
> that you expect them to demand real health care reform -- not this
> industry-backed bill.
>
> You can reach your members of Congress at:
>
> Representative Donald M. Payne
> DC Phone: 202-225-3436
>
> Senator Frank Lautenberg
> DC Phone: 202-224-3224
>
> Senator Jon S. Corzine
> DC Phone: 202-224-4744
>
>
> Please let us know how you feel about this -- we're collecting
> individual comments to share with the media, at:
>
> http://moveon.org/aarp.html?id=2136-....APKD4NthfLzuw
>
> The AARP has endorsed a bill that would make two fundamental changes
> in Medica
>
> 1. First, it would force people to make a stark choice: either pay
> sharply increased premiums to stay in traditional Medicare, where
> they can choose their doctor; or be forced out, into an HMO.
>
> Newt Gingrich, the former House Republican leader, said in 1995
> that he wanted to let Medicare to "wither on the vine." This
> change would lead to that result, with cost incentives driving
> people out. (Not coincidentally, AARP CEO William Novelli
> recently wrote the forward to Gingrich's book. [2])
>
> 2. Second, it offers a prescription drug benefit, but requires people
> who want this coverage to buy it from private insurance plans.
>
> This part of the bill also bars the government from doing the one
> thing it could do to actually reduce the cost of these drugs --
> negotiate for lower prices, using the size of the Medicare program
> as leverage. Drug prices are soaring now, and unless they're
> brought under control, they will eventually bankrupt Medicare.
>
> AARP itself sells insurance and also sells prescription drugs, so
> the group stands to reap huge financial gains from this change.
>
> The bill has been opposed by a host of liberal groups [3] as well as
> by major conservative groups, including the Club for Growth, The
> Heritage Foundation, the American Conservative Union, The Cato
> Institute, and the National Taxpayers Union. It's also been assailed
> by virtually every one of the Democratic presidential candidates. [4]
>
> In endorsing this bill, the AARP has broken faith with its members. In
> a recent poll, 65% of AARP members said they're opposed to it. [5]
> The group has also violated its own written principles. In July, CEO
> William Novelli wrote to Congress stating the requirements for AARP's
> support of a Medicare bill. [6] Yet the bill AARP has just endorsed
> fails to meet nine separate requirements stated in that letter. [7]
>
> We need to hold the AARP responsible for selling out its members. If
> the organization sees sufficient backlash from its members and
> prospective members, it could still change course and effect the
> outcome of this legislation. Please call your local AARP branch
> today.
>
> Sincerely,
> --Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
> The MoveOn.org Team
> November 20th, 2003
>
> -----
>
> [1] 85 Representatives wrote to Novelli, canceling their memberships:
> http://www.moveon.org/HouseAARPletter.pdf [2] From the foreword by
> Novelli to Gingrich's new book, "Saving Lives
> and Saving Dollars".
>
> [3] See http://www.moveon.org/medicare.html for a complete list of
> organizations.
>
> [4] See:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov17.html
> [5] Poll: a majority of AARP members oppose the Medicare bill:
> http://www.moveon.org/Medicaresurveypr.pdf
> [6] AARP July letter on minimum acceptable standards
> http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-0...nmedicare.html
> [7] How AARP goes back on its word
> http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/Docu..._11_17_03.html
> [8]
> http://www.aarp.org/leadership/Artic...factsheet.html
>
>

I'm from NJ & Lautenberg is a fill in for Torrecelli who resigned under
scandal. He is a multi millionaire & doesn't need SS as do many other
millionaires. Corzine is another multi multi millionaire who if he ever took
SS would call it chump change.
I'm a retired AARP member and I'll take whatever the government gives in the
way of medicine benefits. The Dems have had plenty of tim e to do something
aside from blaming the Republicans and it's now sour grapes. Ted Kennedy is
still trying to master swimming lessons.
Dan

"Don Stevens" > wrote in message
...
> You answered the question in your first sentence!
> That the Democrates have worked for "YEARS" for a RX bill.
>
> If it takes that long to come up with a bill then they are real dumb!!!
Plus
> they can't even agree among themselves on a 'good' Bill
>
> A bird in hand is worth two in the bush!!!!!!
> don
>
>
> "Peanutjake" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I receved this email from a friend in New Jersey
> > PJ
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make sure that
> > seniors have access to prescription drugs and reasonable healthcare.
> > Now, in an attempt to score political points, the Republican
> > Congressional leadership is pushing through a bill that appears to
> > offer a solution. Actually, the bill undermines the entire Medicare
> > program, pushing people into the very HMOs which contribute heavily to
> > Republican lawmakers and barring the government from negotiating for
> > lower drug prices.
> >
> > Given the danger to seniors, one might expect that the millions-strong
> > American Association of Retired People (AARP) to be on the case.
> > But after huge contributions from pharmaceutical companies and HMOs,
> > and pressure from Republican lawmakers, the AARP is selling out its
> > membership and backing the bill.
> >
> > In response, 85 members of Congress (so far) have canceled their AARP
> > memberships, or announced that they will never join (if they're not
> > yet old enough to be eligible). [1] Today, we urge you to do the
> > same. If the AARP won't stand up for the elderly when it comes to
> > health care, what good is it? You can reach the AARP at:
> >
> > NJ Branch: 609-987-0744
> > National hotline: 1-800-424-3410
> >
> > If you're a member, tell them you're quitting.
> >
> > If you're too young to be eligible, tell them you'll never join.
> >
> > You also may want to let your Representative and Senators know that
> > you're keeping the AARP accountable. You could also tell them
> > that you expect them to demand real health care reform -- not this
> > industry-backed bill.
> >
> > You can reach your members of Congress at:
> >
> > Representative Donald M. Payne
> > DC Phone: 202-225-3436
> >
> > Senator Frank Lautenberg
> > DC Phone: 202-224-3224
> >
> > Senator Jon S. Corzine
> > DC Phone: 202-224-4744
> >
> >
> > Please let us know how you feel about this -- we're collecting
> > individual comments to share with the media, at:
> >
> > http://moveon.org/aarp.html?id=2136-....APKD4NthfLzuw
> >
> > The AARP has endorsed a bill that would make two fundamental changes
> > in Medica
> >
> > 1. First, it would force people to make a stark choice: either pay
> > sharply increased premiums to stay in traditional Medicare, where
> > they can choose their doctor; or be forced out, into an HMO.
> >
> > Newt Gingrich, the former House Republican leader, said in 1995
> > that he wanted to let Medicare to "wither on the vine." This
> > change would lead to that result, with cost incentives driving
> > people out. (Not coincidentally, AARP CEO William Novelli
> > recently wrote the forward to Gingrich's book. [2])
> >
> > 2. Second, it offers a prescription drug benefit, but requires people
> > who want this coverage to buy it from private insurance plans.
> >
> > This part of the bill also bars the government from doing the one
> > thing it could do to actually reduce the cost of these drugs --
> > negotiate for lower prices, using the size of the Medicare program
> > as leverage. Drug prices are soaring now, and unless they're
> > brought under control, they will eventually bankrupt Medicare.
> >
> > AARP itself sells insurance and also sells prescription drugs, so
> > the group stands to reap huge financial gains from this change.
> >
> > The bill has been opposed by a host of liberal groups [3] as well as
> > by major conservative groups, including the Club for Growth, The
> > Heritage Foundation, the American Conservative Union, The Cato
> > Institute, and the National Taxpayers Union. It's also been assailed
> > by virtually every one of the Democratic presidential candidates. [4]
> >
> > In endorsing this bill, the AARP has broken faith with its members. In
> > a recent poll, 65% of AARP members said they're opposed to it. [5]
> > The group has also violated its own written principles. In July, CEO
> > William Novelli wrote to Congress stating the requirements for AARP's
> > support of a Medicare bill. [6] Yet the bill AARP has just endorsed
> > fails to meet nine separate requirements stated in that letter. [7]
> >
> > We need to hold the AARP responsible for selling out its members. If
> > the organization sees sufficient backlash from its members and
> > prospective members, it could still change course and effect the
> > outcome of this legislation. Please call your local AARP branch
> > today.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > --Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
> > The MoveOn.org Team
> > November 20th, 2003
> >
> > -----
> >
> > [1] 85 Representatives wrote to Novelli, canceling their memberships:
> > http://www.moveon.org/HouseAARPletter.pdf [2] From the foreword by
> > Novelli to Gingrich's new book, "Saving Lives
> > and Saving Dollars".
> >
> > [3] See http://www.moveon.org/medicare.html for a complete list of
> > organizations.
> >
> > [4] See:
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov17.html
> > [5] Poll: a majority of AARP members oppose the Medicare bill:
> > http://www.moveon.org/Medicaresurveypr.pdf
> > [6] AARP July letter on minimum acceptable standards
> > http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-0...nmedicare.html
> > [7] How AARP goes back on its word
> > http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/Docu..._11_17_03.html
> > [8]
> > http://www.aarp.org/leadership/Artic...factsheet.html
> >
> >
>
>

Peanutjake wrote:
> I receved this email from a friend in New Jersey
> PJ
> -----------------------------------------------------
> For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make
> sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and
> reasonable healthcare.

