Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
America's Middle Class is no Longer the World's Richest
Way OT here. ... But I suggest anyone with an expensive prescription do a Google search for best price. We had one where a big chain pharmacy near home wanted $140 per month for a generic. With our insurance, they were going to give it to us for $40. Walmart had the same generic priced at $40 (out of pocket w/o insurance). And, using a coupon we found online and printed out, we obtain it now from Walmart for under $10 a month. Coupon always seemed available. After about 3 months, they stopped asking for it and just gave us the lower price.
Sorry Ted - I know you own lots of health care and like those high prices.
That is one way to drive down healthcare prices. Consumer involvement is a powerful thing.
One should always ask their doctor if there is a generic or a less expensive version of a prescription they are getting. In most cases an older and cheaper med works just as well as the newer and expensive ones and they have a good track record to back them up.
for checking local prices. They also have their own group agreements with local pharmacies. Interesting how much variation exists since prices are not advertised.
Using their coupons may be cheaper than using the co pay feature on regular price for things like statins.
Pricing depends on what kind of contract the pharmacy has with the distributor. If the pharmacy is part of a large chain then they can negotiate a better price. Also, each pharmacy sets their own dispensing fee. A store like Wal-Mart has a low fee and depends on volume. Some pharmacies have fees as high as $20 which are charged on top of the cost of the medication. This is one reason that online and mail order pharmacies do so well. High volume.
Nah, a foolish and readily debunked piece, like so much of Krauthammer. And of course like so many conservatives he offers no solutions, just whining. Mendacity indeed.
Why the left proclaims to be so inclusive yet paints the negative broad brush on conservatives shows their true colors. As long as one agrees with them they are fine. However there is no place for opposing views.
When you buy a car that money goes to all sorts of people via the dealer, and I bet you do not think of that as redistributive. Perhaps you can think of insurance product like a car but only when needed?
Except insurance isn't like buying a car or a meal, to use Vert's example.
You choose to buy a car usually for immediate personal use. You purchase insurance hoping never to use it, but with the knowledge that it is good to have in case something goes wrong both because the financial cost to you could be ruinous and because the cost to society as a whole could be large. When you purchase a car or a meal or other tangible goods your money goes to the business and eventually to cover the cost of labor. When you purchase insurance, your money goes to the business but also to cover the costs of other people who are unfortunate. I don't see how that isn't a redistribution.
There is even a wonky name for this class of people which I can't remember for the life of me now. When someone who is healthy purchases insurance, most of the money they pay in (that doesn't flow to the company) goes to cover these sick people.
When I have children I will happily insure them and pray that they only need it for routine medical care. But if the worst happens, I will be thankful there are other people helping to cover their costs and hopefully getting them well.
In no way am I arguing that the distribution of monies under health care plans is a bad thing. If I'm wrong in some other way, I would be happy to learn why.
As an aside, I've been chronically ill while uninsured myself. It was horrible. Family members thankfully were able to help me. That taught me I needed a larger sense of responsibility to others in society. It makes sense to me that people should have some health insurance so that they don't become the same sort of burden I was. Medical emergencies can happen to anyone. We just don't usually think about who pays those bills.
... because I as I was mulling this whole thing over last night I wondered the very same thing. Additionally, as you also mention the intrusion of luck into the equation, I was also mentally comparing the insurance redistribution/premium issues to that which sort of goes on in a gambling casino. Now, I don't frequent those so can't speak with any degree of expertise, but I've certainly been in one or two in my lifetime, and observed what seems to me to be two essentially different classes of gambling:
1) No skills required, pure mathematical odds: games such as keno, and of course the slots. There is a pool of players providing the premiums, the house takes it's cut, and the reward has no relationship to the premiums paid or any expertise on the part of the player.
2) Games influenced by skill: blackjack, poker, and many others. Here the payout odds are influenced by the player to some degree.
In both cases though, the reward consists of a redistribution of assets from the participants.
I might know some things about the economy of poker...
Ignoring that one chooses to gamble and not get ill, roulette may be the best example. Or craps. Assuming a fair wheel (or dice), there are knowable odds. And they don't favor the individual gambler. Eventually, though, someone does win, and yes, that is your money going over. Minus what the casino has taken from everyone doing a lot of losing.
