Nurses For Bush 1136

On 13 Apr 2004 17:35:08 -0700, Jonathan Smith responded to Starlight:

Elder Americans are intended beneficiaries of government-subsidized prescription drug coverage envisioned under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. This fact, however, does not mean that their interest is best served by the law enacted, nor does it mean theirs is the only interest served.

There remains room for serious concern where the federal government enacts a law which seeks new pharmaceutical provisions for citizens while simultaneously prohibiting the government's negotiating prices with drug manufacturers and inhibiting the importation of lower-cost drugs manufactured abroad.

If this legislative scenario does not lead you to question whether and how money has changed hands with a powerful pharmaceutical lobby, then it is hard to imagine what would provide you more ample notice.

If the "elderly" beneficial recipients' opinions are what you find persuasive, then consider that views expressed by the AARP and the Alliance for Retired Americans put this law somewhere between "imperfect" and Congress' outright failure of older Americans.

AARP remains confident that the law's flaws can be repaired as the program ramps up to actual operation. ARA may be less optimistic.

. . .

The U.S. already has a national formulary. Perhaps you are familiar with the work of the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates and catalogs approved and tentatively approved prescription, OTC, discontinued, and disallowed drugs in the U.S. This administrative oversight, while offering guidance and direction, does not unduly interfere with the relationship between the physician and patient.

This, of course, is of marginal interest, since among concerns about government's flexing its economic muscle in the legal drug trade, avoiding a "national formulary run by politicians" is down the list.

In response to Starlight's observation that the government negotiates for other products of which it is the purchasing consumer, you raise the straw man of governmental waste, exemplified by $400 hammers and $1,000 toilet seats.

These are examples of fraud, waste, and abuse in government spending (perpetrated by private contractors against slack-jawed government agents no less). Nevertheless, these are not examples of government's uniform daily practice. If it were otherwise, the government would have collapsed under the weight of its own pork long ago.

Moreover, your position fails to account for the fact that there are simply certain goods and services that citizens look to governmental care and control to provide in a civil society. The government may draw on considerably greater resources, develop markets of scale, and often negotiate more persuasively for goods and services needed by individual consbreastuents than individuals can obtain for themselves.

...when it is allowed to do so.

Often, as it is here, there is a potential for waste and mismanagement when government is left unquestioned. This does not change the truth of these facts above. Rather, it shows a need of active democracy and advanced citizenship in the U.S. -- particularly in securing the benefit of health care for the seniors in society.

Whether the enacted law will prove a greater benefit for patients or a windfall for drug companies remains largely to be seen, and Congress today seems satisfied to experiment with this provision until the answer visits you in your declining years.

Whether they will be paying more right away or later in life when they are less well prepared for the burden, a few elder Americans may feel choosing between voluntary participation in the government's health care plan, such as it is, and volunteering to go without any offers no real choice at all. This matters more to some than it does others.