Due to Obamacare, I am now on Medicaid, along with thousands of other newly eligible adults in my state. For the last three or four years, the large pharmaceutical company that makes my medication had a program where they provide my meds for free (for people with very low income like I have). My meds cost $850 a month if I were to pay for them myself. This is ONE pill a day, just one med.
Since January, when my Medicaid became active, the company sent a notice that they would no longer be providing free meds to Medicaid patients. Now, who foots the bill for my meds? You do. The taxpayers.
How many millions is this going to cost the taxpayers?
Call me paranoid, but this certainly looks like a lucky break for large pharmaceutical companies.
I apologize for making you guys who work hard and pay taxes pay for my meds. I really am. It's not fair to you.
Not sure just how much has changed, at least at the bottom.
Companies are now, as I understand it, being very limited in what they can charge for drugs, and that money WILL be made up elsewhere. Part of it by charging medicaid for drugs that used to be free (actually I didn't know there were any free drugs to medicaid or medicare).
So at the bottom, the public is paying perhaps a little more, but not a whole lot. At least not for any specific patient. I DO expect a lot more drugs to be dispensed, and the public will absolutely pay more for that, though.
For new drugs, like the one I take, the companies have a certain number of years where they can charge any amount (to recover R&D costs) but then have to make the drug available to be made generic. I think it's around 7 years, but I'm not sure. It has to do with patent laws. So in a few years, my drug will be greatly reduced in price (most likely, but it still depends on the actual manufacturing costs). These psychiatric drugs can be super expensive. More often than not, it's the lower income patients who take them, because we have trouble holding jobs for a good majority of us. My doctor just told me that there were a good number of patients on the program that the Abilify company isn't providing to for free anymore. It's all being forced on Medicaid program now.
This is true as far as I know for psychiatric drugs. There may be different laws for drugs that are for actual medical conditions, as opposed to psychiatric ones.
I think it's true for all drugs, both in the patent thing (a reasonable way to do things, IMHO) and in patients on medicaid. If someone needs the drug and cannot buy it, it was often available free. Now that you CAN buy the drug (via medicaid) there will be a charge.
Fair enough - I understand that government is paying only a portion of what drugs on medicaid used to cost. They are cutting what will be paid, in other words, and pharmaceutical companies will make up the lost income by charging medicaid (government) for drugs they used to supply for free to individuals that could not afford them.
It just worries me that it will end up costing the tax payers more than necessary.
I only had to pay $4 for a month's supply of a drug that cost $856.
It also worries me that if this obamacare thing doesn't work out,and psychiatric patients aren't able to afford the good, expensive meds, they will be reduced to taking the horrible, super cheap ones like Haldol. Most won't take drugs like that. I know I won't.
Well, I think the key is in your own statement "I only had to pay $4..." YOU may have paid only $4, but someone, somewhere, was making up the difference. The public, in other words.
Not to say Obamacare isn't going to bankrupt the country; it is. As written, the US cannot afford to maintain it - either the benefits will be cut or the people using it or the entire nation will go down trying to turn the US into Utopia. And all three options include the possibility that the drugs you want may not be available for you if you cannot buy them yourself.
That's what I'm getting at.
I worry for the taxpayers, and myself, and other people who won't be able to afford their meds, and will be on the streets, unmedicated.
I am not suggesting socialism. I'm just saying it sucks. For me, and all around.
I agree. I've been without insurance for years now, seeing a doctor only when absolutely necessary. Now I have an insurance plan the public is paying for but that helps only the insurance company; by the time I've fulfilled the deductible my meager health care budget will be long used up and I'll be bankrupt. So the $700 or so that Uncle Sam is paying the insurance company is good only for insurance company profits, not for actual health care.
Yeah, I wish it were different, but it isn't. Come the day that I need more than a quick visit for an earache or something I'm in trouble. And it WILL come - my age guarantees that.
You're not alone, Jane - there are millions of us that cannot afford adequate care and millions more, like me, that are just kind of hanging on and waiting for the shoe to fall. And while Obamacare has apparently provided you with decent care, it hasn't even come close to millions of people. I still can't afford a simple doctor's visit.
You have it worse than I do, and I feel bad for you (because I like you) because I'm not worried about actually getting physically ill. I'll have a hard time if I don't get my meds, but I won't be ill physically.
I guess we still have it better than the middle ages:) I should stop my little pity party.
I am quite content for my taxpayer dollars to help you and others obtain the medications they need. It will not bankrupt our country, if we get our priorities straight and stop spending money on unnecessary wars and decrease defense spending to sane levels.
I think you're wrong. First, defense spending to "sane" levels means near zero to most people and that isn't going to happen.
But secondly, if we decrease defense spending, we'll just give it away in more luxuries for the poor. Nothing will change, nothing will improve because our politicians (and the people that elect them) will continue to insist that someone else pay for their wants and desires, whether it be for free cell phones and health care or for a new museum or water treatment plant.
