Keep or Repeal 3

[Herbert Hoover]

Add more benefits for prescription drugs for those on Medicare

[FormLetter]

Can someone please justify this one if you aren't voting "repeal"?

[Herbert Hoover]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

Can someone please justify this one if you aren't voting "repeal"?

Sure. The doughnut hole is ridiculous. Get rid of it.

[FormLetter]

Originally Posted by Herbert Hoover

Sure. The doughnut hole is ridiculous. Get rid of it.

But really, can you explain a little bit more how/why it is ridiculous?

What do you think of benefit designs that steer drug consumers from brand to generic. Are those ridiculous?

Also, a high percentage of drug costs are maintenance drugs, and hence budgetable and by definition not insurable events.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

But really, can you explain a little bit more how/why it is ridiculous?

What do you think of benefit designs that steer drug consumers from brand to generic. Are those ridiculous?

Also, a high percentage of drug costs are maintenance drugs, and hence budgetable and by definition not insurable events.

HH thinks all drugs should be free or paid for entirely by people who make more than he does.

[4sigma]

Originally Posted by Herbert Hoover

Add more benefits for prescription drugs for those on Medicare

Everyone is in favor of more benefits. But who should pay? The lovely thing about ObamaCare is that it so obfuscates the distribution of costs. That way it can promise very clear benefits that nobody is aware how exactly they are paying for.

Originally Posted by FormLetter

But really, can you explain a little bit more how/why it is ridiculous?

What do you think of benefit designs that steer drug consumers from brand to generic. Are those ridiculous?

Also, a high percentage of drug costs are maintenance drugs, and hence budgetable and by definition not insurable events.

[/quote]

I agree that the donut hole is a lousy plan design. But so is simply paying for everything in it. Neither is particularly good at giving individuals the incentive to consider the tradeoff between cost and quality.

It would at least be helpful if the plan design encouraged folks to shop around for the most cost-effective therapeutic equiavents.

As you note, the risks involved in Rx costs for seniors are largely in the past, not the future, and aren't an insurance question per se, at least once folks already have a chronic illness.

[homeys66]

Originally Posted by Herbert Hoover

Sure. The doughnut hole is ridiculous. Get rid of it.

The donut hole is the only decent part of Part D. Its whats keeps people from overconsuming. Getting rid of it shows the Dems have utterly no clue how to slow cost growth.

[ditkaworshipper]

Originally Posted by homeys66

The donut hole is the only decent part of Part D. Its whats keeps people from overconsuming. Getting rid of it shows the Dems have utterly no clue how balls to do what's necessary to slow cost growth.

IFYP

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Originally Posted by Herbert Hoover

Sure. The doughnut hole Part D is ridiculous. Get rid of it.

Fixed.

I'll say it again: the existence of employer-group-subsidized health care caused most, if not all, of the health care cost increases above inflation, including drugs' costs. Get rid of the core problem, then all unintended consequences are eliminated.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan

Fixed.

I'll say it again: the existence of employer-group-subsidized health care caused most, if not all, of the health care cost increases above inflation, including drugs' costs. Get rid of the core problem, then all unintended consequences are eliminated.

I think your on the wrong part of D.