Obviously if left to the Dems you would wait for many more years.
At least you are getting something.... BJ

I> > For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make
> > sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and
> > reasonable healthcare.
>
> Obviously if left to the Dems you would wait for many more years.
> At least you are getting something.... BJ
>
The Senate Democrats and Republicans had a good bill passed then the
House Republicans destroyed it. The reason we haven't had a good bill in
the past years is because of the insurance industry lobbying expecially
in the last 9 years of Republican control.
--
See ya,

--Ray B.

Live near Des Moines, IA, USA

Ray Bowler wrote:
>>> For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make
>>> sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and
>>> reasonable healthcare.
>>
>> Obviously if left to the Dems you would wait for many more
>> years.
>> At least you are getting something.... BJ
>>
> The Senate Democrats and Republicans had a good bill passed
> then the House Republicans destroyed it. The reason we
> haven't had a good bill in the past years is because of the
> insurance industry lobbying expecially in the last 9 years of
> Republican control.

The Dems had control for 40+ years and nothing was done.. BJ

In alt.support.diabetes BJ in Texas > wrote:
: Ray Bowler wrote:
: >>> For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make
: >>> sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and
: >>> reasonable healthcare.
: >>
: >> Obviously if left to the Dems you would wait for many more
: >> years.
: >> At least you are getting something.... BJ
: >>
: > The Senate Democrats and Republicans had a good bill passed
: > then the House Republicans destroyed it. The reason we
: > haven't had a good bill in the past years is because of the
: > insurance industry lobbying expecially in the last 9 years of
: > Republican control.

: The Dems had control for 40+ years and nothing was done.. BJ

Well, they passed the original Medicare bill over the loud objections of
the Republicans, and, if I recall correctly, the American Medical
Association. At that time meds were not a big part of medical care,
so the were ot included.

Wendy

In article >, W. Baker > wrote:
>In alt.support.diabetes BJ in Texas > wrote:
>: Ray Bowler wrote:
>: >>> For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make
>: >>> sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and
>: >>> reasonable healthcare.

>: >> Obviously if left to the Dems you would wait for many more
>: >> years.
>: >> At least you are getting something.... BJ

>: > The Senate Democrats and Republicans had a good bill passed
>: > then the House Republicans destroyed it. The reason we
>: > haven't had a good bill in the past years is because of the
>: > insurance industry lobbying expecially in the last 9 years of
>: > Republican control.

>: The Dems had control for 40+ years and nothing was done.. BJ

>Well, they passed the original Medicare bill over the loud objections of
>the Republicans, and, if I recall correctly, the American Medical
>Association. At that time meds were not a big part of medical care,
>so the were ot included.

At least in retrospect, Medicare has been a calamity. It,
and the major increase in prepaid health plans, mistakenly
called "insurance", are large causes of rising medical costs.
The claim that Medicare has low overhead is false; it is
true that the government has low overhead, but the amount
of paperwork and clerical work required is high. It is pure
welfare as the amount received is not related to what has
been contributed. And part of the cost is due to the fact
that much of the work done is prepaid.




--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

This is a wonderful new bill that will give the elderly access to drugs
they can't get now. For less than one thousand a year they can have
coverage and a card to get discounts. Up to three thousand dollars they
will get a return of 75% after that they are on there on. There are
really no people who would use $3000 a year in drugs. If so they should
go to the charity hospitals and other free sources for their care and
medicantions and not become a drain on the economy of those who plan for
our futures.
Mary Belle
Bistoury's mother house sitting for two more days and setting it straight.

Peanutjake wrote:

> I receved this email from a friend in New Jersey
> PJ
> -----------------------------------------------------
> For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make sure that
> seniors have access to prescription drugs and reasonable healthcare.
> Now, in an attempt to score political points, the Republican
> Congressional leadership is pushing through a bill that appears to
> offer a solution. Actually, the bill undermines the entire Medicare
> program, pushing people into the very HMOs which contribute heavily to
> Republican lawmakers and barring the government from negotiating for
> lower drug prices.
>
> Given the danger to seniors, one might expect that the millions-strong
> American Association of Retired People (AARP) to be on the case.
> But after huge contributions from pharmaceutical companies and HMOs,
> and pressure from Republican lawmakers, the AARP is selling out its
> membership and backing the bill.
>
> In response, 85 members of Congress (so far) have canceled their AARP
> memberships, or announced that they will never join (if they're not
> yet old enough to be eligible). [1] Today, we urge you to do the
> same. If the AARP won't stand up for the elderly when it comes to
> health care, what good is it? You can reach the AARP at:
>
> NJ Branch: 609-987-0744
> National hotline: 1-800-424-3410
>
> If you're a member, tell them you're quitting.
>
> If you're too young to be eligible, tell them you'll never join.
>
> You also may want to let your Representative and Senators know that
> you're keeping the AARP accountable. You could also tell them
> that you expect them to demand real health care reform -- not this
> industry-backed bill.
>
> You can reach your members of Congress at:
>
> Representative Donald M. Payne
> DC Phone: 202-225-3436
>
> Senator Frank Lautenberg
> DC Phone: 202-224-3224
>
> Senator Jon S. Corzine
> DC Phone: 202-224-4744
>
>
> Please let us know how you feel about this -- we're collecting
> individual comments to share with the media, at:
>
> http://moveon.org/aarp.html?id=2136-....APKD4NthfLzuw
>
> The AARP has endorsed a bill that would make two fundamental changes
> in Medica
>
> 1. First, it would force people to make a stark choice: either pay
> sharply increased premiums to stay in traditional Medicare, where
> they can choose their doctor; or be forced out, into an HMO.
>
> Newt Gingrich, the former House Republican leader, said in 1995
> that he wanted to let Medicare to "wither on the vine." This
> change would lead to that result, with cost incentives driving
> people out. (Not coincidentally, AARP CEO William Novelli
> recently wrote the forward to Gingrich's book. [2])
>
> 2. Second, it offers a prescription drug benefit, but requires people
> who want this coverage to buy it from private insurance plans.
>
> This part of the bill also bars the government from doing the one
> thing it could do to actually reduce the cost of these drugs --
> negotiate for lower prices, using the size of the Medicare program
> as leverage. Drug prices are soaring now, and unless they're
> brought under control, they will eventually bankrupt Medicare.
>
> AARP itself sells insurance and also sells prescription drugs, so
> the group stands to reap huge financial gains from this change.
>
> The bill has been opposed by a host of liberal groups [3] as well as
> by major conservative groups, including the Club for Growth, The
> Heritage Foundation, the American Conservative Union, The Cato
> Institute, and the National Taxpayers Union. It's also been assailed
> by virtually every one of the Democratic presidential candidates. [4]
>
> In endorsing this bill, the AARP has broken faith with its members. In
> a recent poll, 65% of AARP members said they're opposed to it. [5]
> The group has also violated its own written principles. In July, CEO
> William Novelli wrote to Congress stating the requirements for AARP's
> support of a Medicare bill. [6] Yet the bill AARP has just endorsed
> fails to meet nine separate requirements stated in that letter. [7]
>
> We need to hold the AARP responsible for selling out its members. If
> the organization sees sufficient backlash from its members and
> prospective members, it could still change course and effect the
> outcome of this legislation. Please call your local AARP branch
> today.
>
> Sincerely,
> --Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
> The MoveOn.org Team
> November 20th, 2003
>
> -----
>
> [1] 85 Representatives wrote to Novelli, canceling their memberships:
> http://www.moveon.org/HouseAARPletter.pdf [2] From the foreword by
> Novelli to Gingrich's new book, "Saving Lives
> and Saving Dollars".
>
> [3] See http://www.moveon.org/medicare.html for a complete list of
> organizations.
>
> [4] See:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov17.html
> [5] Poll: a majority of AARP members oppose the Medicare bill:
> http://www.moveon.org/Medicaresurveypr.pdf
> [6] AARP July letter on minimum acceptable standards
> http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-0...nmedicare.html
> [7] How AARP goes back on its word
> http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/Docu..._11_17_03.html
> [8]
> http://www.aarp.org/leadership/Artic...factsheet.html
>
>