Until we learn that we are responsible for ourselves, not someone else and not the endless pockets of Uncle Sam, we will not be able to care for everyone in the country, and certainly not provide health care at the level they expect for everyone.
I know it won't do any good to discuss this with you, so all I will say is that other countries are providing health care for their citizens and have not gone bankrupt. And, no, "sane" does not mean near zero to most people, at least not to me or anyone I know.
Yes, other countries can do it, and so can we.
We just can't do it while providing a huge profit to useless insurance companies that provide zero care, and we can't do it with the level of care that is expected. The wait times, for instance, that drive Canadians to the US would never be tolerated. Neither would depending on some other country for new drugs - if we deny pharma companies a reasonable profit for their R&D there will be none, just as there is virtually none in the countries that won't pay for drug development and instead rely on the US for that function.
Change some of these things and we can most definitely provide care for everyone.
But...you're right in that it won't do much good to discuss. You live in a pie in the sky world where no real defense will ever be necessary, where government can provide everything we want without regard to costs. I understand that.
Yes, other countries can do it, and so can we.
We just can't do it while providing a huge profit to useless insurance companies that provide zero care, and we can't do it with the level of care that is expected. Agreed. A single-payer system would cut out the middleman and save a ton of money. The wait times, for instance, that drive Canadians [you mean rich Canadians?] to the US would never be tolerated. Neither would depending on some other country for new drugs - if we deny pharma companies a reasonable profit for their R&D there will be none, just as there is virtually none in the countries that won't pay for drug development and instead rely on the US for that function. We could debate the need for all that drug development but that's a whole new can of worms.
Change some of these things and we can most definitely provide care for everyone.
But...you're right in that it won't do much good to discuss. You live in a pie in the sky world where no real defense will ever be necessary, where government can provide everything we want without regard to costs. I understand that. Yes, I know it's easier to intentionally mischaracterize my views so they are easier to argue against, but this is ridiculous. I believe in a strong defense, but I also understand the connection between war and profit, all of which is informed by personal experience. I also don't want government to provide everything we want without regard to costs. That is ridiculous. I would make massive cuts to many programs according to my own priorities, just as you would. We differ in priorities, that is all.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in AGREEMENT! Obama"care" is a disaster in the making. Because of this insidious Obama"care", many low cost, and FAR BETTER healthcare plans are discontinued to be replaced by this fiasco of "care". Why was this "president" thinking" when he wanted to institute Obama"care"?
Everything was fine, the poor received very low cost or free heathcare, there are hospitals that deal with the indigent and poverty stricken? Just like Obama to screw with everything he touches. If it AIN'T broke, it does not need to fixed. Obama wants a socialist America, pure and simple. Obama"care is not going to work and will bankrupt America.
Obama"care" in one picture:
Thank you. You have a good heart.
I think Wilderness might be right on certain things, though. I don't think the way we are headed is sustainable(with obamacare etc.)
I think he might be wrong on the military spending though. I think we spend way too much on that.
We spend too much on military. It's that "way" too much that bothers me - I do NOT want to be unprepared to defend ourselves or our friends when the time comes, and I do not wish to spend thousands or millions of our son's lives to do so.
And that means we need the best, most powerful military in the world. I'm willing to pay for that.
I won't argue on this. I don't know enough about it to make a valid argument. And I know the military (US military) is important, it's probably the one thing that keeps the world as livable as it is.
I don't know either. What I DO know is that the very people saying we spend far too much and can make do with only a small portion of the expenditure don't have a single clue as to what it costs to fight a war. They don't know what it costs to have the best weapons in the world, the best planes and the best trained people. They don't know (or care) what it costs to maintain readiness everywhere in the world - they just think it can be cut drastically so as to give the politicians more money to give away.
I disagree, and the only people I know of that have any kind of handle at all on what it costs to maintain a top military are those spending the money.
"the only people I know of that have any kind of handle at all on what it costs to maintain a top military are those spending the money"
Interesting how you completely trust the military to not overspend out of self interest, yet constantly rail against other government waste.
I contend there is waste everywhere, but the military-industrial complex is particularly damaging due to the nature of its mission: to make money from conflict.
So who would YOU trust? The politician wanting more money to buy votes with? The dreamer that thinks we don't need defense? The gun hater that would remove all weapons from the country?
Who do YOU trust to tell you what we need to spend on our military? Your statement that the military waste is particularly damaging because they are in the business of protecting you is telling indeed.
LOL, you seem to be ascribing some kind of anti-military sentiment to me, which is funny considering I am married to a career military man (now retired) who served in Vietnam, at the Pentagon, at NORAD, and used to speak with Ronald Reagan every day (yes, I'm name dropping a conservative President just for effect). Maybe, just maybe, I have a little more knowledge than you imagine. In any case, I consider domestic spending to help those in need a higher priority than building tanks that sit in storage never to be used. That doesn't mean I don't think we need a healthy defense, too.
