home

White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 04:16:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

So you thought what drugs you take should be up to you and your doctor? Forget it. The White House has other plans for elderly and disabled citizens. Drugs it finds addictive or habit forming will not be covered under the White House drug plan.

When the federal government's new prescription drug benefit kicks in next year, it will not cover a category of drugs commonly used to treat anxiety, insomnia and seizures.

That means those disabled and elderly people on Medicare who take Xanax, Valium, Ativan and other types of the drug benzodiazepine will have to look elsewhere for coverage or switch to a different, less addictive medication.

I wonder if Colin Powell's Ambien will be covered. This is the worst White House and the Worst President Ever.

< American Prisons to Expand Across Iraq | Why the Support for Only One Reporter? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs | 53 comments (53 topical)
    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    it must pain you to see that lifespans keep increasing in this country. it still doesn't answer the question-rationing will occur somewhere. I see no post here from the left spectrum which acknowledges that. how about as a start, I will propose no health care for illegal aliens but anxiety meds will be covered. is that acceptable as a limitation? if not, what is?

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Geez, give them an inch and they complain that you didn't get them a mile. The decision of what not to cover seems rather arbitrary, but Bush got you coverage for most categories of drugs. That's more than you can say for any liberal president.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    I wonder what Tom Cruise thinks of this...

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    This will be catastrophic for those with chronic pain, which is difficult enough to treat. Drugs that are "addictive" for one person are essential for a night's sleep for others.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    This will be catastrophic for those with chronic pain, which is difficult enough to treat.
    It will be no more catastrophic than it is today.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    the dispensing of legal pharmaceuticals should be between a dr and their patient. The gov't has no business in this relationship. this has been proven by frist making a diagnosis on the senate floor, and being proven completely wrong by evidence of an autopsy. Do you really want a politician judging what meds you or a loved one need? And bush didn't get anyone coverage, he just limited what coverage they already had. Talk to your parents, grandparents and any loved one with cancer or any other debillitating disease. Roy, you deserve to die alone and in intractable pain while you soil yourself and no one comes to change your bedclothes and pan because bushco cut health care. Having witnessed it, I wouldn't wish this on anyone. But you voted for it.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Do you really want a politician judging what meds you or a loved one need?
    Nope! Which is exactly why I didn't support "Billary's" socialized health care plan. Please remember what you said.
    Roy, you deserve to die alone and in intractable pain while you soil yourself and no one comes to change your bedclothes and pan because bushco cut health care.
    I'll take compassionate conservativism over that any day. Bush must be the most powerful president ever based on all the stuff that's his fault.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Roy, You are really lucky. Your comment is spoken like someone who has never had to watch a loved one spend a week of sleepless nights in unbearable pain because the law already dictates how often an Ambien prescription can be refilled and doesn't consider the fact that certain pain requires more than the "law designated" nightly dose. Because watching it is 100 times less painful than living it. Someone with that much sleep deprivation is in no condition to hold a job, drive a car, etc. Of course, compassionate conservatives may beg to differ

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Sailor,
    And bush didn't get anyone coverage, he just limited what coverage they already had.
    I had to re-read a few things, but I think I see your point. Are you talking about drugs which are covered by the current "discount card" program, which will not be covered by the benefit program as of January 1? Bush gave us the discount card program too. He's sort of an Indian giver, but he's responsible for increasing drug coverage overall. Drugs will be more affordable for those on Medicare in 2006 than they were in 2002, because of George W. Bush. You could thank him for the substance of his work even if you deride him for the style (not to put words in your mouth). I had forgotten all about the discount card, so my posts were snippier than the facts support. Sorry, TL! To a lesser extent, sorry, brave!
    Roy, you deserve to die alone and in intractable pain while you soil yourself and no one comes to change your bedclothes and pan because bushco cut health care.
    Nice. But I'd prefer to die like that than have men with guns telling all my neighbors to pay for my health care or be arrested. Assuming my bravado survives wearing diapers.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Patrick: 1) Bush is the most powerful president in history. Thanks to kool-aid drinkers like yourself. 2) Please learn the distinction between deserve and wish. I stand by remarks about deserving, and stand by remarks about not wishing this on anyone. 3) Please address the totality of my remarks, not just your riffing points. 4) This is a subject near, dear and completely personal to me and mine. As far as I'm concerned you're just another gov't agent that denied my Dad a dignified and realtively peaceful death. In most instances, we may be on opposite sides and I will debate them with you. In this particualr matter, your 'compassionate conservativism' meant a horrible lingering death for my Dad as my family watched. Considering you don't know our events I will just assume you haven't been thru this, and once again, I would never wish it on anyone. When you go to bible study on Wednesday, and/or church on Sunday, I recommend you ask your pastor about his opinion of this exchange.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Hmmm, worse than Nixon (lied, covered up, resigned), worse than Andy Jackson (hard on Southerners, genocidal on Native Americans), worse than Hoover (misread the depression), worse than, well, you get the point. And, maybe I missed something, but don't companies like Merck/Medco and PPD/Pharmaco and BCBS have formularies that restrict certain drugs in terms of availability, frequency, and dose? -C