What do you expect from a bunch of liberals. They only want to get
bills passed for minorities. The liberals hate white people and work
only for the others.
Mary Belle

BJ in Texas wrote:

> Ray Bowler wrote:
>
>>>>For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make
>>>>sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and
>>>>reasonable healthcare.
>>>
>>>Obviously if left to the Dems you would wait for many more
>>>years.
>>>At least you are getting something.... BJ
>>>
>>
>>The Senate Democrats and Republicans had a good bill passed
>>then the House Republicans destroyed it. The reason we
>>haven't had a good bill in the past years is because of the
>>insurance industry lobbying expecially in the last 9 years of
>>Republican control.
>
>
> The Dems had control for 40+ years and nothing was done.. BJ
>
>

I agree with you 100%. I remeber when there was no
Medicare/Medicaid/Medical programs=all welfare give aways.
They have caused the constant growth of prices for medicine in general.
I remember when we all had Blue Cross. We had all we needed and
excellent care.
We paid for our own pharmacy products and planned for whatever expenses
we would have in the future.
All my children have learned their lessons well and have planned for a
future to support themselves well when they retire.
You need to look out for yourself. It is not our duty to look out for
those who did not prepare.
Reminds me of Aesop Fables and the one who saves up and the other who
lived for the moment.
Mary Belle,
Bistoury's mother house sitting for two more days and setting it straight.

Herman Rubin wrote:

> In article >, W. Baker > wrote:
>
>>In alt.support.diabetes BJ in Texas > wrote:
>>: Ray Bowler wrote:
>>: >>> For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make
>>: >>> sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and
>>: >>> reasonable healthcare.
>
>
>>: >> Obviously if left to the Dems you would wait for many more
>>: >> years.
>>: >> At least you are getting something.... BJ
>
>
>>: > The Senate Democrats and Republicans had a good bill passed
>>: > then the House Republicans destroyed it. The reason we
>>: > haven't had a good bill in the past years is because of the
>>: > insurance industry lobbying expecially in the last 9 years of
>>: > Republican control.
>
>
>>: The Dems had control for 40+ years and nothing was done.. BJ
>
>
>>Well, they passed the original Medicare bill over the loud objections of
>>the Republicans, and, if I recall correctly, the American Medical
>>Association. At that time meds were not a big part of medical care,
>>so the were ot included.
>
>
> At least in retrospect, Medicare has been a calamity. It,
> and the major increase in prepaid health plans, mistakenly
> called "insurance", are large causes of rising medical costs.
> The claim that Medicare has low overhead is false; it is
> true that the government has low overhead, but the amount
> of paperwork and clerical work required is high. It is pure
> welfare as the amount received is not related to what has
> been contributed. And part of the cost is due to the fact
> that much of the work done is prepaid.
>
>
>
>

W. Baker wrote:
> In alt.support.diabetes BJ in Texas >
> wrote:
>> Ray Bowler wrote:
>>>>> For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make
>>>>> sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and
>>>>> reasonable healthcare.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously if left to the Dems you would wait for many more
>>>> years.
>>>> At least you are getting something.... BJ
>>>>
>>> The Senate Democrats and Republicans had a good bill passed
>>> then the House Republicans destroyed it. The reason we
>>> haven't had a good bill in the past years is because of the
>>> insurance industry lobbying expecially in the last 9 years
>>> of Republican control.
>
>> The Dems had control for 40+ years and nothing was done.. BJ
>
> Well, they passed the original Medicare bill over the loud
> objections of the Republicans, and, if I recall correctly,
> the American Medical Association. At that time meds were not
> a big part of medical care,
> so the were ot included.
>
> Wendy


The AMA was against Medicare when it was originally passed in 1965.
Individual physicians were pretty evenly split for and against with slightly
more for. In 1965 Medicare had its supporters and detractors on both
sides of the aisle in congress. There was more disagreement on implemtation
than on wheither it should be passed. One major argument was over wheither
or not it should contain a prescription drug benefit.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:36:15 GMT, nospam >
wrote:

>This is a wonderful new bill that will give the elderly access to drugs
>they can't get now. For less than one thousand a year they can have
>coverage and a card to get discounts. Up to three thousand dollars they
>will get a return of 75% after that they are on there on. There are
>really no people who would use $3000 a year in drugs. If so they should
>go to the charity hospitals and other free sources for their care and
>medicantions and not become a drain on the economy of those who plan for
>our futures.
>Mary Belle

thank you for showing how little you understand the issue.

Mack
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:37:23 GMT, nospam >
wrote:

>What do you expect from a bunch of liberals. They only want to get
>bills passed for minorities. The liberals hate white people and work
>only for the others.
>Mary Belle
>

yes the great conspiracy is finally revealed.

Mack
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.

Perhaps you haven't noticed but one has ever been promised a free ride.
All these liberals want is free access to everything that the rest of us
have worked for and saved for. I have no intention of supporting anyone
else who reufuses to plan for their future.
I also hope the soon privatise Social Security so they can stop robbing
my husbands income and the indome of the nine children.
No one has been promised anything...do you get that picture.
Few years back no one had any of these entitlements and Medicine was
great. You can't plan you don't get a free ride.
Mary Belle,
Bistoury's mother house sitting for two more days and setting it straight.

Mack wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:36:15 GMT, nospam >
> wrote:
>
>
>>This is a wonderful new bill that will give the elderly access to drugs
>>they can't get now. For less than one thousand a year they can have
>>coverage and a card to get discounts. Up to three thousand dollars they
>>will get a return of 75% after that they are on there on. There are
>>really no people who would use $3000 a year in drugs. If so they should
>>go to the charity hospitals and other free sources for their care and
>>medicantions and not become a drain on the economy of those who plan for
>>our futures.
>>Mary Belle
>
>
> thank you for showing how little you understand the issue.
>
> Mack
> Type 1 since 1975
> http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
> http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
>
> In tribute to the United States of America and the State
> of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
> terrorism.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:37:23 +0000, nospam wrote:

> What do you expect from a bunch of liberals. They only want to get bills
> passed for minorities. The liberals hate white people and work only for
> the others.

Ah... It's self hate that has been bothering me...

It's scary to know you have pro created.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:27:40 +0000, nospam wrote:

> Perhaps you haven't noticed but one has ever been promised a free ride.
> All these liberals want is free access to everything that the rest of us
> have worked for and saved for. I have no intention of supporting anyone
> else who reufuses to plan for their future.

You mam are a liar. In this very group you say on Thanksgiving you will be
giving food to the needy. Why? They did not plan for their future.

Dannie wrote:

> I'm from NJ & Lautenberg is a fill in for Torrecelli who resigned under
> scandal. He is a multi millionaire & doesn't need SS as do many other
> millionaires. Corzine is another multi multi millionaire who if he ever took
> SS would call it chump change.
> I'm a retired AARP member and I'll take whatever the government gives in the
> way of medicine benefits. The Dems have had plenty of tim e to do something
> aside from blaming the Republicans and it's now sour grapes. Ted Kennedy is
> still trying to master swimming lessons.
> Dan

Right. The dems have had a long time...yadda yadda

The repubs have been in control in congress for more than a decade.
It's taken this long to get a bad bill through. Imagine how long it
would take to get a good one.