Poker more closely represents a moral hazard. Like someone who knows something about their health that insurance companies don't, someone at the table probably knows the game well and that creates an advantage. Usually the chips flow their way.
Many casinos only have poker because it brings people in. Because they can't control the odds, their only money is made on the rake. It's too early for me to figure out if that represents anything in the insurance industry.
Well Mona, I was not OK. Leg glued back together, 3 1/3 inches shorter, and crippled for life. I'm sorry you didn't see my point but, perhaps. not surprised.
Way OT here. ... But I suggest anyone with an expensive prescription do a Google search for best price. We had one where a big chain pharmacy near home wanted $140 per month for a generic. With our insurance, they were going to give it to us for $40. Walmart had the same generic priced at $40 (out of pocket w/o insurance). And, using a coupon we found online and printed out, we obtain it now from Walmart for under $10 a month. Coupon always seemed available. After about 3 months, they stopped asking for it and just gave us the lower price.
Sorry Ted - I know you own lots of health care and like those high prices.
Unless it is an old class of generic drug, where Walmart's $4 and $10 generic prescription program has some good prices, I have found Costco to have the lowest prices by far. And if you do not have prescription insurance, they will even discount the price off their already lower prices.
Mona - just to be clear (so as not to confuse others), the prescription I noted was not & is not on Walmart's published $4 or $10 list (with which we are familiar) or on the list from any other chain that we checked - including Costco. It was routinely being sold at $40 at all our area Walmart pharmacies. We discovered in checking around online a third party offer similar to what cman linked whereby Walmart had entered into a separate agreement with the third party to honor their discount coupons. I found it so hard to believe I placed phone calls both to the third party as well as Walmart before proceeding.
Take it or leave it. My only point was it pays to shop around. Provided you and your physician are comfortable with the generic and provider, it makes sense to me to pay as little as possible. In budgeting, I always like to multiply monthly costs X12 to get a truer picture of how it impacts the budget. The savings in our case was $30 per month - equivalent to $360 per year - not inconsequential to those of us in the shrinking middle class. (That's after-tax money, equivalent to $400-$500 yearly earned income, depending on tax bracket and state of residency.)
re Costco - They were favorably mentioned in a recent CBS 60-Minutes segment on prescription pricing. So folks would do well to check them out. Regards
Nah, a foolish and readily debunked piece, like so much of Krauthammer. And of course like so many conservatives he offers no solutions, just whining. Mendacity indeed.
I'm sure you take the same view on all of Coulter's writings as you do Krauthammer's.
oh, no, Krauthammer is dim and ignorant, to be sure, but unlike Coulter he is not always and chronically stupid, and more important is not evil-wishing and blackhearted.
Darcey, apologies; perhaps you overstated it with
>> small group of unhealthy individuals
or I simply misunderstood that you would include in that group anyone who needs a new hip, say, or acl repair, or stent. In other words it depends on what 'small' and 'unhealthy' mean. I imagine we're pretty much in violent agreement
JC, there is puhlenty of room for conflicting views and policy argument, and you certainly don't know how left I am or not. Krauth is not in my experience someone who has much to offer, and certainly not here. I find that common in the conservative-oriented reading I do.
But the whole healthcare discussion is off, since ACA rests on conservative principles (individual responsibility yet still private service provision) and, as everyone knows, came out of profoundly conservative thinking long ago, both thinktank and at the implementation level. There are other and unrelated reasons why it is now hated so by those who hate it so. But those reasons are becoming clearer by the month, if they weren't clear before.
oh, no, Krauthammer is dim and ignorant, to be sure, but unlike Coulter he is not always and chronically stupid, and more important is not evil-wishing and blackhearted.
Darcey, apologies; perhaps you overstated it with
>> small group of unhealthy individuals
or I simply misunderstood that you would include in that group anyone who needs a new hip, say, or acl repair, or stent. In other words it depends on what 'small' and 'unhealthy' mean. I imagine we're pretty much in violent agreement
Being Jon Stewart "leans" left, I thought you would enjoy his interview with Steven Brill.
Well Mona, I was not OK. Leg glued back together, 3 1/3 inches shorter, and crippled for life. I'm sorry you didn't see my point but, perhaps. not surprised.
Well Anna, if you had mentioned these most unfortunate facts in your original post, I certainly would have been sympathetic to them as well. I'm sorry I can't get in your mind.
