Health Care tax hikes

[briansd1]

[quote=air_ogi]We should have a system where everyone can pay with pre-tax money for OTC medication or no one can.
[/quote]

I absolutely agree.

[blahblahblah]

Thanks for the info about premium rates in California, SK. They are less expensive than I thought. Maybe the horror stories about high premiums are from other states? Or maybe they’re just urban legend. In any case, I’m planning on not changing my high-deductible policy unless I have to. My premiums are pretty reasonable. And in the worst case I can always go to TJ for medical care. Actually there I’d probably get to see an actual MD instead of a NP or PA.

[blahblahblah]

Thanks for the info about premium rates in California, SK. They are less expensive than I thought. Maybe the horror stories about high premiums are from other states? Or maybe they’re just urban legend. In any case, I’m planning on not changing my high-deductible policy unless I have to. My premiums are pretty reasonable. And in the worst case I can always go to TJ for medical care. Actually there I’d probably get to see an actual MD instead of a NP or PA.

[blahblahblah]

Thanks for the info about premium rates in California, SK. They are less expensive than I thought. Maybe the horror stories about high premiums are from other states? Or maybe they’re just urban legend. In any case, I’m planning on not changing my high-deductible policy unless I have to. My premiums are pretty reasonable. And in the worst case I can always go to TJ for medical care. Actually there I’d probably get to see an actual MD instead of a NP or PA.

[blahblahblah]

Thanks for the info about premium rates in California, SK. They are less expensive than I thought. Maybe the horror stories about high premiums are from other states? Or maybe they’re just urban legend. In any case, I’m planning on not changing my high-deductible policy unless I have to. My premiums are pretty reasonable. And in the worst case I can always go to TJ for medical care. Actually there I’d probably get to see an actual MD instead of a NP or PA.

[blahblahblah]

Thanks for the info about premium rates in California, SK. They are less expensive than I thought. Maybe the horror stories about high premiums are from other states? Or maybe they’re just urban legend. In any case, I’m planning on not changing my high-deductible policy unless I have to. My premiums are pretty reasonable. And in the worst case I can always go to TJ for medical care. Actually there I’d probably get to see an actual MD instead of a NP or PA.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale]Another take on the “Medicine Cabinet Tax”:

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/03/23/health-care-fix-middle-class-medicine-cabinet-tax-in-reconciliation/

And this tax change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the tax hike will bring in $5 billion in revenues over ten years – itself a drop in the bucket when compared to the bill’s new trillion-dollar entitlement – but that estimate doesn’t take into account behavioral changes as a direct result of this provision.

OTC drugs are much cheaper those available for prescription, but they could now be more expensive to individual consumers given that prescription drugs would still be eligible for favored treatment in the tax plans, and that insurance companies would be mandated to cover many of them. Consequently, any time a consumer has the slightest headache, the financial incentive would often be to see a doctor and get a prescription rather than go to the store and get medicine off the shelf.

This could mean that billions will be wasted on the additional costs for prescription drugs in instances when OTC medicines could be just as safe and effective at treating the illness. A 2005 study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that the Food and Drug Administration’s clearing of antihistamines such as loratadine (Claritin) for over-the-counter sale saves about $4 billion a year in health care costs. Ironically, the liberals and Democrats who normally rail against big pharmaceutical companies are now creating a huge windfall the firms that make expensive prescription drugs by penalizing users of OTC medicines.

[/quote]

You know, I’ve read both the original senate bill and the reconciliation bills, and I don’t know where this claim comes from. Exchange plans must include (in general) the same kind of benefits that group plans currently have. Most group plans currently provide that where generic drugs are available, there will be no coverage for name brand drugs without meeting specific protocol. Same goes for OTC v. prescription drugs. Medicare Part D currently has similar coverage.

The claim that the “change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans” is speculative at best. Not surprising, given the origin of the claim.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale]Another take on the “Medicine Cabinet Tax”:

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/03/23/health-care-fix-middle-class-medicine-cabinet-tax-in-reconciliation/

And this tax change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the tax hike will bring in $5 billion in revenues over ten years – itself a drop in the bucket when compared to the bill’s new trillion-dollar entitlement – but that estimate doesn’t take into account behavioral changes as a direct result of this provision.