Pastorio




> "Don Stevens" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You answered the question in your first sentence!
>>That the Democrates have worked for "YEARS" for a RX bill.
>>
>>If it takes that long to come up with a bill then they are real dumb!!!
>
> Plus
>
>>they can't even agree among themselves on a 'good' Bill
>>
>>A bird in hand is worth two in the bush!!!!!!
>>don
>>
>>
>>"Peanutjake" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>I receved this email from a friend in New Jersey
>>>PJ
>>>-----------------------------------------------------
>>>For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make sure that
>>>seniors have access to prescription drugs and reasonable healthcare.
>>>Now, in an attempt to score political points, the Republican
>>>Congressional leadership is pushing through a bill that appears to
>>>offer a solution. Actually, the bill undermines the entire Medicare
>>>program, pushing people into the very HMOs which contribute heavily to
>>>Republican lawmakers and barring the government from negotiating for
>>>lower drug prices.
>>>
>>>Given the danger to seniors, one might expect that the millions-strong
>>>American Association of Retired People (AARP) to be on the case.
>>>But after huge contributions from pharmaceutical companies and HMOs,
>>>and pressure from Republican lawmakers, the AARP is selling out its
>>>membership and backing the bill.
>>>
>>>In response, 85 members of Congress (so far) have canceled their AARP
>>>memberships, or announced that they will never join (if they're not
>>>yet old enough to be eligible). [1] Today, we urge you to do the
>>>same. If the AARP won't stand up for the elderly when it comes to
>>>health care, what good is it? You can reach the AARP at:
>>>
>>> NJ Branch: 609-987-0744
>>> National hotline: 1-800-424-3410
>>>
>>>If you're a member, tell them you're quitting.
>>>
>>>If you're too young to be eligible, tell them you'll never join.
>>>
>>>You also may want to let your Representative and Senators know that
>>>you're keeping the AARP accountable. You could also tell them
>>>that you expect them to demand real health care reform -- not this
>>>industry-backed bill.
>>>
>>>You can reach your members of Congress at:
>>>
>>> Representative Donald M. Payne
>>> DC Phone: 202-225-3436
>>>
>>> Senator Frank Lautenberg
>>> DC Phone: 202-224-3224
>>>
>>> Senator Jon S. Corzine
>>> DC Phone: 202-224-4744
>>>
>>>
>>>Please let us know how you feel about this -- we're collecting
>>>individual comments to share with the media, at:
>>>
>>> http://moveon.org/aarp.html?id=2136-....APKD4NthfLzuw
>>>
>>>The AARP has endorsed a bill that would make two fundamental changes
>>>in Medica
>>>
>>>1. First, it would force people to make a stark choice: either pay
>>> sharply increased premiums to stay in traditional Medicare, where
>>> they can choose their doctor; or be forced out, into an HMO.
>>>
>>> Newt Gingrich, the former House Republican leader, said in 1995
>>> that he wanted to let Medicare to "wither on the vine." This
>>> change would lead to that result, with cost incentives driving
>>> people out. (Not coincidentally, AARP CEO William Novelli
>>> recently wrote the forward to Gingrich's book. [2])
>>>
>>>2. Second, it offers a prescription drug benefit, but requires people
>>> who want this coverage to buy it from private insurance plans.
>>>
>>> This part of the bill also bars the government from doing the one
>>> thing it could do to actually reduce the cost of these drugs --
>>> negotiate for lower prices, using the size of the Medicare program
>>> as leverage. Drug prices are soaring now, and unless they're
>>> brought under control, they will eventually bankrupt Medicare.
>>>
>>> AARP itself sells insurance and also sells prescription drugs, so
>>> the group stands to reap huge financial gains from this change.
>>>
>>>The bill has been opposed by a host of liberal groups [3] as well as
>>>by major conservative groups, including the Club for Growth, The
>>>Heritage Foundation, the American Conservative Union, The Cato
>>>Institute, and the National Taxpayers Union. It's also been assailed
>>>by virtually every one of the Democratic presidential candidates. [4]
>>>
>>>In endorsing this bill, the AARP has broken faith with its members. In
>>>a recent poll, 65% of AARP members said they're opposed to it. [5]
>>>The group has also violated its own written principles. In July, CEO
>>>William Novelli wrote to Congress stating the requirements for AARP's
>>>support of a Medicare bill. [6] Yet the bill AARP has just endorsed
>>>fails to meet nine separate requirements stated in that letter. [7]
>>>
>>>We need to hold the AARP responsible for selling out its members. If
>>>the organization sees sufficient backlash from its members and
>>>prospective members, it could still change course and effect the
>>>outcome of this legislation. Please call your local AARP branch
>>>today.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>--Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
>>> The MoveOn.org Team
>>> November 20th, 2003
>>>
>>>-----
>>>
>>>[1] 85 Representatives wrote to Novelli, canceling their memberships:
>>>http://www.moveon.org/HouseAARPletter.pdf [2] From the foreword by
>>>Novelli to Gingrich's new book, "Saving Lives
>>> and Saving Dollars".
>>>
>>>[3] See http://www.moveon.org/medicare.html for a complete list of
>>>organizations.
>>>
>>>[4] See:
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov17.html
>>>[5] Poll: a majority of AARP members oppose the Medicare bill:
>>>http://www.moveon.org/Medicaresurveypr.pdf
>>>[6] AARP July letter on minimum acceptable standards
>>>http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-0...nmedicare.html
>>>[7] How AARP goes back on its word
>>>http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/Docu..._11_17_03.html
>>>[8]
>>>http://www.aarp.org/leadership/Artic...factsheet.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

BJ in Texas wrote:

> Ray Bowler wrote:
>
>>>>For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make
>>>>sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and
>>>>reasonable healthcare.
>>>
>>>Obviously if left to the Dems you would wait for many more
>>>years.
>>>At least you are getting something.... BJ
>>>
>>
>>The Senate Democrats and Republicans had a good bill passed
>>then the House Republicans destroyed it. The reason we
>>haven't had a good bill in the past years is because of the
>>insurance industry lobbying expecially in the last 9 years of
>>Republican control.
>
> The Dems had control for 40+ years and nothing was done.. BJ

What a silly thing to say. That's like saying that during the
Eisenhower administration he didn't try to get a civil rights bill
passed. Everything in its time.

Nothing was done when the dems were in charge? Nothing...?

Pastorio

nospam wrote:
> This is a wonderful new bill that will give the elderly access to drugs
> they can't get now. For less than one thousand a year they can have
> coverage and a card to get discounts. Up to three thousand dollars they
> will get a return of 75% after that they are on there on. There are
> really no people who would use $3000 a year in drugs.
> Mary Belle

Oh my God, you are so full of it it's amazing.

1. We will pay $420 premiums, plus $270 = $$690 before we see a penny in
benefits.

2. Of the first $2200 we will pay $550. Add to the $690 above, we will
pay $1240 cash for the first $2200 worth of drugs, receiving a benefit
of $960. That's more than 55% co-payment, or 45% benefits.

3. I could buy my medication is Canada for less than 40% of what I pay
here. But they disallowed this in this hoax of a law.

4. For the next $3000 - up to total drug expenditure of $5200 - we will
pay every blipping penny. 100%. So, if you buy $5200 of medication a
year, or $433 a months, we will get back those aforementioned $960.
That's 18% benefits. Or 82% copayment.

5. Right now I can get a card that will give me 20% - 25% discount on
most drugs. The feds offer a card that will give me 15% discount, and I
have to buy it.

6. You said, "...There are really no people who would use $3000 a year
in drugs." Are you ignorant or stupid? Do you have any idea how much
drugs cost? I am diabetic, and I would spend over $5,000 a year on drugs
if I bought them here in the US. But I smuggle them from Canada and pay
only $1800 a year. This frigging government makes me a law breaker.

> If so they should
> go to the charity hospitals and other free sources for their care and
> medicantions and not become a drain on the economy of those who plan
> for our futures.

7. What charity hospital are you talking about? What free sources? you
are pretending or are you really clueless?
8. I planned for my future. Things happen. Divorce Lawyers happen.
Accidents happen. Getting fired at 56 (nobody says you are old, not
aloud) happens. And no one hires, that too happens. It is said, Man
plans, God laughs.