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Roy, giving you the benefit of the doubt, please read about how much was covered before bush and how limited it is now. And provide links. I'm just not going to waste my time on your fantasy of armed agents making you contribute to healthcare.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#12)
    by drshaffer on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    America! Yes, here only those with enough money can age and die painfree. This is just spiteful! They really do hate the poor.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    cliff, no drug company (or any other company), voluntarily restricts their market(s).

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Sailor et al, Everything I've said in this thread is wrong. Sorry! I messed up! I thought y'all were being snippy for no good reason, and ended up being snippy myself for no good reason. I thought I researched Medicare reasonably well, but I did not. A little more reading reveals that I barely have a clue what I'm talking about and thus don't have an informed opinion. I am now shutting up about Medicare and prescription drugs.
    I'm just not going to waste my time on your fantasy of armed agents making you contribute to healthcare.
    Yes, well, that's my new taxation metaphor. I'm not 100% happy with it yet. The basic idea is that if you don't pay your taxes, the police (armed men) come arrest you. So any time you spend tax money on something, it's akin to making people pay for it or be arrested.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#15)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    "This is the worst White House and the Worst President Ever." Yes indeedy. By a long, long ways. Use of the White House to make unprecedented numbers of unprecedented kinds of human beings--domestic as well as foreign-- miserable, afraid, dead, or all three.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Roy, don't feel bad. From what I can tell very few people on this thread have the ghost of a clue.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#17)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    "The decision of what not to cover seems rather arbitrary, but Bush got you coverage for most categories of drugs. That's more than you can say for any liberal president." Wouldn't "Yes, this was a terrible decision" have sufficed? Mr. Fantastic would blush at all the stretching it takes to turn everything into an attack on Clinton. Speaking of national healthcare, though, I feel like in the past it's been hindered more by ultraconservative congressmen than liberal presidents...

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Insurance companies, specifically HMO's and PPO's, have their own formularies for what drugs they will cover or not cover. Most of the them provide a (lower cost) alternative to a medication prescribed by a practitioner that is not covered. That being said, to restrict an entire class of drugs is innapropriate and interferes with the practitioner's ability to properly treat certain illnesses. Is that the compassionate conservatism that you are referring to Patrick? Because your profiteering DEA bosses and their families will retire rich with plenty of coverage. They don't give a f**k about anybody else. "The rich stay healthy, while the sick stay poor." U2

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Maybe Tom Cruise lobbied them

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    thanks Roy, I'm sorry if I offended you unnecessarily;-) ... I have a soft spot in my heart & head for this topic. IRT "The basic idea is that if you don't pay your taxes, the police (armed men) come arrest you." No, it's worse. They take your property away from you. My feeling is, if you have to pay taxes or they'll take it away, then you don't own it, you just rent it from the gov't. Now apparently, you can pay your taxes, but they still can take it away. So much for the american dream of property 'ownership.' cliff -worse than Nixon [snip] Andy Jackson [snip] Hoover What's your point? grad, GFY .

