From: Kommienezuspadt on

"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
news:db82085e-9774-4cc7-8569-bed8104d1ed0(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 7, 7:27 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote:
> "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2626db0beecff47c989db5(a)news.giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117...(a)newsfe25.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net
> > says...
> >> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents
> >> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in
> >> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed
> >> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the
> >> benefit too will go.
>
> >> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the
> >> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program
> >> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug
> >> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than
> >> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors.
>
> >> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses
> >> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits,
> >> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall.
>
> >> ===
> >> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as
> >> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it off
> >> as
> >> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type
>
> > Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage
> > employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the
> > "worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help.
>
> > How many people were hired by the poor today?
>
> Let's give AT&T all of your money then.

I can choose to purchase a product from ATT or not. I cannot choose my
health insurance though.

===

true -- but YOU said they were being screwed by them not being able to write
off a huge gift to them -- I'm still shaking my head on how you can think
that is a good idea - but you'll howl about paying for insurance with tax
money.


From: dene on

"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
news:fd1a94bf-aa15-46ab-81c1-4461ac8c077b(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...


Very stupid policy, IMHO.

The whole free drug for seniors policy is/was a bad policy. This is
typical of these sorts of things though, IMHO. Some "deal" has to be
made to satisfy some contingency. How about "you use a product, like
say drugs, you pay for it"? Why is that so bad? And who is going to
pay for it if the user doesn't...and where are those people going to
get the money?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Grandma on SS and a small pension paying $300/mo. for medication, just to
stay alive. "Why is that so bad?"

-Greg


From: BAR on
In article <2VMvn.98948$sx5.6131(a)newsfe16.iad>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net
says...
> >
> > so -- you are saying you support loopholes like this?
> >
> > interesting --- that's far too loose with money for my taste.
>
> Very stupid policy, IMHO.
>
> The whole free drug for seniors policy is/was a bad policy. This is
> typical of these sorts of things though, IMHO. Some "deal" has to be
> made to satisfy some contingency. How about "you use a product, like
> say drugs, you pay for it"? Why is that so bad? And who is going to
> pay for it if the user doesn't...and where are those people going to
> get the money?
>
>
> ===
> except -- it is not free... facts -- darned liberal facts.

What portion of the cost is born by the direct beneficiary?
From: Kommienezuspadt on

"BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.26299218c29dda33989dc6(a)news.giganews.com...
> In article <2VMvn.98948$sx5.6131(a)newsfe16.iad>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net
> says...
>> >
>> > so -- you are saying you support loopholes like this?
>> >
>> > interesting --- that's far too loose with money for my taste.
>>
>> Very stupid policy, IMHO.
>>
>> The whole free drug for seniors policy is/was a bad policy. This is
>> typical of these sorts of things though, IMHO. Some "deal" has to be
>> made to satisfy some contingency. How about "you use a product, like
>> say drugs, you pay for it"? Why is that so bad? And who is going to
>> pay for it if the user doesn't...and where are those people going to
>> get the money?
>>
>>
>> ===
>> except -- it is not free... facts -- darned liberal facts.
>
> What portion of the cost is born by the direct beneficiary?

That depends on factors --- you should look it up -- but Medicare Part D has
a deductible --


read this for a start -- or in your case -- have someone read it for you.

then run along

Beneficiary cost sharing (deductibles, coinsurance, etc.)
The MMA establishes a standard drug benefit that Part D plans may offer.[6]
The standard benefit is defined in terms of the benefit structure and not in
terms of the drugs that must be covered. In 2008, this standard benefit
requires payment of a $275 deductible. The beneficiary then pays 25% of the
cost of a covered Part D prescription drug up to an initial coverage limit
of $2,510. The defined standard benefit is not the most common benefit
offered by Part D plans. Only 10 percent of plans for 2008 offer the defined
standard benefit. Most eliminate the deductible and use tiered drug
co-payments rather than coinsurance.[7]

Once the initial coverage limit is reached, the beneficiary is subject to
another deductible, known officially as the Coverage Gap but referred to
more commonly as the "Donut Hole," in which they must pay the full cost of
medicine. When total out-of-pocket expenses on formulary drugs for the year,
including the deductible and initial coinsurance, reach $4050 (now $4350 in
2009[8]), the beneficiary then reaches catastrophic coverage, in which he or
she pays $2.25 for a generic or preferred drug and $5.65 for other drugs, or
5% coinsurance, whichever is greater. The $4050 amount is calculated on a
yearly basis, and a beneficiary who amasses $4050 in out-of-pocket costs by
December 31 of one year will start his or her deductible anew on January 1.
Most low-income subsidy patients are exempt from all or part of the donut
hole and the deductible.

The only out-of-pocket costs that count toward getting out of the coverage
gap or into catastrophic coverage are True Out-Of-Pocket (TrOOP)
expenditures. TrOOP expenditures accrue only when drugs on the enrolled-in
plan's formulary are purchased in accordance with the restrictions on those
drugs. Any other purchases do not count toward either the coverage gap or
catastrophic coverage. Monthly premium payments do not count towards TrOOP.


From: BAR on
In article <l2Zvn.98993$sx5.13818(a)newsfe16.iad>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net
says...
> > What portion of the cost is born by the direct beneficiary?
>
> That depends on factors --- you should look it up -- but Medicare Part D has
> a deductible --
>
>
> read this for a start -- or in your case -- have someone read it for you.
>
> then run along
>
> Beneficiary cost sharing (deductibles, coinsurance, etc.)
> The MMA establishes a standard drug benefit that Part D plans may offer.[6]
> The standard benefit is defined in terms of the benefit structure and not in
> terms of the drugs that must be covered. In 2008, this standard benefit
> requires payment of a $275 deductible. The beneficiary then pays 25% of the
> cost of a covered Part D prescription drug up to an initial coverage limit
> of $2,510. The defined standard benefit is not the most common benefit
> offered by Part D plans. Only 10 percent of plans for 2008 offer the defined
> standard benefit. Most eliminate the deductible and use tiered drug
> co-payments rather than coinsurance.[7]
>
> Once the initial coverage limit is reached, the beneficiary is subject to
> another deductible, known officially as the Coverage Gap but referred to
> more commonly as the "Donut Hole," in which they must pay the full cost of
> medicine. When total out-of-pocket expenses on formulary drugs for the year,
> including the deductible and initial coinsurance, reach $4050 (now $4350 in
> 2009[8]), the beneficiary then reaches catastrophic coverage, in which he or
> she pays $2.25 for a generic or preferred drug and $5.65 for other drugs, or
> 5% coinsurance, whichever is greater. The $4050 amount is calculated on a
> yearly basis, and a beneficiary who amasses $4050 in out-of-pocket costs by
> December 31 of one year will start his or her deductible anew on January 1.
> Most low-income subsidy patients are exempt from all or part of the donut
> hole and the deductible.
>
> The only out-of-pocket costs that count toward getting out of the coverage
> gap or into catastrophic coverage are True Out-Of-Pocket (TrOOP)
> expenditures. TrOOP expenditures accrue only when drugs on the enrolled-in
> plan's formulary are purchased in accordance with the restrictions on those
> drugs. Any other purchases do not count toward either the coverage gap or
> catastrophic coverage. Monthly premium payments do not count towards TrOOP.
>

You miss the whole point. If you use it you should pay for it.


The whole Medicare part D plan was the stupidest thing ever implemented.