8. instead of giving this gift of $400,000,000,000.00 to the insurance
cos, HMO's and the drug cos, all they had to do is open the borders for
free trade with Canada. That would have have made a hell of lot better
deal for the elderly. But their bosses, the insurance cos, drug cos and
HMO's would not allow them. They said, "Sit, boy. Sit!"

9., and final point: This country is the only industrial country in the
world does not provide national health care. Everyone else does,
including most non industrial countries, and their economy is just fine.
And so are their citizens.

10. Grow up, get the facts, and stop jibbering untruths. Or your God
will show you the errors of your ways by practical demonstration. He
does that, you know.

M. Pann wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>> This is a wonderful new bill that will give the elderly access to drugs
>> they can't get now. For less than one thousand a year they can have
>> coverage and a card to get discounts. Up to three thousand dollars they
>> will get a return of 75% after that they are on there on. There are
>> really no people who would use $3000 a year in drugs.
>> Mary Belle
>
> Oh my God, you are so full of it it's amazing.
>
> 1. We will pay $420 premiums, plus $270 = $$690 before we see a penny in
> benefits.

Thanks, I'll take it. That's a third of the monthly premium I was quoted.

Woops. I'm not eligible. It's only for federal wards.

> 2. Of the first $2200 we will pay $550. Add to the $690 above, we will
> pay $1240 cash for the first $2200 worth of drugs, receiving a benefit
> of $960. That's more than 55% co-payment, or 45% benefits.

Awww, shucks, it only save you 45%. You really deserve it free.

> 3. I could buy my medication is Canada for less than 40% of what I pay
> here. But they disallowed this in this hoax of a law.

Actually ya can still buy in Canada or Mexico or Kenya, but ya can't
apply those purchases to yer plan coverage.

> 4. For the next $3000 - up to total drug expenditure of $5200 - we will
> pay every blipping penny. 100%. So, if you buy $5200 of medication a
> year, or $433 a months, we will get back those aforementioned $960.
> That's 18% benefits. Or 82% copayment.

Cry me a river. Bet you bitch if ya find meat in yer stew.

> 5. Right now I can get a card that will give me 20% - 25% discount on
> most drugs. The feds offer a card that will give me 15% discount, and I
> have to buy it.

No, you don't have to buy it. If you have a better deal, just take it.

> 6. You said, "...There are really no people who would use $3000 a year
> in drugs." Are you ignorant or stupid? Do you have any idea how much
> drugs cost? I am diabetic, and I would spend over $5,000 a year on drugs
> if I bought them here in the US. But I smuggle them from Canada and pay
> only $1800 a year. This frigging government makes me a law breaker.

Are you ignorant or stupid? I am diabetic and my drugs cost a small
fraction of what yer paying in Canada. Maybe ya need a new travel agent.

> 7. What charity hospital are you talking about? What free sources? you
> are pretending or are you really clueless?

Probably old enough to remember when folks with the wherewithall payed
their own way without bitching, and supported charity instead of
Democrats. The problem with the welfare state is the volume of the whining.

> 8. I planned for my future. Things happen. Divorce Lawyers happen.
> Accidents happen. Getting fired at 56 (nobody says you are old, not
> aloud) happens. And no one hires, that too happens. It is said, Man
> plans, God laughs.

So you planned poorly. Vote Democratic - the promises make ya feel like
someone really cares.

> 8. instead of giving this gift of $400,000,000,000.00 to the insurance
> cos, HMO's and the drug cos, all they had to do is open the borders for
> free trade with Canada. That would have have made a hell of lot better
> deal for the elderly. But their bosses, the insurance cos, drug cos and
> HMO's would not allow them. They said, "Sit, boy. Sit!"

Bullshit. The Canadian and Mexican borders will reamin open. Yer just
sore because the money goes to poor folks.

> 9., and final point: This country is the only industrial country in the
> world does not provide national health care. Everyone else does,
> including most non industrial countries, and their economy is just fine.
> And so are their citizens.

Yup, that's true. And every national health system prioritizes care,
which the US refuses to accept. Ya can't have both.

> 10. Grow up, get the facts, and stop jibbering untruths. Or your God
> will show you the errors of your ways by practical demonstration. He
> does that, you know.

Grow up, get the facts, and stop jibbering untruths. Or your God
will show you the errors of your ways by practical demonstration. He
does that, you know.

If all the old folks unite, maybe we can oust this schmuck before he does more
damage. Florida is full of old folks, so maybe we can boot out his brother,
too.
Jon

"mike gray, CID" > wrote in message
...
> M. Pann wrote:

> > 6. You said, "...There are really no people who would use $3000 a year
> > in drugs." Are you ignorant or stupid? Do you have any idea how much
> > drugs cost? I am diabetic, and I would spend over $5,000 a year on drugs
> > if I bought them here in the US. But I smuggle them from Canada and pay
> > only $1800 a year. This frigging government makes me a law breaker.
>
> Are you ignorant or stupid? I am diabetic and my drugs cost a small
> fraction of what yer paying in Canada. Maybe ya need a new travel agent.

No, you are. Add it up for long-term Type 1.

1: Glucometer and strips. 5 tests a day, $1/strip, that's $1800 right there.

2: Insulin. Figure 50 units a day for an otherwise healthy adult, that's
roughly 18 bottles a year not counting lossage, at $30/bottle that's about
$550 right there.

3: Syringes (which are cheaper than pumps). Use 2 a day, figure $.25 each,
that's another $180. Quintuple this price if you use an insulin pump, which
take far more expensive bits and require regular replacement/upkeep.

4: Other medical drug costs, such as blood pressure meds, heart medicine,
allergies, asthma, cholesterol or other circulator. This can easily cost
more than the direct diabetes mediacal costs.

> > 8. instead of giving this gift of $400,000,000,000.00 to the insurance
> > cos, HMO's and the drug cos, all they had to do is open the borders for
> > free trade with Canada. That would have have made a hell of lot better
> > deal for the elderly. But their bosses, the insurance cos, drug cos and
> > HMO's would not allow them. They said, "Sit, boy. Sit!"
>
> Bullshit. The Canadian and Mexican borders will reamin open. Yer just
> sore because the money goes to poor folks.

No, it doesn't. The money goes to the folks who can cleverly wend their way
through the paperwork. The benefits of providing a modest level of basic
health care as a national right are exactly for "the poor folks", and would
devastate a lot of more expensive and sophisticated medical businesses and
institutions that, oh my goodness, have lots of generous lobbyists! Even the
membership of the AMA is getting fed up with the current insurance
wackiness, though.

> > 9., and final point: This country is the only industrial country in the
> > world does not provide national health care. Everyone else does,
> > including most non industrial countries, and their economy is just fine.
> > And so are their citizens.
>
> Yup, that's true. And every national health system prioritizes care,
> which the US refuses to accept. Ya can't have both.

Strawman. Minus 3 points.

> > 10. Grow up, get the facts, and stop jibbering untruths. Or your God
> > will show you the errors of your ways by practical demonstration. He
> > does that, you know.
>
> Grow up, get the facts, and stop jibbering untruths. Or your God
> will show you the errors of your ways by practical demonstration. He
> does that, you know.

He already did: he sent you.

*plonk*.

Jon Kaplan wrote:

> If all the old folks unite, maybe we can oust this schmuck before he does more
> damage. Florida is full of old folks, so maybe we can boot out his brother,
> too.
> Jon
>


As an old fart from West Boca, I can assure ya that what we really want
is Democratic promises, not a bunch of Republican drug benefits.

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

> "mike gray, CID" > wrote in message
> ...
>> M. Pann wrote:
>
>> > 6. You said, "...There are really no people who would use $3000 a year
>> > in drugs." Are you ignorant or stupid? Do you have any idea how much
>> > drugs cost? I am diabetic, and I would spend over $5,000 a year on drugs
>> > if I bought them here in the US. But I smuggle them from Canada and pay
>> > only $1800 a year. This frigging government makes me a law breaker.
>>
>> Are you ignorant or stupid? I am diabetic and my drugs cost a small
>> fraction of what yer paying in Canada. Maybe ya need a new travel agent.
>
> No, you are. Add it up for long-term Type 1.
>
> 1: Glucometer and strips. 5 tests a day, $1/strip, that's $1800 right there.