One of my points in posting Krauthammer's piece was rather simple and I am sorry you didn't get it. Even someone who is severely disabled, also because of a very unfortunate bad accident, in the prime of their life, with all the potential in the world, need not subscribe to the ACA.
"Why the left proclaims to be so inclusive yet paints the negative broad brush on conservatives shows their true colors. As long as one agrees with them they are fine. However there is no place for opposing views" JohnChisum
Hey Mona, Had I been wanting to distract by soliciting sympathy I would have emphasized my "woe is me"s in the first post. You just played a game of "see it came out all right" thus my second post. The original post was about the "ad hominem" type arguments in the video.
re Costco - They were favorably mentioned in a recent CBS 60-Minutes segment on prescription pricing. So folks would do well to check them out. Regards
Hi Hank,
I understood your post as I used to check around prior to coming to the same conclusion regarding Costco's pricing
Here is an an article that I have found accurate time and time again. For those that do not know, you do not need a Costco membership to purchase prescription drugs at Costco.
"There aren't coupons for prescription drugs, but Costco (COST) is probably wishing it could print up some "$749 off" inserts right about now.
Consumer Reports went shopping at 200 pharmacies across the country for a month's supply of five prescription drugs that just went generic: Actos for diabetes, Lexapro for depression, Singulair for asthma, Plavix for blood thinning, and Lipitor for high cholesterol.
What they found was a $749 difference -- that's 447% -- between the $916 price tag at CVS (CVS) and the $167 that Costco charged for the same five drugs. For generic Lipitor alone CVS charged $150 to Costco's $17. The generic Lexapro found at CVS for $126 could be had at Costco for $7"
re Costco - They were favorably mentioned in a recent CBS 60-Minutes segment on prescription pricing. So folks would do well to check them out. Regards
What they found was a $749 difference -- that's 447% -- between the $916 price tag at CVS (CVS) and the $167 that Costco charged for the same five drugs. For generic Lipitor alone CVS charged $150 to Costco's $17. The generic Lexapro found at CVS for $126 could be had at Costco for $7"
Yes, Costco is an excellent option (says the Costco shareholder lol.)
Yeah, I bought some in the early '80s because it seemed like such a solid outfit, and at one point later foolishly sold it. Per M*, if I'm reading it right, from '82 10k in COST has grown to over a mil now, whereas FCNTX reaches >~650k and SPX somewhere in the 400k area.
re Costco - They were favorably mentioned in a recent CBS 60-Minutes segment on prescription pricing. So folks would do well to check them out. Regards
Here is an an article that I have found accurate time and time again. For those that do not know, you do not need a Costco membership to purchase prescription drugs at Costco.
So...taking advantage of reduced Costco prices without paying the Costco membership fees? I find that a bit ironic. But, as a Costco member, I am more than happy to support the healthcare requirements of those in need.
So...taking advantage of reduced Costco prices without paying the Costco membership fees? I find that a bit ironic
The article states "while Costco, Sam's Club and other discount stores consider their pharmacies throw-ins that help bulk up foot traffic". If accurate and my experience says it definitely is, I agree with you. First, the vast majority of Costco's profits come membership fees. Second, without a Costco membership you can not purchase in the store. Third, they are not making any where near the profit on prescription sales as the others mentioned.
While I am not certain, I think by law you can not be turned away. If that is not the reason, then it's good marketing to get potential members into the store.
These discussions about Obamacare, US debt, US deficit are like debating which music is best to play as the Titanic sinks. The major decisions for the USA have been made and we will no have to live with them. I'm just hoping to die before the ship goes under.
From my observations Obamacare is hurting a larger number of people then it is helping. Our news media can not crunch the numbers nor can they understand it so it doesn't get much reporting. It isn't going to end well.
All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, 5 His acts being seven ages. At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms; And then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school. And then the lover, 10 Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation 15 Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances; And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts 20 Into the lean and slippered pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side; His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes 25 And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion, Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
At which stage in this sequence do you believe our great nation is currently in? At which stage?
Seven steps in the life cycles of great powers Glubb Pasha learned that different empires had similar cultural changes while experiencing a life cycle in a series of stages that could overlap. He generalized about empires having seven stages of development, identifying these successive ages as follows: 1. The age of outburst (or pioneers).
