Sick & Tired

by Steve Kalb | November 6, 2009 8:55 AM | | Comments (8)

img_0419.jpgIt is too bad U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman wasn’t on line with me at the drugstore last week. Being there might have changed his opinion of the “public option” in our current health care debate.

I was waiting online to pick up a prescription of Tamiflu to kill off the flu. The $10 a pill is pretty hard to swallow, and you have to take 10 of them. Insurance picked up 25 percent of the cost. But that still left me with a $75 bill which I happily paid, knowing it would work.

I can’t say the same for the lady in front of me. I’d guess she was in her late 70s to early 80s. She was trying to understand why the Medicare-associated insurance company that provided her prescription drugs would not pay for a 20 or 30-day supply while she awaited her mail-order supply.

The sales associate and then the druggist tried to explain to her that the Medicare prescription drug plan she had would pay only if she ordered most of her collection of seven or eight prescriptions for mail delivery.

She indicated that they had not arrived. The pharmacy employees said they could sell her a week or ten-day supply, but the cost of the pills might be as high as $4 or $5 each. That is $40 a day or as much as $400 for that “hold-over” allotment.

She left with none of them.

As I swiped my credit card and paid $75 for my ten pills, I wondered when the last time was that Connecticut’s junior senator, or anyone who claims America can’t afford health care for everyone, stood online at the drugstore and actually “paid” for any of their own healthcare. I suspect their prescriptions get delivered and they have no idea how much they cost. Or care.

And when they need medical care, our Congressmen and women have the best. For many of the rest of us, go to a hospital emergency room just about every night and see how upwards of 40 million Americans get medical care. It isn’t pretty.

And know that those who do have insurance pay for those who do not in higher premiums and higher costs for everything from drugs to beds. There is no free lunch; don’t think for a second that insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals don’t get the money from someone, somehow.

How else, according to Forbes Magazine, could Edwin Crawford, the 57 year-old CEO of CVS/Caremark, pull down a salary of just under $70 million? OrRonald William, CEO of Aetna take home $31 million?

So as I walked out of the drugstore I wondered to myself how Sen. Joe Lieberman and other members of the “just say no” crowd could look themselves in the mirror. How can they not understand that when they rail against a “public option” they are defending the right of insurance and drug companies to make even more money?

In good conscience how can they claim to be public servants even as 40 million Americans either have to beg for medical coverage or just go without?

Each year we spend over a trillion dollars on defense, roads, pork, offices, salaries, more salaries, pork, bridges and crumbling infrastructure. So how is it we can’t find the money to ensure that each and every American regardless of age has access to inexpensive, competent medical care?

How did we get to the point where the people who were elected supposedly to represent us are working to make sure that insurance and pharmaceutical companies continue to make obscene profits while some 70-plus year-old woman goes home empty-handed?

Come on, Joe. Tell me how that works.







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: Pat | November 6, 2009 12:59 PM

I understand that it's important to fight for medical coverage for those legally in this country and can't afford quality health care. (btw, is that number really 40 million?) It's an embarassment for our country. What I don't understand is how this editorial effectively promotes a "public option". Isn't the example of the woman in this article already on Medicare, a government run health plan? After reading this, I am becoming more convinced that a bigger version of Medicare/Medicaid is not a great idea.

Posted by: Uncle Egg | November 6, 2009 1:16 PM

Ironically, right-wing dogma aside, Medicare and Medicaid are much more efficient and have lower overhead than private insurers. That's why the public option is so important -- and why the big insurance companies are fighting it tooth and nail.

Posted by: bill | November 6, 2009 1:40 PM

"So, if we implement this new universal medical insurance plan, how do we pay for it? More deficits? We already have over a trillion dollars of national debt; we’re running an annual budget deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars and there is no end in sight.

If past action is any indicator of the future we’ll just pass the cost on to our kids. To me that makes both Obama and Clinton “frauds.” They propose the, “this is what we want to do” side without bothering to pass along the “how we’re going to pay for it.”"

