I just want to remind all the Vets and Baby Boomers that it was George Bush who put an end to open enrollment for Veteran's benefits and doubled the co-pay on meds for most of you guys/girls. And it is Bush who promises to veto the bill that would require Medicare Part D providers to negotiate for lower drug prices, just as the VA is required to do.

So when you're 65 and your company medical benefits stop providing drug coverage (thanks to Bush and Medicare Part D) and you find yourself paying out the wazoo for your meds, remember who screwed you.

When you go to apply for your veteran's benefits and find out that putting your neck on the line in 'Nam is no longer enough - now you have to qualify by being "low income" to receive the benefits you were PROMISED when you enlisted, remember who screwed you.

I hope you guys/girls at least got a kiss from old George.

Carlene -- Thanks for this. Now we are going to tax the middle class's health insurance benefits. That means me. I'm seriously worried about medicare and retirement in general. And I'm pretty close, unless they put off the retirement age yet again. I saw some article asking if the baby boomers were going to screw their grandkids with retirement, and my response is that we boomers have gotten screwed from the time we first got a job, if we could find one. I'm sick of getting screwed just because there are a lot of us. A lot of us have paid in to the retirement and medicare system for about 40 years, so why shouldn't we expect to get some return on our investment? Frankly, I didn't ask to get born. My parents made that decision. I don't think and don't appreciate being mistreated because I was born during a baby boom. Besides, I don't have any grandkids. A lot of boomers don't have kids which should make life easier for the generations to follow. I don't know but it appears that the only thing for the boomers to do is commit mass suicide. Clearly, I'm irritated.

Yup...my VA meds --provided to me as part of my "free medical care for life" deal--have a copay three times the copay of my huband's medical insurance. (And, btw, the VA bills my medical insurance for any service I receive there. The only reason I don't have to be poor is that I have a service connected disability.)

Damn.

It just floors me that anyone would even CONSIDER taking away benefits promised to Vets, let alone actually go through with it. Healthcare for the general public is bad enough as it is too. I'm no where near retirement yet, but I fear for the baby boomers, and I fear for myself when it does get to be that time. Hopefully that's enough time for someone to do something. Heh...

Has anyone seen the TV spot that says that many seniors are now saving money on their Rx drugs and we should not tamper with the Medicare Rx program?

They are already attacking the Medicare Rx Negotiation bill before the Senate gets it.

How come Medicare negotiates doctor's fees for Medicare recipients?

Let the lobbying begin!!

And up here in Canada our provincial governments are concerned about enterprising Americans who come up here and buy our cheaper drugs in bulk for re-import to the U.S. We are afraid that the pharmaceutical companies might start charging us American prices. This would be mighty nasty for us and our medicare system. We pay higher taxes and our dollar is weaker. Go figure, eh....

Seems to me that the pharmaceutical companies could start by cutting your prices and giving your citizens a break.

Of course it also seems that eliminating big business from your medical system - which is what Canada, Australia, New Zealand and all of Europe has done - would trim back your medical costs by an average of $2,000 a year per person and eliminate the financial ruination of American families but that raises the spectre of socialism, doesn't it?

I continue to be surprised by the antagonism that so many Americans feel towards nationalised medicare. Your poor are covered and your wealthy have no problems whatsoever. It is the middle class which is oppressed by the high cost of medical insurance and it is the big business middle men and the shareholders who are earning a living off your cancer, MS, or heart attack.

All of the countries that I have listed above function on the democratic, capitalist model and yet they have nationalised medicine.

In Canada doctors and nurses belong to national and provincial professional organizations and they can and will go on strike if they feel that their working or pay conditions are unsatisfactory. Doctors bill by the patient. It is the province, not the patient, that reimburses them. The province, unlike the patient, is never a deadbeat.

Because an insurer whose primary concern is the bottom line is not involved this frees up the patient's doctors to choose an approach that is not hindered by financial considerations. My brother who is a doctor in Virginia has often told me that he must choose his approach according to what the dollar men will or won't allow him to do. On the other hand, my meticulous GP is comfortable about schlepping me over to see specialists whenever she feels that there is any ambiguity concerning the functioning of my innards.:phanvan

Yup yup. Factor in that a lot of our vets didn't necessarily want to be vets, fought a war they didn't necessarily want to fight, and then got spit on when they got back to home soil. Nice little slap to the face.