Dex: I can get all this I want on Fox News. (I'll hasten to add, we sometimes have it on nowadays just because CNN has gotten so bad:-). But everyone's welcome to their opinions. Thanks for the contributions.
Dex: I can get all this I want on Fox News. (I'll hasten to add, we sometimes have it on nowadays just because CNN has gotten so bad:-). But everyone's welcome to their opinions. Thanks for the contributions.
LOL - Shakespeare's timeless DAX. And ever present.
No cable? You are indeed fortunate. Possibly, back when you last had cable news in your home, those networks were "straight down the center" objective. Now days (unfortunately I think) there's quite a bit of "slant" in their coverage.
I took your underlying point of view as being opposed to ACA. And, by (logical?) extension a belief that big government is promoting dependency as well as fostering other detrimental effects. (Hopefully, I didn't misread your position too badly). So, I think you'd find, if you had cable that is, that Fox News' reporting and commentary most often tends to support your view. For an opposing viewpoint, you might tune to MSNBC, which generally tends to be supportive of ACA. To each his own. Who am I to say your views or those of Fox News are wrong?
I do have concerns when I read "history" presented in stark black & white terms - as if enshrined in stone like a set of Commandments and handed down from on high. Religions operate in that manner. I'm not so sure about historians. My limited experience with historians (college days) is that there are usually opposing schools of thought within the community on virtually every social or political issue they examine. Reasons and rationale for our entry into World War I, the consequences of FDR's New Deal, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the impact of various Supreme Court decisions are all still being hotly debated among historians. Science seeks absolute truth. History, however, is a much more circumspect and much less precise medium than the tone of your quoted passages seems to convey. That's all. --- PS: Dax. - Looks like you made three separate posts. Missed the top one at first. Hmm ... I wasn't familiar with the Shakespeare passage (in the first post?). While my expressed concerns about the over-simplified and strident historical maxims stand, I commend you for the Shakespeare passage, which I've checked out further. (An excerpt pertaining to it from Wikipedia is attached at the end.)
Great literature often expresses deep insights into the nature of man and our passage through this uncertain world. Additionally, two people can look at the same literary selection and arrive at completely opposing viewpoints regarding its meaning and relevance to contemporary issues. As a powerful metaphorically rich analogy for our lives, I like the passage. If you intended it to reflect your own mystification over the O-Care debates, I can appreciate that. If you intended it to depict some inevitable course or time span all nations must follow, I'd disagree on that, though I can understand why opponents of O-Care (who see the nation's destruction in it) might use such a image rich passage to further their cause.
Here's the blurb from Wikipedia:
"All the world's a stage" is the phrase that begins a monologue from William Shakespeare's As You Like It, spoken by the melancholy Jaques in Act II Scene VII. The speech compares the world to a stage and life to a play, and catalogues the seven stages of a man's life, sometimes referred to as the seven ages of man:[1] infant, schoolboy, lover, soldier, justice, pantaloon, and old age, facing imminent death. It is one of Shakespeare's most frequently-quoted passages, and is mistakenly believed by some to be Shakespeare's last speech. In the prior work The Merchant of Venice Shakespeare had described the world as "A stage where every man must play a part". (Source: Wikipedia)
These discussions about Obamacare, US debt, US deficit are like debating which music is best to play as the Titanic sinks. The major decisions for the USA have been made and we will no have to live with them. I'm just hoping to die before the ship goes under.
Sorry you feel this way. But it is not uncommon for people to feel this to various degrees as they react to changes where the world moves from one they know to one they don't or cannot identify with (excluding genuine cases of clinical depression).
Happened with changes in racial profiles in the society, attitudes towards sex, rock and roll, drugs, attitudes towards feminism, GLBT rights, list goes on. More resistant one is to change and adapt, greater the angst. People have predicted demise of country or civilization for every one of those events.
Feeling that the country/civilization is going to sink and die is just a coping mechanism to deal with the world that one has become disenfranchised with and feels helpless to change to one's wishes. This is also a basis for eternal hell and damnation concepts in religion.
Not to say that all changes are necessarily for the good but the effect of any such are exaggerated. Civilizations have always self-corrected often violently and they make nice metaphors. But people don't keep track of things where prophecies of doom for any of the above changes did not cause a collapse.
