You are viewing the archives of the old northcoastoregon.com. Please visit the new North Coast Oregon at: http://www.northcoastoregon.com/

Oregon Ballot Measures: Go ahead hate me..No on 44

by Tryan Hartill

Measure 44 will pass with 80%+ of the vote. So calling for a no vote seems pretty worthless. But laying out the future problems with this measure may allow us to “cut our losses”.

Here is the Explanatory Statement:

Ballot Measure 44 modifies the eligibility requirements for Oregon residents to participate in the Oregon Prescription Drug Program. The program intends to make prescription drugs available to participants at the lowest possible cost through negotiated price discounts.

The current program is limited to Oregon residents who are: a) at least 54 years old; b) earn less than 185% of the federal poverty level (currently $18,130 per individual); and c) have not had private prescription drug coverage for the six months preceding application to the program.

Ballot Measure 44 expands the Oregon Prescription Drug Program by removing eligibility requirements so that all Oregonians without prescription drug coverage regardless of age or income may participate. Participation in the Oregon Prescription Drug Program is voluntary. Medicare Part D prescription plan enrollees would be eligible to join.
Participants receive a card to use at participating pharmacies to purchase prescription drugs at the discounted price

Sure Oregon has this huge success in it’s State buying Pool. But would it be a success if nobody saved any money?

First we must take a look at who really is the boss in this whole “Drug Deal”.

Big Pharma….

And here is their comment on it:

“voter approval would require the state to make significant contractual changes with insurers, state employees, pharmacy benefits managers and others before the program can begin.”

Hold up a sec…..

So if it’s approved there must be “significant contractual changes”.

Can we shorten it up and just say “price changes”?

Really, what would the State do if the buying pool prices were raised? They can’t lose money and quit the program because it would mean incompetence.

They are at the mercy of the Big Pharma companies.

And really they don’t even have to change the price…they can just threaten to do it and hold out for the “Grants” and the “tax-breaks” and let’s not forget the “land deals”.

“But they give us Jobs!” the people scream.

::::

Measure is good for Pharma

The best indication that this is a good deal to Big Pharma is the amount of money spent. These monsters spend almost 5 billion a year on advertising alone. If this hurt their business in any way they would at least throw 1/5000th of their ad budget toward stopping this measure. (That’s about 6 bucks for for the average person’s budget)

But hold the phones some say…..it won’t cost taxpayer’s anything! It’s like free money:

The best news of all: Measure 44 won’t cost taxpayers, because the program’s structure is already in place and pays for itself through savings realized from drug discounts and rebates.

Yep. It’s just like the realized savings before you take a trip to Walmart. Then you come out with a bunch of crap with rebates and discounts, much of which you don’t need and wasn’t planning on buying to begin with and an empty wallet.

So really, were the savings realized?

If you want to talk to me about socialized healthcare, so the poor can afford insurance, go for it. Come up with a decent plan, use competent people to run it, cut the equal amount of money from other government programs and I would probably support it.

This Measure is Big Pharma profiteers in sheep’s clothing and they will be eating mutton on Tuesday.

Nov 1, 12:14 pm | Tryan Hartill
Tags: ,
Click stars to rate this article. This article hasn't been rated yet.

10 comments on this article (post your own)

1 On Nov 1, 03:10 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

”... removing eligibility requirements …” Sounds like a plot to get drug coverage for those 145,000 illegal aliens in Oregon. But perhaps I’m just being paranoid. Surely they don’t mean it would remove the requirement to be an Oregon resident?

And what about the requirement to be “uncovered” by insurance? Will people with other medical insurance (prescription) coverage get this plan? Why not just pass a law that no drug in Oregon can cost more than $5 a bottle?

I’m not sure how much “contractual change” would be required.

If the contract says “Anybody with this plan pays this rate” ... and all the state is doing is expanding who gets the plan … no contract change is necessary.

If the contract limits the number of people on the plan, then a change will be necessary. But I highly doubt that’s the case.

The only other thing I can think of, would be if the state wants to add drugs to the plan … in which case a contract change would be necessary.

Btw – One of the ads in favor of this measure, mentioned how many people would save how much a year. When I did the math, it was ONLY a savings of $140 (per year) for each individual.

2 On Nov 1, 04:31 pm, THartill wrote:

Walter

That contract quote was from the group that represents big Pharma.

This Measure is attempting to defy the laws of arbitrage.

All of a sudden 100’s of thousands of people will go to the pill store, punch in their Oregon Drug Pool code and recieve a discount. Someone is going to have to pay, you can’t get something for nothing like this Measure says. Big Pharma companies are not going to go along with this, they even said contracts will have to change to even begin the program, it hurts the bottom line too much.

3 On Nov 2, 07:11 am, Walter Richards wrote:

As I said, it depends on the wording of the contract. Unless the contracts themselves limit who can be covered by the existing plan … the companies will have to “bite the bullet” until the current contract expires.

As to the union contracts, I can understand that. When an employer renegotiates with their unions, why should the employer pay for prescription insurance for its employees … when the state is providing it to everybody?

btw – I’m against it, just because the state shouldn’t be involved. If the state’s going to use its “buying power” to get everybody cheap drugs, why not other things? At what point should it stop?

