Saturday, 22. May 2010
instead of socializing it or passing a law forcing us to have insurance and giving the insurance companies a bonanza like ‘universal’ plans would be, why not just demand more of the insurance companies? say “what the hell? i pay 500 a month, and im NOT going to pay a 2500 deductable, and im NOT going to pay 20% co-insurance, nor am i going to pay 50 bucks for a generic prescription!” why not reign in these companies and FORCE them to provide affordable, COMPLETE coverage? have you looked for health insurance lately? its laughable. almost makes you just want to take that 500 a month and put it into savings, since that would be better than relying on these bastards, who come right out and tell us that we have to pay a large percentage of our own bills, then pay a percentage after that. its ridiculous. then once we reign them in, THEY will reign in the drug companies and doctors.
lets not forget that we still have the power. maybe not of VOTE but we still control the money.
HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE. SORRY.
Posted in Answers by Prescription Savings -
Tuesday, 4. May 2010
75% Commission. Written By Nationally Recognized Relationship Expert, Kara Oh, This Product Will Help Couples Not Only Save Their Marriage But Make It Better Than It Was Before The Affair. Conversions Should Be High Because Of The Nature Of Their Need.
Affair Repair: How To Save Your Marriage & Make It Better Than Before.
Posted in Articles by Prescription Savings -
Sunday, 25. April 2010
Peeling off layers, like an onion, is an alternative to a Holistic All-At-One-Time Megasolution. Layering the problem down is sometimes called Disjointed Incrementalism. You do something. See what happens. See what’s left of the problem. Then do something else tailored to what’s left of the problem. When the impact of that occurs, you assess where the problem is at that point — i.e. what’s left of it. Then you hand-tailor a new hack at the problem based on how it is at that point.
The progress in incremental — it happens in pieces, or chunks.
The progress is disjointed — because the plan is “open” like in a chessgame, or a tennis match. You have to see what the effect of your last move is before you design your next move. This is called interaction with reality. It’s less hubristic than a huge plan with thousands of moving parts that you somehow imagine will “work” just because you the wonderful you say it will work.
So what’s the first layer?
It could be vouchers to subsidize some of the uninsured. These would be financial instruments that only the adressee could spend, and that could only be spent on one of the approved 85 health insurance plans offerred by companies that the government has examined and knows to be non-rip-off organizations. These 85 firms are closely monitored for their financial soundess and the integrity of their conduct and the quality of their management and governance.
Vouchers could peel back about 40% of the uninsured problem. The other 60% would not be able to get health insurance even if they had 10 handfulls of vouchers and were standing on Insurance Crossroads of the World. Why? Because they are uninsurable. Too sick. No fixed address. Extreme bad habits. Not able to be identified. Mendacious and unable to assist in their own healthcare. Just your hopeless basketcase type people. There’s at least 25 million of them loose in USA. It would be absurd to expect a voucher program to fix their problems, so let’s not.
Let’s be satified with peeling off 20 million people from the problem. These are the ones that are not too sick, that do have addresses, that don’t lie, and who are only a little dysfunctional, most of it just poverty, not twistedness.
OK — we’ve got 25 million people left — how about maybe Federal Primary Care Clinics — real close to hospital emergency room entrances. When these basketcase people show up, they can be quickly diverted away from the $1000 emergecy room visit, and to a 24/7 Primary Care Pauper’s Clinic that can provide quick medical intervention, and a prescription, and some pills, for about $75 per visit (that’s a 92.5% savings compared to what we do now).
Let’s say that takes the problem down by another 20%. So now it’s 20 million basketcases.
Why don’t I just give you levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 right now? Because I don’t know them. See that’s the whole idea of an open plan — of disjointed incrementalism — like in a chessgame or tennis match — you don’t know how the whole game will unfold when you make the first move. You have to interact with the changing problem — the remnant going forward. So, the fact that I can’t lay it out for you now, does not mean that the layered approach is not viable.
It is plainly the best approach for this type of problem.
Obama has chosen the Holistic approach (like Hillary did).
That’s a huge mistake.
His scheme will be rejected.
When they come back next year to try again, maybe they could try something different, like smart people do instead of trying the same thing that did not work over and over and over — like we have to fight 10 more Vietnam wars before we realize that our approach does not work.
Posted in Answers by Prescription Savings -
Monday, 22. March 2010
Will the dems new Drug price negotiation act be any exception?
The misguided proposal before us today to put the government in charge of negotiating prescription drug prices does not serve the interests of seniors. Government controls will lead to restrictive formularies, denying seniors coverage for the drugs their doctors prescribe. While seniors will have fewer prescriptions to choose from, they will not realize savings from this reduction in prescription options. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) affirmed that government negotiation will only yield savings if access to medicines is restricted.
H.R. 4 will limit seniors’ choice of plans and access to necessary treatments; what’s more, it will stifle innovation. In examining ways to control the costs of prescription drugs, we must not forget that innovations by pharmaceutical companies lead to the development of newer and better treatments. Price controls create barriers to pharmaceutical innovation that can hurt patients and slow the potential for innovative therapy discovery. Some estimates find that almost 200 new drugs would go undiscovered over the next two decades as an indirect result of federal price negotiations.
We all want to ensure our seniors can get the prescriptions they need at the lowest cost. The debate before us today is about who we think is most effective in negotiating with the drug companies to achieve this low cost. We do not need to speculate on the answer to this question. The current program of senior choice and market competition has already lowered costs by forty percent in one year. In contrast, the CBO has said that the proposal to move toward socialized medicine will not save seniors any money unless access to needed medications is limited. I cannot support limiting access and choice for the 66,000 Medicare Part D beneficiaries in my district and as such strongly oppose H.R. 4.
Posted in Answers by Prescription Savings -
Friday, 26. February 2010
Would it be better for me to switch to a Health Savings Account (HSA) plan, if I have a prescription for birth control and will need to purchase it monthly? Will it end up saving me, or costing me more money? OtheI have no health problems as of yet. :/
Posted in Answers by Prescription Savings -