Can't see that being married to someone that talked to a president or drove tanks means you understand why a military is necessary, or agree that it is.
But I CAN see a problem with someone that doesn't think having a tank in the garage is a deterrent to starting a war, and would rather spend the money on entitlement programs. Even when they say a good defense is necessary, but STILL don't want that tank.
See, none of us wants to use that tank we paid for, but some of us DO see the necessity of spending the money even if we don't use it. And those that do not understand that have no business discussing what military expenditures are necessary or prudent.
And yet you seem to think that listening to the military mind is stupid - they only want to kill so they can have more money. Now you want to take their advice.
Make up your mind, or is always just the least amount spent regardless of results or who says it?
Where did I say that listening to the military mind is stupid? My, you're having a hard time today, wilderness. Here is what I said:
"I contend there is waste everywhere, but the military-industrial complex is particularly damaging due to the nature of its mission: to make money from conflict."
Defense contractors fit that description perfectly, don't they?
Factories that make the guns and bullets yes. They are not a part of the military and are the last people I would listen to as to how much to spend. Only (and only in rare cases) about something new they might be able to offer.
But the actual military - they are the ones to listen to. And not because congress feels they should, to put on a show of caring, but because only the military can tell us what we need in the way of defense.
janesix, Medicaid cost has always been paid by tax payers. The very poor get medicare (hospital coverage) and medicaid paid for by the federal government's tax dollars.The state governments decide how to apply their federal medical funding of tax dollars.
I know. I'm talking about the thousands of new people eligible for Medicaid starting in January this year. Just in my state. I'm sure there's the same numbers in other states as well.
Pretty Panther I believe wilderness was bewildered by your defense.
I know about the newly insured They were so far underclass they are not classified or accounted for in any statistics They are the poor they feel like they haven't been sick a day in their lives until they show up in the emergency room with No money and No insurance. They can't be turned away and the cost to save a life in one emergency can be more costly than providing medicaid and health maintence for life.
It's not that they(including me) haven't felt or been sick a day in their lives. What happens is they only go in and get treated when they have such a serious issue they don't have anywhere else to go and don't want to die.
janesix, That's right, in other words. Well... thats how I see it.
But there are also plenty who abuse the system too. Going to the ER for minor things like a cold, addicts trying to get pain meds, etc. Lots of people on Medicaid abuse it too. I've seen it plenty of times.
In America we have a Constitutional Right to be wrong Abuse can be found from the bottom to the top of society. Those on the bottom view abuse from the bottom and those on top has a view but see no evil.
I really am having trouble following you. I don't know what you're getting at.
janesix, Your last comment before you got lost following me was " But there are plenty who abuse the system too". In my reply to you was to agree and imply that abuse in widespread in a Capitalistic society. Abuse is evil and its practiced where possible. But, I'm just a guest and I don't intend to be confusing to the host.
"Companies are now, as I understand it, being very limited in what they can charge for drugs..."
True, so they will no longer be able to recoup the money invested in research and development of new drugs, so America, long the leader in miracle drugs, will now be third rate at best, thanks to the Democrats and Obamacare.
Just the beginning of the damage Obamacare will do the country if not radically changed, I'm afraid.
But of course the liberals don't care - they have an inexhaustible source of funding in the rich. Until it is all moved offshore, anyway, and they can no longer get their hands on it.
by Susan Reid 10 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?Is your state running its own exchange ... ...or is it...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 9 years ago
What does one expect of a piece of legislation that was voted on, and passed both by the Senate and Congress, signed into law by Pres. Obama, and certified by the Supreme Court as being constitutional? High Hopes of course, but in the case of the Affordabe Health Care Act (popularly...
by Sharlee 5 years ago
This past week President Trump laid out his new plan to decrease prescription drug prices for American's. Drug prices have been skyrocketing for many years, it's about time Government got involved, and fought back against huge pharmaceutical companies that have made outrageous profits off the backs...
by Mike Russo 10 years ago
How is your state doing with Obama Care State Exchanges? Read this article about how the California State Exchange is going to help lower premium costs.http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05 … ng-points/
by Stacie L 11 years ago
Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016by Joan McCarterFollow The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services actuary reports: "We have achieved significant tangible savings that have been passed on to beneficiaries," said Jonathan Blum, director of the Center for...
by MikeNV 13 years ago
How many of you would accept a 21% cut in pay if you didn't have to? Doctors don't have to. How many. Leave your comment if you are willing to accept a 21% cut in pay.I just read this rather interesting comment..."OBAMA-CARE KILLED MY DAD ---- Obama just cut Medicare...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|