4 On Nov 2, 04:12 pm, Patrick McGee wrote:

Have you always had Health/Prescription Coverage Insurance Walter?

5 On Nov 2, 04:37 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

I don’t now. Haven’t for about 15 years.

6 On Nov 2, 06:27 pm, Patrick McGee wrote:

Good Health Walter?

No chronic health issues

7 On Nov 3, 10:41 pm, First Last wrote:

I don’t understand how the drug plan works.

Is it such that the government buys at a discount and passes that discount to the members of the plan?
If this is the case, why would anyone be against it?
OR
Is it such that the government buys at a discount and then passes an even larger discount on to the members?
In this case the difference between the governement puchase discount, and the discount paid by the person recieving the drugs needs to come from somewhere.
In this case I can see why someone would be against the bill

8 On Nov 3, 11:53 pm, Elizabeth B. wrote:

The more people represented by the program, the bigger the discount OR can negotiate (and no, First Last, there will be no additional savings passed on to residents – that WOULD mean the state is grabbing $ from somewhere.)
I usually start shaking my head as soon as I read spendy terminology (usually anything “govt-sponsored”). But this is a unique program that doesn’t touch our tax $ because it’s a discount on a current purchase, not a new purchase. Oregon currently negotiates with “Big Pharma” for lower prices on Rx for low-income seniors. This measure simply expands that to include all non-insured Oregonians. Bona fide no cost to us. Drug mfrs will have to make the choice whether their Rx is really worth such-and-such per pill/insulin vial/suppository if they want to push their product in OR and tighten up spending elsewhere. It’s a myth that R&D suffers due to measures like these. More likely, they’ll find cheaper ways to produce the drugs (our Rx packaging here is notoriously cheap-looking), or we’ll see fewer commercials on how to sustain our erections/sleep like a baby for 9 hours straight.
Quick response to the “the aliens are coming! the aliens are coming!” argument: if you really think we’re in for an influx of illegals due to their potential 30% (yes, that’s the average) savings on drugs, you haven’t spent much time in our climate. It ain’t the Baja peninsula, folks. And if they do take advantage of the program – could be worse. I’d rather extend them the discount than TRULY cover their hospital bills when instead of getting their heart/diabetes/asthma Rx they have a preventable attack that lands them in our emergency rooms.

9 On Nov 4, 03:36 pm, First Last wrote:

I do not understand the Libertarian stance, of NO, on this issue.
They state the following:

“People complain about pharmaceutical companies, but they sure like their medications. By opening the Prescription Drug Program to all, we effectively place a tax on pharmaceutical companies. Such companies may seem little more to us than faceless corporate targets for populist rage, but they are the ones who invent the drugs we need. It makes little sense to erode financial incentives to create new and more effective medications.”

How is the Oregon proposed plan, any different than when companies such as WalMart use volume to bargain for discounts?

Don’t pharmaceutical companies get federal dollars for research?

Source of quote: http://www.lporegon.org/IssuesPositions/IssuesPositions.html

10 On Nov 5, 11:23 am, Walter Richards wrote:

Only if the research is for a politically correct cause.

Post A Comment

(required)

(required but not displayed)



(No HTML, Textile only please. Live comment preview below.)

this is not Spam.

preview

:

Jan 6, 04:28 am


Previous Article:
« Waterfront Work Session #2...Maps

Next Article:
Price on the Campaign trail for County Commissioner »

NCO Reader Comments


lhjzgbnr txymgjc (The Vote 2006!)
lhjzgbnr txymgjc (The Vote 2006!)
lhjzgbnr txymgjc (The Vote 2006!)
SARA (What to do in Astoria on New Years Eve....)
Alexa Manning (What does the Federal Government Do with our Taxes?)
cnabas (New Tillamook and Clatsop County Blog)
pasgettaorri (The Vote 2006!)
pasgettaorri (The Vote 2006!)
connie (Focus on 49: BOCC work session grapples with difficult legislature)
Delores (Focus on 49: BOCC work session grapples with difficult legislature)
Kristen Molina (North Coast AA Round Up Seaside April 4th 5th 6th 2008)
Madonna Carr (What does the Federal Government Do with our Taxes?)
Wallace Kennedy (More D.A. Talk)
Ollie Woodward (Fort George Brewery Coming Alive)
Augustine Sweet (CCFOG - First report on Lee recall petition signatures)
Glynn Oconnor (A gun show ... without guns ?)
Lorne Riley (notes from Clean Slate PAC meeting 2/13/07)
Clare Ruiz (Durban Group Discusses Carbon Trading and LNG in Astoria)
Stewart Hernandez (Random News For Friday)
Johnna Acosta (Measure 50....Healthy Kids...Cigarette Taxes)

Recent Articles

View All Articles...

Feeds



Home | Archives | Contribute | Back to Top
Take What You Want 2009 NorthCoastOregon.com unless otherwise indicated.
Please email us with any questions or comments.
Site created by Upspring Design.