Friendly forums for passionate Dems!
More than 94 million posts since 2001
Home Latest Greatest Videos Forums Hide ads Join up!
Home Latest Greatest
Videos Forums Help
Hide ads Join up!
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Medicare Part D has not s...»Reply #2
Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Medicare Part D has not saved money for Medicare [View all]

merrily

(45,251 posts)
2. I thought Part D was supposed to make big PHRMA even more obscenely profitable than it was.
Reply to eridani (Original post)
Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:46 PM
Jun 2015

Did it fail to do that?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Medicare Part D has not saved money for Medicare [View all] eridani Jun 2015 OP
No kidding. GWB's big gift to Big Pharma, another of the pig Cleita Jun 2015 #1
I didn't see your post before I posted. merrily Jun 2015 #4
... Cleita Jun 2015 #5
Every senior I know likes it. former9thward Jun 2015 #15
They could have had as good or even better without robbing the country Cleita Jun 2015 #18
I thought Part D was supposed to make big PHRMA even more obscenely profitable than it was. merrily Jun 2015 #2
Of course it hasn't. Who in their right minds thought it would? NRaleighLiberal Jun 2015 #3
It has saved me a lot of money on my blood pressure meds. n/t RebelOne Jun 2015 #6
I don't doubt it. The problem is that your medicine would have not been Cleita Jun 2015 #7
The program didn't go into effect until 2005. Drugs have always been more expensive here. Hoyt Jun 2015 #9
Actually, it should be included in Medicare and not be part D at all forcing seniors to Cleita Jun 2015 #13
I agree. But, Part D is better than nothing. Truth is, neither Dems or Repugs did a darn Hoyt Jun 2015 #14
I know. I did without medication because I couldn't afford it so part D Cleita Jun 2015 #17
I don't. Problem on these type of issues, the feds aren't going to budget the upfront investment Hoyt Jun 2015 #19
As one who saw too many elderly going without, or cutting pills into thirds, I doubt it. Hoyt Jun 2015 #8
You are spot on, Hoyt. brer cat Jun 2015 #10
I hope there are more studies. I cannot believe people taking their meds for diabetes, blood Hoyt Jun 2015 #11
What's more important, saving money or giving seniors access to medication? Nye Bevan Jun 2015 #12
The whole presciption drug thing is way out of line with costs, especially when compared to .... dmosh42 Jun 2015 #16
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Medicare Part D has not s...»Reply #2
Home | Latest Discussions | Greatest Discussions | Latest Videos | All Forums

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

In Memoriam

© 2001 - 2026 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.