BTW, Air Force One was at a local airport yesterday. I was one of the unfortunate ones (I had been out of town since Sunday and forgot about it) stuck in the complete traffic halt. I observed an interesting combination of wanting to see the plane and contempt for the president for holding up traffic. I only actually spoke with 20 or so of the people stuck in traffic, a small sampling for sure, but not a single one of them was the least bit interested in seeing Bush. Though almost all were trying to get shots of the plane on their cell phone cams. Even while driving. Past. :tired

Seems to me that the pharmaceutical companies could start by cutting your prices and giving your citizens a break.

Of course it also seems that eliminating big business from your medical system

:clap2:

Just wait and see what happens with the pharamceutical companies if they're able to push through the pending genome patents. Je parle Francais.

Carlene Writes:

I hope you guys/girls at least got a kiss from old George.

A kiss? Damn Carlene, I didn't even get a "reach around" let alone a kiss! ......... Jimboss

GeezerSue, I too have a disability rating and, although it's enough to get me a damn license plate, its not enough to keep me from having to pay for my meds, services, etc. I and my family are middle class; my husband goes to school full time and I am the primary breadwinner; we have a three year old, and I still have to pay for my PTSD drugs because my 'primary' disability is NOT mental...lol..maybe it is b/c I am P/O'd about George and all his neo-con fanatics.

PS - NO, I don't use the plate or the placard - I figure there's always someone out there who needs that space more than I do...and weight loss helps - being 39 and a relatively healthy looking white chick gets me the dirty looks EVERY time until I pull out the hand grips and leg brace. Assholes. lol I hate al lthe questions they engender, too - what, a chunky (not for long) white chick SERVED in a WAR??? What war was that? (that pisses me off, too - we're in a war that no one sees and no one but the service member and their families are suffering for/through...another thread lol)

The VA has been notoriously lousy for 40 years, but I hear their actual service is improving. I think the kids may have it better than we do because there are fewer of them. They will be paying for more people, but they will also have a chance at those high dollar jobs the boomers will be retiring from. Also there will be very big houses they'll be able to buy cheaper due to lack of demand. I think the future may be pretty rosy for them if the boomers die off pretty quickly and a whole bunch of them will. I personally intend to be dead by the time I'm 72 or thereabouts. What is sapping social security, aside from Congress borrowing from it, is the large number of very old people who are still alive. I note in the local paper that people are dying in their late 80s and 90s and many are living past 100. Social security wasn't designed for such long lives. My mother is cost intensive for Medicare though my father did the decent thing and died at 72. I think baby boomers will die in droves in their 70s which may help, but some will just live on and on, costing the government. I think we should look seriously at Canada's medical system and consider adopting something like that. Of course, Canada has a fraction of the population of the U.S., but still some sort of universal health care might work. We could give it a try. Meanwhile, investment bankers are taking home millions in bonuses and failed CEO's are reaping millions just to get fired. As Hamlet said, something stinks in Denmark (read the U.S.).

Bitter: You are so right! But I'm one of those boomers who's going to hang on for a while. I didn't this lap band for nothing. And maybe it's us boomers who will ultimately resolve some of these troublesome issues for silver haired people.

Btw, Hillary is a boomer and she's been trying to tell us all for at least 6 years that our medical system has to change. Maybe the younger generation won't be so afraid of changing the way we get and pay for our medical care in this country.

My DH has been saying for years that the higher ups are going to have some rude awakenings when they try to fill the jobs that the boomer retirees vacate. The younger generation may get a good deal on a big house, but they better be able to pay for the utilities and taxes and maintenance. Remember all the huge houses that were built in the late 1800s? So many of them went vacant for years or were broken down into apartments. Yes, things are going to change.

If we don't learn how to orchestrate some world-wide peace in this old world, things are going to change REAL fast.

Carlene,

Finnaly another person is seeing the same thing as I!!!! I have been trying to tell people this, but they won't listen, especially my stepson who is due to retire from the AF in 2 years. He thinks that "Wrong Way" Georgie will continue to provide. Boy is he in for a rude awakening...

