<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can the Democrats&#8217; bill bring lower drug prices? Don&#8217;t count on it!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rightvoices.com/2007/01/18/can-the-democrats-bill-bring-lower-drug-prices-dont-count-on-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rightvoices.com/2007/01/18/can-the-democrats-bill-bring-lower-drug-prices-dont-count-on-it/</link>
	<description>in all matter of opinion, our adversaries are insane.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:43:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Konop</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2007/01/18/can-the-democrats-bill-bring-lower-drug-prices-dont-count-on-it/comment-page-1/#comment-315302</link>
		<dc:creator>John Konop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2007/01/18/can-the-democrats-bill-bring-lower-drug-prices-dont-count-on-it/#comment-315302</guid>
		<description>Tom Price Tells Retirees Their Prescription Drug Costs are Already Low Enough

The Cherokee Ledger News recently reported that Dr. Price voted not to let Medicare negotiate drug prices to help save both the program and retired Americans money. He did so against the wishes of the AARP and in contrast to most of his colleagues in congress. The Veterans Administration does negotiate prices, and saves vets millions.

Why the &quot;no&quot;vote, you ask? Because he&#039;s bought and paid-for by the medical lobby. His votes are easy to predict. If the bill moves money into the hands of the medical lobby, he&#039;s all over it. If it moves money out of the medical industry, it&#039;s a no-go (I&#039;m sorry, it&#039;s &quot;bad for patientsâ€).

But let&#039;s take a look at Price&#039;s excuses:

â€¢ &quot;The less involvement government has in medical care, the better.â€
â€“So does this mean Price wants to eliminate Medicare? No, I didn&#039;t think so. This is just meaningless rhetoric.

â€¢ 90 percent of AARP members support giving Medicare the power to bargain for lower drug costs.
â€“ To them Price says, &quot;I&#039;m sorry that AARP&#039;s taken such a partisan approach on this.â€

â€¢ &quot;Washington bureaucrats will decide which drugs will be available for patients, not from a scientific or safety standpoint, but purely based on money. Many drugs would be knocked off the approved list if Medicare had the power to negotiate, resulting in a smaller choice of drugs being available to seniorsâ€
â€“ False. The bill (unfortunately) did not authorize Medicare to remove a non-discounted drug from coverage. The stronger Veterans Administration policy does.

â€¢ &quot;Nobody negotiates with the federal government. The federal government tells you what to do.â€
â€“ Well, he voted to make sure the first sentence remained true.

â€¢ &quot;Government never has quality in mind when it comes to medical care; its whole objective is decreasing costs.â€
â€“As opposed to health insurance companies, who think of nothing but quality and don&#039;t care about expenses? Sure.

â€¢ &quot;The free market has continually proven more adept at lowering expenses.â€
â€“Whoops, I thought it was the government that was manically focused on decreasing costs. Well, his quote is true, if you realize it&#039;s referring to health insurance company expenses, not patients&#039; out-of-pocket expenses. 

â€¢ &quot;Many quality physicians have been forced out of business by Medicare requirements.â€
â€“ Even if that&#039;s true, it was no doubt due to Medicare&#039;s reimbursements for office visits and other direct physician care, not its prescription reimbursement policies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom Price Tells Retirees Their Prescription Drug Costs are Already Low Enough</p>
<p>The Cherokee Ledger News recently reported that Dr. Price voted not to let Medicare negotiate drug prices to help save both the program and retired Americans money. He did so against the wishes of the AARP and in contrast to most of his colleagues in congress. The Veterans Administration does negotiate prices, and saves vets millions.</p>
<p>Why the &#8220;no&#8221;vote, you ask? Because he&#8217;s bought and paid-for by the medical lobby. His votes are easy to predict. If the bill moves money into the hands of the medical lobby, he&#8217;s all over it. If it moves money out of the medical industry, it&#8217;s a no-go (I&#8217;m sorry, it&#8217;s &#8220;bad for patientsâ€).</p>
<p>But let&#8217;s take a look at Price&#8217;s excuses:</p>
<p>â€¢ &#8220;The less involvement government has in medical care, the better.â€<br />
â€“So does this mean Price wants to eliminate Medicare? No, I didn&#8217;t think so. This is just meaningless rhetoric.</p>
<p>â€¢ 90 percent of AARP members support giving Medicare the power to bargain for lower drug costs.<br />
â€“ To them Price says, &#8220;I&#8217;m sorry that AARP&#8217;s taken such a partisan approach on this.â€</p>
<p>â€¢ &#8220;Washington bureaucrats will decide which drugs will be available for patients, not from a scientific or safety standpoint, but purely based on money. Many drugs would be knocked off the approved list if Medicare had the power to negotiate, resulting in a smaller choice of drugs being available to seniorsâ€<br />
â€“ False. The bill (unfortunately) did not authorize Medicare to remove a non-discounted drug from coverage. The stronger Veterans Administration policy does.</p>
<p>â€¢ &#8220;Nobody negotiates with the federal government. The federal government tells you what to do.â€<br />
â€“ Well, he voted to make sure the first sentence remained true.</p>
<p>â€¢ &#8220;Government never has quality in mind when it comes to medical care; its whole objective is decreasing costs.â€<br />
â€“As opposed to health insurance companies, who think of nothing but quality and don&#8217;t care about expenses? Sure.</p>
<p>â€¢ &#8220;The free market has continually proven more adept at lowering expenses.â€<br />
â€“Whoops, I thought it was the government that was manically focused on decreasing costs. Well, his quote is true, if you realize it&#8217;s referring to health insurance company expenses, not patients&#8217; out-of-pocket expenses. </p>
<p>â€¢ &#8220;Many quality physicians have been forced out of business by Medicare requirements.â€<br />
â€“ Even if that&#8217;s true, it was no doubt due to Medicare&#8217;s reimbursements for office visits and other direct physician care, not its prescription reimbursement policies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred Dawes</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2007/01/18/can-the-democrats-bill-bring-lower-drug-prices-dont-count-on-it/comment-page-1/#comment-310415</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred Dawes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2007/01/18/can-the-democrats-bill-bring-lower-drug-prices-dont-count-on-it/#comment-310415</guid>
		<description>ONE WORD..NO!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ONE WORD..NO!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

