Rationing and long lines

[belme1201]

Yet people didn't before. It has saved millions. Simple solutions often work well and can be steps in the right direction.



Please. I recommend that we do not go whole hog into something and miss what could be the best because we are short-sighted. Many different ideas are out there that I haven't had, and they might be better than the Congressional Health Program. Your way, we'll never know. We have the absolutely unique opportunity to do something incredible, instead we'll have mediocre patches. Even Obama's program will just be a patch, we'll keep adding them and have an infinitely inadequate program that will always be on the table, glutted and porked up, enriching the few...

I just went to the Florida site. I picked one drug out of only 1 hundred represented. My wife's cancer drugs weren't included, nor was the $125 each nausea pill, so I chose one drug at random, Lamotrigine 100mg. I know nothing about the drug. The list showed the 30 day supply from Walgreen to be $239.99, from Publix, $240.49, a difference of 50 cents. Walmart or CVS weren't listed though it is my guess they also handle the drug which makes the site useless, at least for this drug and making my system(landline) more efficient, and lets not forget those out there without the luxury of a home computer. It is going to take an awful lot of purchases at 50 cents difference to add up to a $ million. Might I ask the source of your information and how they reached "millions saved" in their analysis? Methinks it could be political hokum with a party label. Beyond that, Canadian prices remain a fraction of the US price, what can Florida do about that?


Now my friend, the kicker:

Lamotrigine 100mg:

US PRICE $239.99/ 30 day supply
CANADIAN PRICE $59/ 100 day supply

If cost saving is your objective, I have supplied it in spades!
I rest my case as to which system is fairer and better your honor.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Once again we see the black hearts of Cons on display.

They’ve been told before, that the “wait times” in Canada, are for non-emergency or elective surgery. Nobody with a medical emergency is put on a wait list.

And what the f*ck, 50 million people in this country can’t even get an MRI. Somebody tell me why the eff Cons are whining about a three month wait for an elective, non-emergency medical procedure?




That’s not too fucking bad. It could be better. It could be as good as France or Germany. Maybe France is who we should emulate. But that would make Sean Hannity’s head explode.

Excellent response!

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL really funny how you respond to a non shrug post and my new posting style that I borrowed from a poster that I now pwn with a complaint that I have shrugged.

So not only you admit that you're not bright enough to originate your own writing/posting style, but you admit that save this one time you shrug like a fool when you don't have anything of worth to say.

You can't even debate the topic of this thread..you just take every opportunity to try and slam me.......and you fail every time. You're out of your league, chuckles....just either IA me or refrain from throwing rocks least you get humiliated and frustrated. So unless you've got something useful to say on the subject here, I'll just ignore your next predictable shrugging BS response.

 

[DamnYankee]

So not only you admit that you're not bright enough to originate your own writing/posting style, but you admit that save this one time you shrug like a fool when you don't have anything of worth to say.

You can't even debate the topic of this thread..you just take every opportunity to try and slam me.......and you fail every time. You're out of your league, chuckles....just either IA me or refrain from throwing rocks least you get humiliated and frustrated. So unless you've got something useful to say on the subject here, I'll just ignore your next predictable shrugging BS response.

But I like you following me around like a little puppy.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I just went to the Florida site. I picked one drug out of only 1 hundred represented. My wife's cancer drugs weren't included, nor was the $125 each nausea pill, so I chose one drug at random, Lamotrigine 100mg. I know nothing about the drug. The list showed the 30 day supply from Walgreen to be $239.99, from Publix, $240.49, a difference of 50 cents. Walmart or CVS weren't listed though it is my guess they also handle the drug which makes the site useless, at least for this drug and making my system(landline) more efficient, and lets not forget those out there without the luxury of a home computer. It is going to take an awful lot of purchases at 50 cents difference to add up to a $ million. Might I ask the source of your information and how they reached "millions saved" in their analysis? Methinks it could be political hokum with a party label. Beyond that, Canadian prices remain a fraction of the US price, what can Florida do about that?


Now my friend, the kicker:

Lamotrigine 100mg:

US PRICE $239.99/ 30 day supply
CANADIAN PRICE $59/ 100 day supply

If cost saving is your objective, I have supplied it in spades!
I rest my case as to which system is fairer and better your honor.

 

[uscitizen]

Now you have done it Belme.
confused the pitiful creatures with facts.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

doesn't the canadian government subsidize drug prices and/or controls the prices?

 

[belme1201]

doesn't the canadian government subsidize drug prices and/or controls the prices?

Not for Americans. The $59 price is mail order to the US, Canadian citizens pay even less as part of their superior health service. Canadian pharmacies pay less for drugs than do US pharmacies because under GOP law, it is permitted for pharmas to gouge Americans.
Anything important to add?