Testing five times a day is a hobby, or maybe a fetish, but not a
necessity. And strips are 54 cents each in Boca Raton, Florida.
>
> 2: Insulin. Figure 50 units a day for an otherwise healthy adult, that's
> roughly 18 bottles a year not counting lossage, at $30/bottle that's about
> $550 right there.

35 units a day, $18/bottle in Florida.

> 3: Syringes (which are cheaper than pumps). Use 2 a day, figure $.25 each,
> that's another $180. Quintuple this price if you use an insulin pump, which
> take far more expensive bits and require regular replacement/upkeep.

Syringes get re-used 4 times, cost 18 cents each, that's a bit over 4
cents/shot.

> 4: Other medical drug costs, such as blood pressure meds, heart medicine,
> allergies, asthma, cholesterol or other circulator. This can easily cost
> more than the direct diabetes mediacal costs.

Don't use any of that stuff, but my rum bill runs about $30/month.


>> Bullshit. The Canadian and Mexican borders will reamin open. Yer just
>> sore because the money goes to poor folks.
>
> No, it doesn't. The money goes to the folks who can cleverly wend their way
> through the paperwork.

Yup. They're called "Medicare beneficiaries".

> The benefits of providing a modest level of basic
> health care as a national right are exactly for "the poor folks", and would
> devastate a lot of more expensive and sophisticated medical businesses and
> institutions that, oh my goodness, have lots of generous lobbyists! Even the
> membership of the AMA is getting fed up with the current insurance
> wackiness, though.

Maybe that's why the AMA, the drug companies, and the insurance
companies all contribute more to the Dems than to the Republicans (yes
they do, look it up!)
>
>> > 9., and final point: This country is the only industrial country in the
>> > world does not provide national health care. Everyone else does,
>> > including most non industrial countries, and their economy is just fine.
>> > And so are their citizens.
>>
>> Yup, that's true. And every national health system prioritizes care,
>> which the US refuses to accept. Ya can't have both.
>
> Strawman. Minus 3 points.

Every national health system proposed in the last twenty years has been
defeated because every proposal would have prioritized care. Most
recently, Hillary's proposal. The last significant reform of the
delivery system, the HMO Act of 1973 (PL 93-222), clearly demonstrated
the ability of prioritized, provider managed care to equitably
distribute health resources at far lower costs, but the bill and the
system was gutted by special interest groups that insisted on on-demand
care and services.

The refusal of US citizens to give up their tradition of deciding for
themselves their individual care regimens is the reason we will not have
national health service in our lifetime.

Strawman indeed.

mike gray, CID wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> "mike gray, CID" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> M. Pann wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > 6. You said, "...There are really no people who would use $3000 a year
>>> > in drugs." Are you ignorant or stupid? Do you have any idea how much
>>> > drugs cost? I am diabetic, and I would spend over $5,000 a year on
>>> drugs
>>> > if I bought them here in the US. But I smuggle them from Canada and
>>> pay
>>> > only $1800 a year. This frigging government makes me a law breaker.
>>>
>>> Are you ignorant or stupid? I am diabetic and my drugs cost a small
>>> fraction of what yer paying in Canada. Maybe ya need a new travel agent.
>>
>>
>> No, you are. Add it up for long-term Type 1.
>>
>> 1: Glucometer and strips. 5 tests a day, $1/strip, that's $1800 right
>> there.
>
>
> Testing five times a day is a hobby, or maybe a fetish, but not a
> necessity. And strips are 54 cents each in Boca Raton, Florida.
Actually, some people have to test 7 times a day: Fasting, 2hr pp
breakfast, before lunch and 2hrs PP, Before dinner and 2 hrs PP, and
bedtime. This testing is necessary for proper dosing.

And strips cost, depends on the meter. One touch ultra cost $0.82 each.
Times 7, times 365, = $2095.

But even if you test 3 times a day, its $900 a year.

>> 2: Insulin. Figure 50 units a day for an otherwise healthy adult, that's
>> roughly 18 bottles a year not counting lossage, at $30/bottle that's
>> about
>> $550 right there.
>
> 35 units a day, $18/bottle in Florida.

You lie like a rug. There is nowhere that any insulin costs $18. I use
Lantus and Humalog. Lantuas is $55, Humalog is $59. 60 units a day,
that's 22 vials a year for ~$1250.

>
>> 3: Syringes (which are cheaper than pumps). Use 2 a day, figure $.25
>> each, that's another $180. Quintuple this price if you use an insulin
>> pump, which
>> take far more expensive bits and require regular replacement/upkeep.
>
>
> Syringes get re-used 4 times, cost 18 cents each, that's a bit over 4
> cents/shot.
>
>> 4: Other medical drug costs, such as blood pressure meds, heart medicine,
>> allergies, asthma, cholesterol or other circulator. This can easily cost
>> more than the direct diabetes mediacal costs.
>
>
> Don't use any of that stuff, but my rum bill runs about $30/month.

Type 2: Glucophage, 2000mg, $1.70 a day, $620 a year
Avandia 8mg, $5 each, $1625 a year.
Lipitor 20mg, $3 each, $1095
So: $900 + 1250 + 620 + 1625 + 1095 = $5490
Plus incidentals: syringes, lances, etc.

And many diabetics have many other medications.
Now, if instead of this monstrosity the congress would just open the
borders, my cost would plunge from $5490 a year to $1760 a year. For
exactly the same drugs.
>
>>> Bullshit. The Canadian and Mexican borders will reamin open.
Bullshit yourself. There is a little paragraph in the bill which will
make bringing in any drugs from Canada as criminal as --- well, illegal
drugs.

You should learn to read, baby.

>>> Yer just sore because the money goes to poor folks.

The money doesn't go to poor folks. It goes to the rich folks: the drug
cos, insurance, HMO. It's a gift to them.
>>
>>> > 9., and final point: This country is the only industrial country in
>>> the
>>> > world does not provide national health care. Everyone else does,
>>> > including most non industrial countries, and their economy is just
>>> fine.
>>> > And so are their citizens.
>>>
>>> Yup, that's true. And every national health system prioritizes care,
>>> which the US refuses to accept. Ya can't have both.
So here we have given control of the health of our people to the HMO's,
who make more money if they refuse treatment to their patients. They do
the prioritizing, but they prioritize their profits.
And if you die because of their prioritizing, your family is barred from
suing them.
>
> The refusal of US citizens to give up their tradition of deciding for
> themselves their individual care regimens is the reason we will not have
> national health service in our lifetime.

Read it: The sheepish acquiesce of the American people, freightened by
sleek medical and insurance lobyists, is the reason. Anyone who lived
and worked abroad for a few months knows the truth: They have a
government for the people, not for business.
--
M. Pann
"You can't learn one damn thing from people who agree with you."

"mike gray, CID" > wrote in message >...
> > > "mike gray, CID" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > Testing five times a day is a hobby, or maybe a fetish, but not a
> necessity. And strips are 54 cents each in Boca Raton, Florida.
> >
>
If testing less than 5 times a day works for you and gives you
decent control then thats great!
What you do won't work for everyone. There are too many variables.
My son is 6 and has had type 1 for 2 yrs. He is a pumper using the
paradigm.
We test at least 8 times a day to maintain decent control.
Everyday is different.
Our goal (along with good health) is to let him live his life as
close to normal as possible. We must check before physical activities
such as gym, soccer, swimming and such. And if the physical exertion
has been heavy then we check sometime shortly after to see where his
number is headed.
His numbers are affected by his varied diet, the temperature outside,
the zillion and one viruses passed around school,his mood,human error
(air bubbles, etc.) and a thousand more variables each day.
My whole point is..... I think it is very arrogant to say that
testing 5 times a day is a hobby or a fetish. What works for you
won't work for everyone. Samsmom

In article >,
mike gray, CID > wrote:
>Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

>> "mike gray, CID" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> M. Pann wrote:

.......................

>>> > 9., and final point: This country is the only industrial country in the
>>> > world does not provide national health care. Everyone else does,
>>> > including most non industrial countries, and their economy is just fine.
>>> > And so are their citizens.