OTC drugs are much cheaper those available for prescription, but they could now be more expensive to individual consumers given that prescription drugs would still be eligible for favored treatment in the tax plans, and that insurance companies would be mandated to cover many of them. Consequently, any time a consumer has the slightest headache, the financial incentive would often be to see a doctor and get a prescription rather than go to the store and get medicine off the shelf.

This could mean that billions will be wasted on the additional costs for prescription drugs in instances when OTC medicines could be just as safe and effective at treating the illness. A 2005 study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that the Food and Drug Administration’s clearing of antihistamines such as loratadine (Claritin) for over-the-counter sale saves about $4 billion a year in health care costs. Ironically, the liberals and Democrats who normally rail against big pharmaceutical companies are now creating a huge windfall the firms that make expensive prescription drugs by penalizing users of OTC medicines.

[/quote]

You know, I’ve read both the original senate bill and the reconciliation bills, and I don’t know where this claim comes from. Exchange plans must include (in general) the same kind of benefits that group plans currently have. Most group plans currently provide that where generic drugs are available, there will be no coverage for name brand drugs without meeting specific protocol. Same goes for OTC v. prescription drugs. Medicare Part D currently has similar coverage.

The claim that the “change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans” is speculative at best. Not surprising, given the origin of the claim.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale]Another take on the “Medicine Cabinet Tax”:

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/03/23/health-care-fix-middle-class-medicine-cabinet-tax-in-reconciliation/

And this tax change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the tax hike will bring in $5 billion in revenues over ten years – itself a drop in the bucket when compared to the bill’s new trillion-dollar entitlement – but that estimate doesn’t take into account behavioral changes as a direct result of this provision.

OTC drugs are much cheaper those available for prescription, but they could now be more expensive to individual consumers given that prescription drugs would still be eligible for favored treatment in the tax plans, and that insurance companies would be mandated to cover many of them. Consequently, any time a consumer has the slightest headache, the financial incentive would often be to see a doctor and get a prescription rather than go to the store and get medicine off the shelf.

This could mean that billions will be wasted on the additional costs for prescription drugs in instances when OTC medicines could be just as safe and effective at treating the illness. A 2005 study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that the Food and Drug Administration’s clearing of antihistamines such as loratadine (Claritin) for over-the-counter sale saves about $4 billion a year in health care costs. Ironically, the liberals and Democrats who normally rail against big pharmaceutical companies are now creating a huge windfall the firms that make expensive prescription drugs by penalizing users of OTC medicines.

[/quote]

You know, I’ve read both the original senate bill and the reconciliation bills, and I don’t know where this claim comes from. Exchange plans must include (in general) the same kind of benefits that group plans currently have. Most group plans currently provide that where generic drugs are available, there will be no coverage for name brand drugs without meeting specific protocol. Same goes for OTC v. prescription drugs. Medicare Part D currently has similar coverage.

The claim that the “change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans” is speculative at best. Not surprising, given the origin of the claim.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale]Another take on the “Medicine Cabinet Tax”:

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/03/23/health-care-fix-middle-class-medicine-cabinet-tax-in-reconciliation/

And this tax change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the tax hike will bring in $5 billion in revenues over ten years – itself a drop in the bucket when compared to the bill’s new trillion-dollar entitlement – but that estimate doesn’t take into account behavioral changes as a direct result of this provision.

OTC drugs are much cheaper those available for prescription, but they could now be more expensive to individual consumers given that prescription drugs would still be eligible for favored treatment in the tax plans, and that insurance companies would be mandated to cover many of them. Consequently, any time a consumer has the slightest headache, the financial incentive would often be to see a doctor and get a prescription rather than go to the store and get medicine off the shelf.