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#21)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    From what I can tell very few people on this thread have the ghost of a clue.
    Grad, just what is your effing clue? Share it, please.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#22)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    et al - Give me a few months and I will tell you how it really works.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#23)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    et al - If you are interested: How it works. Perfect? No. But yes, it is better than anything any previous President did. Demo or Repub. BTW - I'm now paying about $225 a month for Rx i9nsurance, plus about another $800 in annual co-pays. And yes, Medco will not provide non-covered drugs, no matter if the Doctor does write the Rx. I think I'll take my savings and give them to the Repub Party. After all, they did the job!

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#24)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    It's very simple, but apparently well beyond TL to figure it out: 1) Government extends a (taxpayer funded) "benefit" 2) The green eyeshade brigade (w/o regard to which party runs things) sees the actual cost of said program and has a fit 3) Rationing is introduced Which is why markets - where consumers and vendors actually deal directly with each other - actually work better. This is news to TL, which apparently thinks that there is such a thing as a free lunch

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#25)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    bad news, insane government, and what is bush doing about our open borders and real drug dealers, one word "nothing".

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    When did these mooks in the WH get medical degrees? Any drug benefit plan worth a damn lets doctors (you know, the people who actually diagnose and treat patients)decide what drugs are administered, not some drug war zealot in the WH. There is no room for bueracracy and petty politics when dealing with peoples health.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Kdog, Our friend JR seems to think that the market is a MUCH better arbiter of how our elderly need to be treated. "Mr. Smith, I have good news and bad news. The good news is, you have cancer. The bad news is, the drug that is most effective against your disease is not performing well in the market so we had to stop covering it." This is the privatization of health care under Bush. You neocons make me want to vomit.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    How telling PPJ, the cuts benefit you as you are not taking any benzos so it is the best plan ever. Selfish and always right, sounds very clearly like narcissism to me.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    some rationing or decisions on service reduction will be made in any health care plan, government or otherwise/hence the waits for care in countries with socialized medicine. do you think it will be any different in this country? If so, I have a bridge ....

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#30)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    JL - When you reach the elder years it is amazingly simple to go to your Doctor and complain of depression - about getting older - and pick up a Rx for a number of drugs. Zantac, for example, is addictive and so is Valium, at least in the psychological sense. i.e. It makes me feel good, I need it. But as for guidelines on what will, and will not be paid, I have a friend who has the big E. Medicare won't pay for his oxygen machine when his oxygen blood level is above 91%. As a result, his hospital stays are (usually) extended a few days for various reasons, by the Doctors, who know if they send him home he can't cope, and will be calling 911 again. So administrative medicine is stupid, costly and harms the patient. As for this action, it exceedingly stupid, but then again you are dealing with bureaucrats. The same type of people who want to take homes from 80 year olds so the city can give the property to rich developers in the name of "public use." I wonder if Bush saw that connection when he called up medicare and said: "Shut off the happy pills!" JL, duhhh. As someone who has been calling for national healthcare for a long time, I shudder when something like this happens, because it provides ammo for those opposing it. I just point out that at least my friend can go to the hospital without loosing his home. As for this "cut," it is obvious that we need AARP to fight it, yet I have heard nothing from them. I wonder why.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Duhh, again you fail to address your giddiness over what is good for you and not so good for others. Your selfishness at least is consistent. Irrespective of the addictive nature of some of the drugs, your narcissistic opinion of "happy pills" (when did you become an MD, I must have missed that post) is not only childish and petulant, but foolish as well. For those that have to take Zantac or Valium to address their medical conditions your post is a insult to the credibility of their conditions. You are a putz and a blowhard.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    As a person who deals with pain and muscle spasms and a partially paralyzed leg, and WHO DOESN'T POP PAINKILLERS (I smoke pot instead, egad), I find this entire plan to be so lacking in the kind of "compassion" Bush(league) pays lip service to. Any effective medical plan should deal with each patient on an individual basis, or else we're not talking health care but health care rationing. I don't give a rat's ass about the wealthy, who can get the best care they can afford, only those who need help and can't get it from a government that seems to think we should aim much LOWER in our standards. And for what reason? To save their contributors and patrons some lousy cash.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    "Any effective medical plan should deal with each patient on an individual basis, or else we're not talking health care but health care rationing." Dadler, along these lines, what do you think of the changes (rationing) enacted to Cali work comp in response to our state's budget problems? Despite my moniker, this is a straight question. I understand the problems some have with health care "rationing" as a result of ideology, but is there a similar issue with "rationing" due to finances? IOW, is it "rationing" that we have a problem with, or is the reason for it that's the issue?