 

[Damocles]

I just went to the Florida site. I picked one drug out of only 1 hundred represented. My wife's cancer drugs weren't included, nor was the $125 each nausea pill, so I chose one drug at random, Lamotrigine 100mg. I know nothing about the drug. The list showed the 30 day supply from Walgreen to be $239.99, from Publix, $240.49, a difference of 50 cents. Walmart or CVS weren't listed though it is my guess they also handle the drug which makes the site useless, at least for this drug and making my system(landline) more efficient, and lets not forget those out there without the luxury of a home computer. It is going to take an awful lot of purchases at 50 cents difference to add up to a $ million. Might I ask the source of your information and how they reached "millions saved" in their analysis? Methinks it could be political hokum with a party label. Beyond that, Canadian prices remain a fraction of the US price, what can Florida do about that?


Now my friend, the kicker:

Lamotrigine 100mg:

US PRICE $239.99/ 30 day supply
CANADIAN PRICE $59/ 100 day supply

If cost saving is your objective, I have supplied it in spades!
I rest my case as to which system is fairer and better your honor.

Yes, I agree we should no longer subsidize Canada by paying a higher price in the US for drugs which allows them to negotiate lesser pricing. It should be equitable between the nations. Without our contribution to that, and the protection they (the drug companies) get by disallowing US citizens to purchase in Canada, the prices would have to be more equitable. I like the idea of negotiating fair pricing between all the nations.

I will also note that this was just one example of something that could begin to cost cut in addition to a government solution so that the government solution doesn't collapse on itself. Can you give me the link you used to the Florida site? It seems to be missing in your post, I'd like to see the list of drugs. Personally I'd write the law to include all of them allowing you to see pricing differences within a set area selected by the user.

Nice job knocking down a straw man, but that is all you have done. In your haste you do not read my posts and assume an opinion.

I am nothing if not pragmatic, and see a likely government program coming. Since I do not believe that I can stop such I can add ideas that can make it less painful. We need to do something about pricing or we'll wind up hurting ourselves in the long run. There are solutions, and some that haven't even been implemented anywhere. I'd like to see them get their chance and select from the best rather than patch, and patch, and patch, while allowing the government to continue to protect drug companies and enrich the few. It is not the government's place to ensure riches for anybody, nor to punish it.

 

[Damocles]

Not for Americans. Canadian citizens pay even less as part of ther superior health service. Canadian pharmacies pay less for drugs than do US pharmacies because under GOP law, it is permitted for pharmas to gouge Americans.
Anything important to add?

If it is "GOP Law" why haven't the Democrats fixed it yet? The reality is we subsidize that system. The drug companies will get their profit, even if they negotiate a price at a loss in Canada, by gouging us. I dislike corporate welfare at our expense, even more direct ones that simply force citizens to continue purchasing at a higher price by accident of birth.

 

[belme1201]

Yes, I agree we should no longer subsidize Canada by paying a higher price in the US for drugs which allows them to negotiate lesser pricing. It should be equitable between the nations. Without our contribution to that, and the protection they (the drug companies) get by disallowing US citizens to purchase in Canada, the prices would have to be more equitable. I like the idea of negotiating fair pricing between all the nations.

I will also note that this was just one example of something that could begin to cost cut in addition to a government solution so that the government solution doesn't collapse on itself. Can you give me the link you used to the Florida site? It seems to be missing in your post, I'd like to see the list of drugs. Personally I'd write the law to include all of them allowing you to see pricing differences within a set area selected by the user.

Nice job knocking down a straw man, but that is all you have done. In your haste you do not read my posts and assume an opinion.

I am nothing if not pragmatic, and see a likely government program coming. Since I do not believe that I can stop such I can add ideas that can make it less painful. We need to do something about pricing or we'll wind up hurting ourselves in the long run. There are solutions, and some that haven't even been implemented anywhere. I'd like to see them get their chance and select from the best rather than patch, and patch, and patch, while allowing the government to continue to protect drug companies and enrich the few. It is not the government's place to ensure riches for anybody, nor to punish it.

You can go directly to the official State of Florida site for prescription drug prices, Bill McCullom, Sec. of State, no links needed, punch in any area of the state and choose the drug from their list, no science needed. Now, once again, might I have the source you used that reached the conclusion of "millions saved" by the Florida system?
What is the straw man? 59 cents in Canada for a pill that costs $8 here? It was your boys Hastert, Frist, and Delay that forced the "government to protect drug companies and enrich the few" in Medicare Part D.
Tell you what, I'll take the "pain" the Canadians are suffering and then go from there to improve ("patch?") it. It is a better, fairer, cheaper, more proven starting point than the one we now occupy, bloated with profit and motivated by greed.

 

[Good Luck]

Government health care does not stifle innovation/research. Many times a new drug will hit the market place but government plans do not cover that specific drug. In the meantime doctors can prescribe it and let the patient know the cost for that drug is not covered. So, we're right back where we are without a government plan. Those who can afford it, buy it. Those who can't use an alternative, if there is one, that may be covered by a government plan.

As time passes and the drug is shown to be valuable the government will do a cost analysis. Is it cheaper to cover the price of the drug or is it cheaper to have the patient remain ill, continue hospital and doctor visits, possibly stop work and collect government benefits, etc?

If the drug is a good as advertised the government will negotiate a wholesale price on the drug. While the price may be lower than what it's currently selling for the massive increase in demand will more than make up for the difference in price. Everyone who requires that drug will receive it and it will be paid for by the government. What better motivation for a drug company?