The amount of freedom in those countries is low; it is
declining in the US. Their economies are NOT just fine,
and neither are their citizens. In fact, most of them
are moving to increased privatization.

>>> Yup, that's true. And every national health system prioritizes care,
>>> which the US refuses to accept. Ya can't have both.

If we really observed the Constitution, the federal
government would have to keep out, except to see that
fraud and misrepresentation are major felonies. The
idea of funds from the public treasury for boons was
one of the real worries of the founders.

>> Strawman. Minus 3 points.

>Every national health system proposed in the last twenty years has been
>defeated because every proposal would have prioritized care. Most
>recently, Hillary's proposal. The last significant reform of the
>delivery system, the HMO Act of 1973 (PL 93-222), clearly demonstrated
>the ability of prioritized, provider managed care to equitably
>distribute health resources at far lower costs, but the bill and the
>system was gutted by special interest groups that insisted on on-demand
>care and services.

I would like to see HMOs, etc., essentially eliminated,
by the provision of MSAs, real medical insurance, the
ability to save for one's own future, and reestablishing
the authority of the individual over his own medical care,
which would require physicians to provide far more of the
necessary information to make an intelligent decision.

>The refusal of US citizens to give up their tradition of deciding for
>themselves their individual care regimens is the reason we will not have
>national health service in our lifetime.

Anyone who is willing to give up the right to make such
decisions to others is incapable of the judgment required
to be a real citizen of a free state. Let those of YOU
who want to become medical serfs form your society, with
no tax support from outside. That way, you will be able
to prioritize among yourselves, and share among yourselves,
but do not ask anyone else to help support you.





--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

M. Pann wrote:

>>> 2: Insulin. Figure 50 units a day for an otherwise healthy adult, that's
>>> roughly 18 bottles a year not counting lossage, at $30/bottle that's
>>> about
>>> $550 right there.
>>
>> 35 units a day, $18/bottle in Florida.
>
> You lie like a rug. There is nowhere that any insulin costs $18. I use
> Lantus and Humalog. Lantuas is $55, Humalog is $59. 60 units a day,
> that's 22 vials a year for ~$1250.

Why would I lie about something like that? $17.82/bottle at the WalMart
on the corner of 441 and Palmetto. Their phone number is 561-477-9175.

You choose to spend a lot on high priced insulin. That's OK with me.
Sort of like buying a $60,000 SUV to haul yer fishing gear. Just not my
style.

> Bullshit yourself. There is a little paragraph in the bill which will
> make bringing in any drugs from Canada as criminal as --- well, illegal
> drugs.
>
> You should learn to read, baby.

It's also illegal to bring gasoline and booze into the US from Canada.
When was the last time they drained yer tank at the border?

> The money doesn't go to poor folks. It goes to the rich folks: the drug
> cos, insurance, HMO. It's a gift to them.

What an incredibly dumb statement. Do you really want the gov't to give
the cash to individuals so they can make their own drugs?

Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (Medicare) specifies that it is a
third-party system. To give the money directly to beneficiaries would
require a major re-write of Medicare, and they won't let George do that.

You should learn to read, baby.

>> The refusal of US citizens to give up their tradition of deciding for
>> themselves their individual care regimens is the reason we will not have
>> national health service in our lifetime.
>
> Read it: The sheepish acquiesce of the American people, freightened by
> sleek medical and insurance lobyists, is the reason. Anyone who lived
> and worked abroad for a few months knows the truth: They have a
> government for the people, not for business.

No, they have governments that set and administer the public good.
There's a big difference. Medical technology is not a big business in
other countries. Elective surgery is not a big business in other
countries. Unnecessary drugs are not a big business in other countries.
Transplants for the elderly are not a big business in other countries.

Health services for foreign nationals is a very big business in the US.
The Brits and Canadians come here for elective surgery. Foreign
potentates have their heart surgery done in Houston, not in Riyadh.

Americans are not afraid of lobbyists, they're afraid of being told
that, in the terrible physical condition yer in and at yer age, just go
home and die.

In Venezuela, I got an ace bandage and a tube of analgesic ointment for
my dislocated elbow. Free. In the US I would have had X-rays, scans, an
orthopedic surgeon, and two years of intensive physical therapy. The
elbow's fine, thanks. And I invested the savings in drug stocks.

samsmom wrote:

> If testing less than 5 times a day works for you and gives you
> decent control then thats great!
> What you do won't work for everyone. There are too many variables.
> My son is 6 and has had type 1 for 2 yrs. He is a pumper using the
> paradigm.
> We test at least 8 times a day to maintain decent control.
> Everyday is different.
> Our goal (along with good health) is to let him live his life as
> close to normal as possible. We must check before physical activities
> such as gym, soccer, swimming and such. And if the physical exertion
> has been heavy then we check sometime shortly after to see where his
> number is headed.
> His numbers are affected by his varied diet, the temperature outside,
> the zillion and one viruses passed around school,his mood,human error
> (air bubbles, etc.) and a thousand more variables each day.
> My whole point is..... I think it is very arrogant to say that
> testing 5 times a day is a hobby or a fetish. What works for you
> won't work for everyone. Samsmom

You either live in the US or you are very wealthy. Such Rolls-Royce
treatment is not available to everyone.

If you were Honduran, as a young acquaintance in very similar
circumstances is, you would get insulin and syringes. Once a month you
would go to the free clinic where bg would be checked. Your child would
be on a very strict diet and exercise regimen. And each virus contacted
at school would make him immune to that virus.

Now that's arrogance! He's so arrogant, he wants to finish eighth grade
this year so he can get a really good job. He hopes to work repairing
agricultural machinery.

Count yer blessings.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:23:32 GMT, "mike gray, CID"
> wrote:

>Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> "mike gray, CID" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> M. Pann wrote:
>>
>>> > 6. You said, "...There are really no people who would use $3000 a year
>>> > in drugs." Are you ignorant or stupid? Do you have any idea how much
>>> > drugs cost? I am diabetic, and I would spend over $5,000 a year on drugs
>>> > if I bought them here in the US. But I smuggle them from Canada and pay
>>> > only $1800 a year. This frigging government makes me a law breaker.
>>>
>>> Are you ignorant or stupid? I am diabetic and my drugs cost a small
>>> fraction of what yer paying in Canada. Maybe ya need a new travel agent.
>>
>> No, you are. Add it up for long-term Type 1.
>>
>> 1: Glucometer and strips. 5 tests a day, $1/strip, that's $1800 right there.
>
>Testing five times a day is a hobby, or maybe a fetish, but not a
>necessity.

based on what? your opinion? I test upwards of 8 times a day. I
exhibit no hypo symptoms what so ever until I either pass out or
become suddenly confused and experience loss of motor control.
Testing is the only way I have of preventing hypos.

> And strips are 54 cents each in Boca Raton, Florida.

depends on the brand of strips, but it still adds up.

>>
>> 2: Insulin. Figure 50 units a day for an otherwise healthy adult, that's
>> roughly 18 bottles a year not counting lossage, at $30/bottle that's about
>> $550 right there.
>
>35 units a day, $18/bottle in Florida.

what brand? Lantus and novolog run 60.00 per bottle more if you buy
the pen cartridges which contain 5 cartridges per bottle. Also
humulin N used to cost 15.00 per bottle here but is now upwards of
25.00. Prices are most definitely NOT universal in the USA.

>
>> 3: Syringes (which are cheaper than pumps). Use 2 a day, figure $.25 each,
>> that's another $180. Quintuple this price if you use an insulin pump, which
>> take far more expensive bits and require regular replacement/upkeep.
>
>Syringes get re-used 4 times, cost 18 cents each, that's a bit over 4
>cents/shot.

Reusing syringes is okay if the person doing so knows what they are
doing, keeps them from being contaminated, is not reusing syringes to
inject Lantus and most importantly chooses to reuse them.

>
>> 4: Other medical drug costs, such as blood pressure meds, heart medicine,
>> allergies, asthma, cholesterol or other circulator. This can easily cost
>> more than the direct diabetes mediacal costs.
>
>Don't use any of that stuff, but my rum bill runs about $30/month.

good for you. other people must use those meds.

