The prescription drug benefit must go
Robert Samuelson castigates both sides of the aisle today in “Fiscal phonies.” While the Republicans have proposed spending cuts of $39 billion over a period when Washington will be spending $13.8 trillion, the 0.3% spending cut is less-than-token. But he also excoriates the Democrats for their “soak the rich” mantra which will bring in an estimated $30 billion per year which is not enough to cover the new Medicare benefit or the underlying deficits.
I know (and Samuelson does too) that killing the prescription drug benefit is politically impossible, but it’s the only meaningful first step to controlling the deficit. Read the whole thing.
1 comment:
The present day reality is that seniors, in the United States, pay a fairly large surcharge to keep the innovators going at the drug companies.
I had been paying it for many years, and just recently changed to buying prescription drugs from Canada. The savings are almost exactly the same as the prescription drug benefit would yield for me.
What costs me $178.00 in the U.S. costs $102.00, delivered, from Canada, and there are no limits in the event that I need more, higher cost, medicines later.
The larger story here is that if we don't transfer some of the innovation surcharge, that U.S. citizens pay, to government we will not be able to keep our drug development, and manufacture, private.
Post a Comment