"W":clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

I have a lot of concerns with the US govt trying to provide my healthcare. I work in a hospital. If we are talking about a situation where all hospitals exist as not-for-profit entities (as most do now) and things are just as they are now, only the gov't provides payment for services rather than an insurance company, then I'm not opposed. BUT, If we are talking about an entire healthcare system that is run based on the way our military hospitals and VA clinics are run, then I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. A group of people have gotten permission to sue our local Navy hospital for serious malpractice. The place is a death trap and I'd be hysterical if I had to get my care there, free or not. Also, would we have long wait times on needed tests like CT scans or upper GIs? My experience is that anything that the US goverment touches gets screwed up.

I fear we would be forced to pay a lot more in taxes to cover the people who don't work and can't pay their share or do work but don't make enough. In our country, the "rich" are expected to carry the poor and I don't really dig that model. Especially when what is considered wealthy in this country is not really wealthy but more middle class. I feel like we already pay out the wazoo in taxes. If you make 6 figures a year, even if its only $100,000.01, you get totally screwed in taxes. DH and I are hardly what I would consider wealthy. We have insurance and it pays for most of the necessary expenses (although our current plan doesn't cover anything related to my WLS) so I don't feel the need to have a national healthcare system and be forced to pay even more taxes. I'm sure that sounds rather selfish but I just can't see paying anything more in taxes than we already do. But, here's something that really chaps my butt: Seeing that nice deduction on my check for Social Security and then being told by all of the politicians that SS won't be available when we get old. Fabulous!!! I do wish they'd let me invest my own money. I could get a good return on my own money. Social Security certainly isn't enough to live on so it would just be better if they'd let me combine that money with the rest of my investments and stick it in a mutual fund.

I think having concerns about the government intruding in the healthcare of all Americans is quite valid! However that being said, nothing could be much worse than the insurance companies having a stranglehold on our doctors, hospitals and virtually every aspect of our healthcare as it is now.

We can't choose our own doctors, we can't go to a specialist without our doctor giving us a referral (at the expense of him getting less from our insurance company) and we can't even get healthcare at a hospital without getting the insurance company's okay in the emergency room.

We can't stay in the hospital as long as our doctor says we should stay. We're getting a lot of serious medical procedures done on an outpatient basis and we must use generic meds instead of brand name meds when we get a prescription filled. That's just the people WITH insurance. Surely we understand that some changes need to be made.

If government intervention is the only way to whoa down the insurance companies' control of our very lives, then so be it. That would mean that the only real control we have is through our voting. It will all go back to the lobbyists again and whether we have Congresspeople who are only interesting in lining their own pockets or people who care about we, the people.

I hear you loud and clear about SS too. Unfortunately not everyone is as smart and clever with their investments as you must be. And if that is true, we might wind up with tons of people on our hands in their old age that are on the streets. SS was never meant to take care of everyone's every need in their old age, just a way to keep from the old people in this country from being destitute. It is a national problem, just as childrens' well being is a national problem.

If there was some way you could prove to me that the Republicans will not allow a whole class of people to live on the streets, suffer from hunger and disease, I might feel differently. So far, they've proven quite the opposite as far as I'm concerned.

About a year and half ago I read material which gave a per capita breakdown of healthcare costs in the industrialised countries of the West plus Australia and New Zealand. All of these countries, with the exception of the United States, have universal health care. The annual costs for health care in the US clock in at roughly $2,000 more per person than is the case for the nation with the next highest per capita per annum cost. The gross cost per capita per annum for health care in the US is slightly over $5,000. (I believe these figures were prepared by the World Health Organisation.) The $2,000 difference which each and every American is paying is going into the pockets of big businessmen and the politicians who are owned by them.

Recently there was an article in one of the national Canadian newspapers which dealt with an analysis or breakdown of who actually uses our health care system. It seems that the poor are not frequent users, and neither are men, except for emergencies. Women and children use the system. Affluent, better educated, city or suburban people use the system the most, especially if they are women; this is a system which is available to all but is most heavily used by the middle class. It is only when Canadians become old and decrepit that the class patterns in usuage start to disappear.

I continue to be surprised by the fearful attitudes which so many Americans display towards universal health care, particularly now that the legislation has changed and you can no longer shed a crippling health bill of half a million dollars or so by declaring bankruptcy.