Obamacare has indeed become a symbol, a target for such disenfranchisement for many but not all. That is too bad since it gets discussed in polarized black and white terms. But it is hardly the kind of things that ends civilizations, despite the beliefs amongst some.
From my observations Obamacare is hurting a larger number of people then it is helping. Our news media can not crunch the numbers nor can they understand it so it doesn't get much reporting.
Not to undermine your feeling of disenfranchisement but this kind of descent into non-falsifiable beliefs and narratives is at the root of everything from wearing tin foil hats to checking out of civilization into communes. Just a matter of degree. It also snowballs into further isolation from any data that differs from these beliefs. And that isn't going to end well more for such people than for the changing civilization.
FOX and MSNBC just happen to cater to such feelings but they aren't necessary nor do they cause it, just exploit it.
A realistic middle ground exists between being a Pollyanna and a Doomer.
Comments
Sorry Ted - I know you own lots of health care and like those high prices.
One should always ask their doctor if there is a generic or a less expensive version of a prescription they are getting. In most cases an older and cheaper med works just as well as the newer and expensive ones and they have a good track record to back them up.
goodrx.com
for checking local prices. They also have their own group agreements with local pharmacies. Interesting how much variation exists since prices are not advertised.
Using their coupons may be cheaper than using the co pay feature on regular price for things like statins.
You choose to buy a car usually for immediate personal use. You purchase insurance hoping never to use it, but with the knowledge that it is good to have in case something goes wrong both because the financial cost to you could be ruinous and because the cost to society as a whole could be large. When you purchase a car or a meal or other tangible goods your money goes to the business and eventually to cover the cost of labor. When you purchase insurance, your money goes to the business but also to cover the costs of other people who are unfortunate. I don't see how that isn't a redistribution. I'm sorry, can you explain why?
It's simply a fact that the sickest (and often the poorest) members of society incur much higher health related expenses than the rest of society:
politifact.com/oregon/statements/2012/feb/23/alan-bates/does-20-percent-population-really-use-80-health-ca/
ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/costs/expriach/index.html
bcnys.org/inside/health/2011/HealthCarePremiumsNIHCM0711.pdf
washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/19/the-two-most-important-numbers-in-american-health-care/
There is even a wonky name for this class of people which I can't remember for the life of me now. When someone who is healthy purchases insurance, most of the money they pay in (that doesn't flow to the company) goes to cover these sick people.
When I have children I will happily insure them and pray that they only need it for routine medical care. But if the worst happens, I will be thankful there are other people helping to cover their costs and hopefully getting them well.
In no way am I arguing that the distribution of monies under health care plans is a bad thing. If I'm wrong in some other way, I would be happy to learn why.
As an aside, I've been chronically ill while uninsured myself. It was horrible. Family members thankfully were able to help me. That taught me I needed a larger sense of responsibility to others in society. It makes sense to me that people should have some health insurance so that they don't become the same sort of burden I was. Medical emergencies can happen to anyone. We just don't usually think about who pays those bills.
Ignoring that one chooses to gamble and not get ill, roulette may be the best example. Or craps. Assuming a fair wheel (or dice), there are knowable odds. And they don't favor the individual gambler. Eventually, though, someone does win, and yes, that is your money going over. Minus what the casino has taken from everyone doing a lot of losing.
Poker more closely represents a moral hazard. Like someone who knows something about their health that insurance companies don't, someone at the table probably knows the game well and that creates an advantage. Usually the chips flow their way.
Many casinos only have poker because it brings people in. Because they can't control the odds, their only money is made on the rake. It's too early for me to figure out if that represents anything in the insurance industry.
Unless it is an old class of generic drug, where Walmart's $4 and $10 generic prescription program has some good prices, I have found Costco to have the lowest prices by far. And if you do not have prescription insurance, they will even discount the price off their already lower prices.
Mona
Take it or leave it. My only point was it pays to shop around. Provided you and your physician are comfortable with the generic and provider, it makes sense to me to pay as little as possible. In budgeting, I always like to multiply monthly costs X12 to get a truer picture of how it impacts the budget. The savings in our case was $30 per month - equivalent to $360 per year - not inconsequential to those of us in the shrinking middle class. (That's after-tax money, equivalent to $400-$500 yearly earned income, depending on tax bracket and state of residency.)
re Costco - They were favorably mentioned in a recent CBS 60-Minutes segment on prescription pricing. So folks would do well to check them out. Regards
I'm sure you take the same view on all of Coulter's writings as you do Krauthammer's.