>
>
>>> Bullshit. The Canadian and Mexican borders will reamin open. Yer just
>>> sore because the money goes to poor folks.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. The money goes to the folks who can cleverly wend their way
>> through the paperwork.
>
>Yup. They're called "Medicare beneficiaries".

we'll see. when people actually start applying under the new laws.
If it works just as well as the old system, it is still a failure.

>
>> The benefits of providing a modest level of basic
>> health care as a national right are exactly for "the poor folks", and would
>> devastate a lot of more expensive and sophisticated medical businesses and
>> institutions that, oh my goodness, have lots of generous lobbyists! Even the
>> membership of the AMA is getting fed up with the current insurance
>> wackiness, though.
>
>Maybe that's why the AMA, the drug companies, and the insurance
>companies all contribute more to the Dems than to the Republicans (yes
>they do, look it up!)

soft money should never be allowed in politics. get rid of all such
soft money contributions and a great many problems will go away with
it. it's called greed and corruption.

>>
>>> > 9., and final point: This country is the only industrial country in the
>>> > world does not provide national health care. Everyone else does,
>>> > including most non industrial countries, and their economy is just fine.
>>> > And so are their citizens.
>>>
>>> Yup, that's true. And every national health system prioritizes care,
>>> which the US refuses to accept. Ya can't have both.
>>
>> Strawman. Minus 3 points.

reality already in practice in many other countries.


>
>Every national health system proposed in the last twenty years has been
>defeated because every proposal would have prioritized care. Most
>recently, Hillary's proposal. The last significant reform of the
>delivery system, the HMO Act of 1973 (PL 93-222), clearly demonstrated
>the ability of prioritized, provider managed care to equitably
>distribute health resources at far lower costs, but the bill and the
>system was gutted by special interest groups that insisted on on-demand
>care and services.
>
>The refusal of US citizens to give up their tradition of deciding for
>themselves their individual care regimens is the reason we will not have
>national health service in our lifetime.
>
>Strawman indeed.

no it's our refusal, it's our apathy towards getting directly involved
and forcing our politicians to do what is right.


Mack
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.

"mike gray, CID" > wrote in message >...
> samsmom wrote:
>
> > If testing less than 5 times a day works for you and gives you
> > decent control then thats great!
> > What you do won't work for everyone. There are too many variables.
> > My son is 6 and has had type 1 for 2 yrs. He is a pumper using the
> > paradigm.
> > We test at least 8 times a day to maintain decent control.
> > Everyday is different.
> > Our goal (along with good health) is to let him live his life as
> > close to normal as possible. We must check before physical activities
> > such as gym, soccer, swimming and such. And if the physical exertion
> > has been heavy then we check sometime shortly after to see where his
> > number is headed.
> > His numbers are affected by his varied diet, the temperature outside,
> > the zillion and one viruses passed around school,his mood,human error
> > (air bubbles, etc.) and a thousand more variables each day.
> > My whole point is..... I think it is very arrogant to say that
> > testing 5 times a day is a hobby or a fetish. What works for you
> > won't work for everyone. Samsmom
>
> You either live in the US or you are very wealthy. Such Rolls-Royce
> treatment is not available to everyone.
>
> If you were Honduran, as a young acquaintance in very similar
> circumstances is, you would get insulin and syringes. Once a month you
> would go to the free clinic where bg would be checked. Your child would
> be on a very strict diet and exercise regimen. And each virus contacted
> at school would make him immune to that virus.
>
> Now that's arrogance! He's so arrogant, he wants to finish eighth grade
> this year so he can get a really good job. He hopes to work repairing
> agricultural machinery.
>
> Count yer blessings.

I think your point was that it is not necessary to test 5 times a
day for anyone.
Your Honduran acquaintance certainly cannot have the best control
possible by having a bg check once a month. There is a need for more
checks but that need is not being met because of the circumstances.
My whole objection is to your one statement about testing 5 times a
day being a hobby or a fetish.
I live in the U.S. We have health insurance through my husbands work
and my sons needs as far as his diabetes are being met.
I am absolutely aware of the people around the world who don't have
access to the proper care that we get. Because his needs are met he
will live a longer and healthier life with a greatly reduced chance of
the complications that can happen in the long term.
I don't think that using the pump is a need. We could achieve good
control with Lantus and Humalog. We did that for a year. I make no
apologies for seeking out the latest and best treatment available.
I do feel that frequent bg checks are a need. They enable us to know
where his number is and where it is going. Thats basic! I could never
achieve the control that we have with one check a month. I could keep
him alive and feed the lows but I would have no way of distinguishing
between a 200,300,400 and so on. A strict diet does nothing for the
hormonal changes and mood swings that affect his numbers. Exercise is
a very important part of our control. There is no dust settling on
this child. That gives him a great advantage.
Last but not least... We count our blessings everyday. I think that
most folks who go through a life altering situation such as this do. I
know people have it a lot worse and that we are incredibly lucky.
Samsmom
P.S. We are by no means rich. Definitely blue collar hard working
folks. I am tenacious when it comes to making sure the health ins.
covers what is needed. I have had to set up face to face meetings with
them (not an easy thing to do) to get my point across. In one instance
they said they would give me their decision in two weeks but ended up
chasing me down the hall and telling me they would cover what we
needed.

mike gray, CID wrote:

> Testing five times a day is a hobby, or maybe a fetish, but not a
> necessity. And strips are 54 cents each in Boca Raton, Florida.

Dear Mike,

Please run for President.

We need another laugh,
--
Jim Dumas
T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo.
lispro+R+U+NPH daily, moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

In article >,
Mack > wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:23:32 GMT, "mike gray, CID"
> wrote:

>>Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

>>> "mike gray, CID" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> M. Pann wrote:

.....................

>>The refusal of US citizens to give up their tradition of deciding for
>>themselves their individual care regimens is the reason we will not have
>>national health service in our lifetime.

>>Strawman indeed.

>no it's our refusal, it's our apathy towards getting directly involved
>and forcing our politicians to do what is right.

WHAT is right? You are saying that it is right to make me
pay for what some government bureaucrat thinks you should
get in medical care, but that I do not have the right to
spend it on what I think I should get.

Marxist totalitarianism.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

samsmom wrote:

>> If you were Honduran, as a young acquaintance in very similar
>> circumstances is, you would get insulin and syringes. Once a month you
>> would go to the free clinic where bg would be checked. Your child would
>> be on a very strict diet and exercise regimen. And each virus contacted
>> at school would make him immune to that virus.
>>
>> Now that's arrogance! He's so arrogant, he wants to finish eighth grade
>> this year so he can get a really good job. He hopes to work repairing
>> agricultural machinery.
>>
>> Count yer blessings.
>
> I think your point was that it is not necessary to test 5 times a
> day for anyone.

No. My point was, count yer blessings.

In article . net>, Jim Dumas
> writes:

>mike gray, CID wrote:
>
>> Testing five times a day is a hobby, or maybe a fetish, but not a
>> necessity. And strips are 54 cents each in Boca Raton, Florida.
>
>Dear Mike,
>
>Please run for President.
>
>We need another laugh,
>--
>Jim Dumas

I dont know what kind of strips he was useing, but the cheapest I have seen the
ultra strips is 79 cents each..I live in the same area in Florida.
As always YMMV and this is JMO
Jeanne Type 2 Diagnosed 05/28/02
189/154/120

On 17 Dec 2003 09:06:55 -0500, (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

>In article >,
>Mack > wrote:
>>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:23:32 GMT, "mike gray, CID"
> wrote:
>
>>>Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>>>> "mike gray, CID" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> M. Pann wrote:
>
> .....................
>
>>>The refusal of US citizens to give up their tradition of deciding for
>>>themselves their individual care regimens is the reason we will not have
>>>national health service in our lifetime.
>
>>>Strawman indeed.
>
>>no it's our refusal, it's our apathy towards getting directly involved
>>and forcing our politicians to do what is right.
>
>WHAT is right? You are saying that it is right to make me
>pay for what some government bureaucrat thinks you should
>get in medical care, but that I do not have the right to
>spend it on what I think I should get.
>
>Marxist totalitarianism.


I did not say what you just concluded.

Mack
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.