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
> >
> >
>
>

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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

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.

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
>
>

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.

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.

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

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
>
>

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.

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 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.

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.

"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*.

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.

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

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.