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2014/02/19/new-obama-promise-if-you-like-your-life-you-can-keep-it-n1797554
Darcey, apologies; perhaps you overstated it with
>> small group of unhealthy individuals
or I simply misunderstood that you would include in that group anyone who needs a new hip, say, or acl repair, or stent. In other words it depends on what 'small' and 'unhealthy' mean. I imagine we're pretty much in violent agreement
But the whole healthcare discussion is off, since ACA rests on conservative principles (individual responsibility yet still private service provision) and, as everyone knows, came out of profoundly conservative thinking long ago, both thinktank and at the implementation level. There are other and unrelated reasons why it is now hated so by those who hate it so. But those reasons are becoming clearer by the month, if they weren't clear before.
Being Jon Stewart "leans" left, I thought you would enjoy his interview with Steven Brill.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/kqwpe9/exclusive---steven-brill-extended-interview-pt--1
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8noojp/exclusive---steven-brill-extended-interview-pt--2
Well Anna, if you had mentioned these most unfortunate facts in your original post, I certainly would have been sympathetic to them as well. I'm sorry I can't get in your mind.
One of my points in posting Krauthammer's piece was rather simple and I am sorry you didn't get it. Even someone who is severely disabled, also because of a very unfortunate bad accident, in the prime of their life, with all the potential in the world, need not subscribe to the ACA.
"Why the left proclaims to be so inclusive yet paints the negative broad brush on conservatives shows their true colors. As long as one agrees with them they are fine. However there is no place for opposing views"
JohnChisum
Hi Hank,
I understood your post as I used to check around prior to coming to the same conclusion regarding Costco's pricing
Here is an an article that I have found accurate time and time again. For those that do not know, you do not need a Costco membership to purchase prescription drugs at Costco.
"There aren't coupons for prescription drugs, but Costco (COST) is probably wishing it could print up some "$749 off" inserts right about now.
Consumer Reports went shopping at 200 pharmacies across the country for a month's supply of five prescription drugs that just went generic: Actos for diabetes, Lexapro for depression, Singulair for asthma, Plavix for blood thinning, and Lipitor for high cholesterol.
What they found was a $749 difference -- that's 447% -- between the $916 price tag at CVS (CVS) and the $167 that Costco charged for the same five drugs. For generic Lipitor alone CVS charged $150 to Costco's $17. The generic Lexapro found at CVS for $126 could be had at Costco for $7"
http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=4e8c9546-bba6-49f1-a000-5d8281117c36
Mona
This has turned into quite a thread BTW.
The article states "while Costco, Sam's Club and other discount stores consider their pharmacies throw-ins that help bulk up foot traffic". If accurate and my experience says it definitely is, I agree with you. First, the vast majority of Costco's profits come membership fees. Second, without a Costco membership you can not purchase in the store. Third, they are not making any where near the profit on prescription sales as the others mentioned.
While I am not certain, I think by law you can not be turned away. If that is not the reason, then it's good marketing to get potential members into the store.
From my observations Obamacare is hurting a larger number of people then it is helping. Our news media can not crunch the numbers nor can they understand it so it doesn't get much reporting. It isn't going to end well.
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
5 His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
10 Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
15 Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
20 Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
25 And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
At which stage in this sequence do you believe our great nation is currently in? At which stage?
Seven steps in the life cycles of great powers
Glubb Pasha learned that different empires had similar cultural changes while experiencing a life cycle in a series of stages that could overlap. He generalized about empires having seven stages of development, identifying these successive ages as follows:
1. The age of outburst (or pioneers).
2. The age of conquests.
3. The age of commerce.
4. The age of affluence.
5. The age of intellect.
6. The age of decadence.
7. The age of decline and collapse.
So Fox is doing Shakespeare now?
No cable? You are indeed fortunate. Possibly, back when you last had cable news in your home, those networks were "straight down the center" objective. Now days (unfortunately I think) there's quite a bit of "slant" in their coverage.