Mr Kalb, Hamden Daily New April 21, 2008

Posted by: lance | November 6, 2009 3:48 PM

Kalb, it sounds like you have crappy insurance. Perhaps you should have taken a "real" job somewhere. lol.

As far as the old lady is "concerned", it's quite obvious you are just trying to play on people's sympathy. Had she followed the proper procedure and ordered her meds in a timely fashion she would have paid much less.

Obamacare is just another entitlement that will make people even more lazy then they already are. Plus it includes provisions to dumb down admission requirements for minorities to attend nursing and med schools, and it also requires taxpayers to pay the tuition for minorities to attend these schools.

That's not change I can believe in.

Posted by: Dave | November 8, 2009 1:06 AM

Lance (see post above) is an example of why Republicans are so reviled and why their party has dwindled to a pitiful 20% of those Americans who will admit to being of that ilk. Their selfish, cynical, preposterous perceptions of objective reality are as nauseating as they are ill founded.
...

Posted by: yohance | November 8, 2009 6:45 PM

"If past action is any indicator of the future we’ll just pass the cost on to our kids."

Bill, healthcare in its privatized form already accounts for 14% of our GDP and rising annually. If we don't pass a public option or somehow else control insurance, doctor, and hospital costs, it won't MATTER whether we have a public option or not; healthcare costs will be through the roof, burdening those on private insurance AND on medicare/medicaid. We need a public option to keep the insurance companies competitive (i.e. affordable) in their costs. It will be expensive initially, but in the long run it will save our nation and our children a LOT of money.

Posted by: Steven Kalb | November 9, 2009 7:52 AM

Bill neglected to quote me far enough. The original piece was written about budget shenanigans and how politicians propose to spend more on anything without proposing how to pay for it. The next paragraph read:

"Now before you think I have gone over to the dark side (become a conservative), let me tell you that I truly believe we need some sort of nationalized healthcare system. The one we have is in shambles. As a nation we spend more per capita than any other place on the globe for our medical system and there are still hundreds of thousands of people who have no medical safety net at all. We need to fix this mess of a healthcare system but we need leaders to admit that there is no free lunch. There is a cost. It is a big one. But it is the moral and ethical path to go down. Now all we need is to find leaders with “chutzpah.” Neither Clinton nor Obama has it."

Update the hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS. Mr. Obama and Congress now have come up with a way to pay for a "public option."

Frankly, I don't think the public option goes far enough but it is a good first start. 20 years from now we will look at this as a defining moment. As in the case of Medicare where we decided it was the national responsibility to insure medical care was available and affordable for seniors, we will decide this year that no one should be denied medical care simply because they can't afford it. Insurance companies routinely deny paying for care....in effect denying someone care and THAT must change.

Posted by: blue dog dem | November 9, 2009 8:59 PM

Pat,

You are absolutely right. The lady is on Medicare and the GOVERNMENT will not allow her to get the meds she needs unless she fills out the forms correctly or timely. And we are to believe that magically they will not operate in the red (see Medicare/Medicaid going bankrupt) or that they can actually manage the system (as opposed to currently where it is only a check writing business with no management, hence, no overhead like private insurance companies). It is not a private insurance company denying her coverage, but the gov't, in it's new form as a "public option" will change.

Change the interstate regs re health insurers and you will have competition. Make everyone with "Rolls Royce" coverage pay a tax on their coverage to pay for the 12 million that currently can't afford coverage and make the 25 million who can afford it but don't have it enroll. The illegals get nothing because they contribute nothing.

Ask your medical providers what they think of the plans. I have many doctors as clients and not one is for this plan. Ask them why they don't like it. They might know a little about the subject. I'll trust their opinions over a politician's or blogger's any day of the week, especially since none of them were talking about this 18 months ago. Now if it doesn't happen tomorrow, we're all doomed. BULLSH*T!

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35