America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 21 years ago by tailgater. 4 replies replies.
Could someone please help me understand...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
michaelsean Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2002, 7:51 AM EST
Joined: 12-10-2001
Posts: 6
what it is about reaching the age of 65 that entitles someone to free drugs. I can't seem to put my finger on that part of the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to pay for people's prescriptions. To make matters worse, the Democrats don't think the bill pays for enough. What a weak and helpless society we have become. Before long, the tax consumers will outnumber the taxpayers, and the Great Experiment will be over. Someone, maybe Franklin, once said that democracy will fail when the people realize they can vote themselves money.

Mike
xrundog Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2002, 8:16 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2002
Posts: 2,212
I am not an expert on this but like always, will comment. Drug orices are high. Really high. Many seniors have health care which does not cover this cost. High costs are related to monopolies some companies have on certain drugs. Ergo, if you need it you must pay. These monopolies are sometimes related to patents. Many seniors live on small fixed incomes. They cannot afford the drugs they need to live. Seniors have an ever growing bloc of votes. Politicians are courting these votes by legislating the perscription drug bill. At the same time making the drug companies happy. Drug companies could lower prices and make less profit. Instead they spend their money contributing to campaigns and lobbying for the prescription drug bill so they can keep prices high. That about cover it?
michaelsean Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2002, 9:09 AM EST
Joined: 12-10-2001
Posts: 6
I appreciate your point, but it still doesn't address where the Federal Government derives the power to pay for these.

Drugs are expensive for several reasons. The amount of money it takes to bring a drug to market is in the hundreds of millions. Maybe more. They have to cover that expense. This doesn't count the drugs they spend a fortune developing that don't get approved. Those have to be paid for. Finally, they have a limited amount of time to sell their drugs at a premium price because as soon as the patent runs out, the generics are on the shelf. If anyone thinks they are making a ton of money, go invest in Merck or Pfizer and watch your portfolio drop.
xrundog Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2002, 10:39 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2002
Posts: 2,212
Maybe it is the inalienable right to life? If seniors can't afford their drugs they die. Therefore they are deprived of the right to life. Nahhh. It's the voting bloc. In many cases, Congress or the President can do what they can get away with. If it's what the public wants, the Supreme Court may not address it. Would public healthcare be unconstitutional? I don't think it is really addressed. It is percieved as PIONEERING LEGISLATION.
tailgater Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Jun 28 2002, 6:59 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
The problems are many, and you have both hit some good points. Another major problem is the doctors themselves. Why is it that most seniors are on at least three different medications? People aren't THAT sick. The docs push what is sold to them by the drug mongers. But I thought Hillary and her crew solved all this behind closed doors...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top