I took your underlying point of view as being opposed to ACA. And, by (logical?) extension a belief that big government is promoting dependency as well as fostering other detrimental effects. (Hopefully, I didn't misread your position too badly). So, I think you'd find, if you had cable that is, that Fox News' reporting and commentary most often tends to support your view. For an opposing viewpoint, you might tune to MSNBC, which generally tends to be supportive of ACA. To each his own. Who am I to say your views or those of Fox News are wrong?
I do have concerns when I read "history" presented in stark black & white terms - as if enshrined in stone like a set of Commandments and handed down from on high. Religions operate in that manner. I'm not so sure about historians. My limited experience with historians (college days) is that there are usually opposing schools of thought within the community on virtually every social or political issue they examine. Reasons and rationale for our entry into World War I, the consequences of FDR's New Deal, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the impact of various Supreme Court decisions are all still being hotly debated among historians. Science seeks absolute truth. History, however, is a much more circumspect and much less precise medium than the tone of your quoted passages seems to convey. That's all.
---
PS: Dax. - Looks like you made three separate posts. Missed the top one at first. Hmm ... I wasn't familiar with the Shakespeare passage (in the first post?). While my expressed concerns about the over-simplified and strident historical maxims stand, I commend you for the Shakespeare passage, which I've checked out further. (An excerpt pertaining to it from Wikipedia is attached at the end.)
Great literature often expresses deep insights into the nature of man and our passage through this uncertain world. Additionally, two people can look at the same literary selection and arrive at completely opposing viewpoints regarding its meaning and relevance to contemporary issues. As a powerful metaphorically rich analogy for our lives, I like the passage. If you intended it to reflect your own mystification over the O-Care debates, I can appreciate that. If you intended it to depict some inevitable course or time span all nations must follow, I'd disagree on that, though I can understand why opponents of O-Care (who see the nation's destruction in it) might use such a image rich passage to further their cause.
Here's the blurb from Wikipedia:
"All the world's a stage" is the phrase that begins a monologue from William Shakespeare's As You Like It, spoken by the melancholy Jaques in Act II Scene VII. The speech compares the world to a stage and life to a play, and catalogues the seven stages of a man's life, sometimes referred to as the seven ages of man:[1] infant, schoolboy, lover, soldier, justice, pantaloon, and old age, facing imminent death. It is one of Shakespeare's most frequently-quoted passages, and is mistakenly believed by some to be Shakespeare's last speech. In the prior work The Merchant of Venice Shakespeare had described the world as "A stage where every man must play a part".
(Source: Wikipedia)
>> Our news media cannot crunch the [ACA] numbers nor can they understand it so it doesn't get much reporting.
Nonsense, and your observations are off, Shakespeare or not; just do some digging.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/forecast-cut-on-spending-for-health.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-affordable-care-act-comes-in-with-better-than-expected-numbers/2014/04/17/0db874aa-c4df-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/04/cbos-obamacare-estimate-its-more-complicated-than-you-think/
(several weeks out of date, though)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/us/politics/budget-office-lowers-estimate-for-cost-of-expanding-health-coverage.html
And not just the more thorough media:
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf
Happened with changes in racial profiles in the society, attitudes towards sex, rock and roll, drugs, attitudes towards feminism, GLBT rights, list goes on. More resistant one is to change and adapt, greater the angst. People have predicted demise of country or civilization for every one of those events.
Feeling that the country/civilization is going to sink and die is just a coping mechanism to deal with the world that one has become disenfranchised with and feels helpless to change to one's wishes. This is also a basis for eternal hell and damnation concepts in religion.
Not to say that all changes are necessarily for the good but the effect of any such are exaggerated. Civilizations have always self-corrected often violently and they make nice metaphors. But people don't keep track of things where prophecies of doom for any of the above changes did not cause a collapse.
Obamacare has indeed become a symbol, a target for such disenfranchisement for many but not all. That is too bad since it gets discussed in polarized black and white terms. But it is hardly the kind of things that ends civilizations, despite the beliefs amongst some. Not to undermine your feeling of disenfranchisement but this kind of descent into non-falsifiable beliefs and narratives is at the root of everything from wearing tin foil hats to checking out of civilization into communes. Just a matter of degree. It also snowballs into further isolation from any data that differs from these beliefs. And that isn't going to end well more for such people than for the changing civilization.
FOX and MSNBC just happen to cater to such feelings but they aren't necessary nor do they cause it, just exploit it.
A realistic middle ground exists between being a Pollyanna and a Doomer.