This could mean that billions will be wasted on the additional costs for prescription drugs in instances when OTC medicines could be just as safe and effective at treating the illness. A 2005 study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that the Food and Drug Administration’s clearing of antihistamines such as loratadine (Claritin) for over-the-counter sale saves about $4 billion a year in health care costs. Ironically, the liberals and Democrats who normally rail against big pharmaceutical companies are now creating a huge windfall the firms that make expensive prescription drugs by penalizing users of OTC medicines.

[/quote]

You know, I’ve read both the original senate bill and the reconciliation bills, and I don’t know where this claim comes from. Exchange plans must include (in general) the same kind of benefits that group plans currently have. Most group plans currently provide that where generic drugs are available, there will be no coverage for name brand drugs without meeting specific protocol. Same goes for OTC v. prescription drugs. Medicare Part D currently has similar coverage.

The claim that the “change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans” is speculative at best. Not surprising, given the origin of the claim.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale]Another take on the “Medicine Cabinet Tax”:

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/03/23/health-care-fix-middle-class-medicine-cabinet-tax-in-reconciliation/

And this tax change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the tax hike will bring in $5 billion in revenues over ten years – itself a drop in the bucket when compared to the bill’s new trillion-dollar entitlement – but that estimate doesn’t take into account behavioral changes as a direct result of this provision.

OTC drugs are much cheaper those available for prescription, but they could now be more expensive to individual consumers given that prescription drugs would still be eligible for favored treatment in the tax plans, and that insurance companies would be mandated to cover many of them. Consequently, any time a consumer has the slightest headache, the financial incentive would often be to see a doctor and get a prescription rather than go to the store and get medicine off the shelf.

This could mean that billions will be wasted on the additional costs for prescription drugs in instances when OTC medicines could be just as safe and effective at treating the illness. A 2005 study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that the Food and Drug Administration’s clearing of antihistamines such as loratadine (Claritin) for over-the-counter sale saves about $4 billion a year in health care costs. Ironically, the liberals and Democrats who normally rail against big pharmaceutical companies are now creating a huge windfall the firms that make expensive prescription drugs by penalizing users of OTC medicines.

[/quote]

You know, I’ve read both the original senate bill and the reconciliation bills, and I don’t know where this claim comes from. Exchange plans must include (in general) the same kind of benefits that group plans currently have. Most group plans currently provide that where generic drugs are available, there will be no coverage for name brand drugs without meeting specific protocol. Same goes for OTC v. prescription drugs. Medicare Part D currently has similar coverage.

The claim that the “change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans” is speculative at best. Not surprising, given the origin of the claim.

[Aecetia]

Everyone should go in to any health care they want to and demand free care. After all it is an entitlement. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Just put it on the Fed. tab. Why should anyone pay? Actually it has been happening. People are asking for free tests because it’s like Christmas now. Santobama just gave them everything the need. Isn’t this just peachy? From the insolvent Post Office, to foundering social security and medicare. Houston do we have a problem? Calling Brian to explain why this is a good thing again….

[Aecetia]

Everyone should go in to any health care they want to and demand free care. After all it is an entitlement. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Just put it on the Fed. tab. Why should anyone pay? Actually it has been happening. People are asking for free tests because it’s like Christmas now. Santobama just gave them everything the need. Isn’t this just peachy? From the insolvent Post Office, to foundering social security and medicare. Houston do we have a problem? Calling Brian to explain why this is a good thing again….

[Aecetia]

Everyone should go in to any health care they want to and demand free care. After all it is an entitlement. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Just put it on the Fed. tab. Why should anyone pay? Actually it has been happening. People are asking for free tests because it’s like Christmas now. Santobama just gave them everything the need. Isn’t this just peachy? From the insolvent Post Office, to foundering social security and medicare. Houston do we have a problem? Calling Brian to explain why this is a good thing again….

[Aecetia]

Everyone should go in to any health care they want to and demand free care. After all it is an entitlement. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Just put it on the Fed. tab. Why should anyone pay? Actually it has been happening. People are asking for free tests because it’s like Christmas now. Santobama just gave them everything the need. Isn’t this just peachy? From the insolvent Post Office, to foundering social security and medicare. Houston do we have a problem? Calling Brian to explain why this is a good thing again….

[Author]

Posts