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Brief point here: this site's policy is listed as "Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane material ...will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments." I notice on this thread alone we have (all going left to right): "grad, GFY" -Sailor "Selfish and always right, sounds very clearly like narcissism to me." -Jlvngstn "You are a putz and a blowhard." -Jlvngstn and the current reigning champ, the Sultan of Scorn! the Viceroy of Vitriol! the King of Contempt! the Ace of Ad Hominem....heeeeere's Saaaaaailorrrr!!! "Roy, you deserve to die alone and in intractable pain while you soil yourself and no one comes to change your bedclothes and pan" -Sailor Yes folks, the art of debate shown with exceptional refinement and subtlety. Dealing solely with the issues, never attacking the opponent. That is our lofty discourse on talkleft.com. Genteel, intellectual, and genuinely liberal. And objectively edited for content too! Hillary Bless America!

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Grad student, perhaps your tenure here is short lived, mine is not. PPJ and I have a long history of hostilities, and his spoon sharpened wit and rhetoric combined with his snide remarks warrant my pointing out the obvious. Perhaps you would feel better if you would research both sides of the issue or is that beyond your political prejudices?

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    and the current reigning champ, the Sultan of Scorn! the Viceroy of Vitriol! the King of Contempt! the Ace of Ad Hominem....heeeeere's Saaaaaailorrrr!!!
    Sailor's comment was reasonably appropriate given the BS I was spewing at the time.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    P.S. I think that I deserve reigning champion and I hope that there is a vote sometime soon.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#38)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    "Mr. Smith, I have good news and bad news. The good news is, you have cancer. The bad news is, the drug that is most effective against your disease is not performing well in the market so we had to stop covering it." So in the brilliant world of this poster, products that solve a real world problem don't succeed in the market? Likewise, in the world you live in, govt bureaucrats figure this stuff out better? Who do you think made this call?

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Sarc, Valid question, and my only answer is this: spread the wealth. We have so much in this state, in this nation, the only thing holding us back is, largely, individual greed. I support aiding those who need aid the most, while at the same time asking those who have the most to sacrifice the most. Period. Not that I'm happy about junkfood, sloth, or any of the other things that contribute to health problems in this nation. But at the same time, wealth is generated from all those things. If that is our society, then it behooves us to accept what we create -- consumers. Of a lot of crap that doesn't do the body a lot of good. To want to reap the riches, but not spread the costs of that lifestyle, seems obviously amoral (if not immoral) and not a little economically short-sighted. Gotta keep those consumers healthy and working if you wanna keep them consuming and generating income for the producers, retailers, etc. Jesus, is that obtuse enough of an answer. I need lunch.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Thanks, Roy. That is probably the most honorable thing any commenter, including myself, has written on this site. grad, try contributing to the site instead of just ankle biting. but thanks for the award. I'd like to thank my agent, my producer, my writers and all the little people, you know who you are, who have made this possible.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Enjoy your lunch Dader. We're getting way off topic here, but, to me, it is just that "greed," as you put it (the freedom to "succeed" as much as each of us desires, and the freedom to enjoy the fruits of our "success," as I would put it) that gotten us, in our state and country, so much. It would seem to me that the line that divides something "good" (health care) from something "bad" (health care rationing) is just as subjective and arbitrary as that which divides "spread the wealth" from "socialism" or what ever term you feel applies. imo, health care was, is and always will be rationed and, as in this thread, the more the gvt gets involved, the more it will be rationed. Note that I don't in any way suggest that in a completely free-market health care system health care would be limitless. Lastly, there are a lot of rights we enjoy as citizens. I see no "right" for health or health care (whether good or bad) in our Constitution. Nor do I think such a thing should be there. And this is coming from someone who, like you, like many, like most, perhaps, has had and continues to have significant medical issues.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    SU - I see no right either to HC although when I see us spending 300 billion or so in a war with Iraq it makes me think our priorities are misplaced. Wouldn't it be great if that 300 Billion was used for a Nat'l hc program or earmarked for SS? That will probably lead to a discussion on less taxes and people saving for their own retirement or illnesses etc., but it seems to me that as one of the richest nations on the planet we should demonstrate more humanity via subsidization of medical expenses and retirement.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#44)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    JR are you really that uninformed or just being obtuse on purpose. There are drugs which help patients with rare diseases that aren't covered simply because the condition is rare, the cost of development are high and so the cost to an individual patient is extreme. It can't do well in the market if there is no market, i.e. rare disease. The insurance establishment gets to decide whats rare. So if you have one of these rare conditions are u in favor of letting the marketplace decide your fate?

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    the marketplace is going to decide the fate of the person(be it a free market or that imposed by a governmental bureaucracy)-do you think under a regime of government health rationing that resources will go to these rare conditions. you just are not willing to tell us where you would draw the line.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#46)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Ed haven't you exceed your quota of stupid comments for the day. You don't even bother to put the thread together. The marketplace will never help these people. of course you're happy with the millions of people without any health insurance. You're just a "chatterer" spewing crap. Of course all this discussion is meaningless since the government is going bankrupt. For all you wingers in favor of SS reform what about the looming medicare diaster. The projected costs of the Medicare Drug benefit alone makes the SS "shortfall" look like chump change. Ultimately the Iraqi debacle will take a back seat to the impending economic diaster. Of course all you free lunch types can explain all this debt away. I've got some perpetual motion machines for sale special to the wingers.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    "it seems to me that as one of the richest nations on the planet we should demonstrate more humanity via subsidization of medical expenses and retirement" Jl - who could deny that we should all demonstrate more humanity? Certainly not me. However (and I agree with you in that I don't want to get in a big discussion of taxes, etc.), there are many good arguements that, in the long run, an increase in entitlements will be "bad" for our nation and our society. IOW, in the long run, the effect on our nation and society will be less humane, not more. These types of ideological discussions have been made innumerable times on this site as I'm sure you are aware. afaik, essentially nothing the gvt "dispenses" is un-rationed and it "gives" us nothing without significant strings attached. The more the gvt gets involved in HC, the more it will be rationed by the gvt and the less privacy we all will have.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    The impression I got is that cost is not the issue with these particular drugs, but their addictive qualities that the govt. doesn't like. I feel the merits of a particular drug should be weighed by doctors, not bueracrats. This stinks of drug war bs.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    Sarc, There are plenty of things you could say we have no "right" to. In the case of health care, you're really talking about something that has a direct effect on others. Saying people in the greatest nation on earth don't have the right to good medical care is like saying we don't have the right to safe drinking water. You let health care fall into the greedy hands of the "free market" and you are throwing them into the LA River during a storm that fills it with sewage and pollutants. We're talking self-interest hear. Letting citizens be infection incubators and spreaders simply because we don't want to adequately fund health care, well, I just don't think that makes any kind of public health sense. Would you rather deal with some inflated costs now, or the gigantic costs later? At the same time we are doing more to spread better affordable health care, I must add, we have to start doing a better job of turning consumerism into the consumption of healthier, less wasteful products.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    SU - I have been involved in those said discussions, just had not heard your opinion on them. Thanks.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    I think there's an argument to be made that you can't pursue happiness and aren't equal if you don't have the same access to health care that rich people, or at least members of congress have.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#52)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    JL - I don't mind the insults and largely ignore them. But when they are based on you not reading what I wrote, and my position on a subject, it does grind a bit. You wrote:
    For those that have to take Zantac or Valium to address their medical conditions your post is a insult to the credibility of their conditions. You are a putz and a blowhard.
    I wrote:
    So administrative medicine is stupid, costly and harms the patient. As for this action, it (is) exceedingly stupid, but then again you are dealing with bureaucrats.
    Evidently you can't read, and then attack someone who is agreeing with you. Not only does that destroy the possibility of agreement, it proves that you are just plain dumb.

    Re: White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Unlike you Jim, I am capable of apologzing as I am not a narcissist. I misread your statement and missed the exceedingly stupid comment, which of course makes my argument blowhardish and stupid. My apologies.

    White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs | 53 comments (53 topical)