As to unlimited resources a healthy population is a greater asset to government. An ill, unemployed person costs society a lot of money. More than a prescription drug. More than a doctor's visit. More than health education.

It's an investment. Just like an educated population increases the overall wealth of a country. Plus, it's relatively easy to remain healthy here. Sufficient food. Clean water. Access to shelter. Why would we not treat every ill individual?

So we have to wait until a government bureaucracy decides if a new treatment is "worth" the cost? There is one of many problems with the whole idea. Are you aware of how slowly large federal bureaucracies move? The drug companies are supposed to wait and ADDITIONAL several years AFTER the years needed to go from phase 3 trials to FDA approval for marketing? And THEN go immediately to generic wholesale pricing under government universal care mandates?

We already have that scenario through medicare. The result is elderly people forced to pay themselves for new, better drugs for their ailments because medicare is 2-3 years behind, which results in a system as bad as having no government plan (as you yourself point out.) What is the advantage of a government plan which, for the first few years of a new treaments' existence, is as if there IS no government plan? The people who NEED the drug are forced to pay for it themselves, or do without. Kind of like the very system you are railing against now, isn't it? Except when a universal plan exists, it interferes with and vastly diminishes any private plans that may have paid at least part of the costs for the new drug, which in turn vastly diminishes those who can afford the new drug while waiting for one more level of government approval.

So, FINALLY after several years waiting, the government gets off it's dead ass and decides it is more cost effective to approve this "new" drug to be paid for by government's plan. Congratufuckinglations. The drug company went bankrupt waiting for you. So much for encouraging health care innovation.

What "more" could a drug company want? The answer is the current market - why else are the major drug companies fighting this supposed blessing you paint? If it were in their best interest to put their eggs in the big government basket, you can bet you they would do so. Instead they spend a WHOLE lot of their profits fighting it. You think they are ignorant? They know VERY well where their bread is best buttered, and it is NOT through your rosy colored, but so very inaccurate assessment of how government would "encourage" new medical innovations.

New innovations is the bread basket of the medical industry. And those who do the innovating are absolutely convinced they are better off without more government interference.

And again, the agreed GOAL is to maximize the availability of health care. But only the brain dead, sheep, or narrow minded fools think there are only two possible alternatives: the current mess or universal through big government.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Damocles
Yes, I agree we should no longer subsidize Canada by paying a higher price in the US for drugs which allows them to negotiate lesser pricing. It should be equitable between the nations. Without our contribution to that, and the protection they (the drug companies) get by disallowing US citizens to purchase in Canada, the prices would have to be more equitable. I like the idea of negotiating fair pricing between all the nations.

I will also note that this was just one example of something that could begin to cost cut in addition to a government solution so that the government solution doesn't collapse on itself. Can you give me the link you used to the Florida site? It seems to be missing in your post, I'd like to see the list of drugs. Personally I'd write the law to include all of them allowing you to see pricing differences within a set area selected by the user.

Nice job knocking down a straw man, but that is all you have done. In your haste you do not read my posts and assume an opinion.

I am nothing if not pragmatic, and see a likely government program coming. Since I do not believe that I can stop such I can add ideas that can make it less painful. We need to do something about pricing or we'll wind up hurting ourselves in the long run. There are solutions, and some that haven't even been implemented anywhere. I'd like to see them get their chance and select from the best rather than patch, and patch, and patch, while allowing the government to continue to protect drug companies and enrich the few. It is not the government's place to ensure riches for anybody, nor to punish it.

You can go directly to the official State of Florida site for prescription drug prices, Bill McCullom, Sec. of State, no links needed, punch in any area of the state and choose the drug from their list, no science needed. Now, once again, might I have the source you used that reached the conclusion of "millions saved" by the Florida system?
What is the straw man? 59 cents in Canada for a pill that costs $8 here? It was your boys Hastert, Frist, and Delay that forced the "government to protect drug companies and enrich the few" in Medicare Part D.
Tell you what, I'll take the "pain" the Canadians are suffering and then go from there to improve ("patch?") it. It is a better, fairer, cheaper, more proven starting point than the one we now occupy, bloated with profit and motivated by greed.

Once again, ALL THE PERTAINING FACTS put to rest the BS support/defense of our current health care debacle. And what cannot be fitted into the status quo propaganda is ignored. Nice to see you haven't lost your touch, Belme.

 

[Damocles]

You can go directly to the official State of Florida site for prescription drug prices, Bill McCullom, Sec. of State, no links needed, punch in any area of the state and choose the drug from their list, no science needed. Now, once again, might I have the source you used that reached the conclusion of "millions saved" by the Florida system?
What is the straw man? 59 cents in Canada for a pill that costs $8 here? It was your boys Hastert, Frist, and Delay that forced the "government to protect drug companies and enrich the few" in Medicare Part D.
Tell you what, I'll take the "pain" the Canadians are suffering and then go from there to improve ("patch?") it. It is a better, fairer, cheaper, more proven starting point than the one we now occupy, bloated with profit and motivated by greed.

Again the silly straw man that suggests that I argue to do nothing. Have you nothing more?

It is getting tired.

I'd prefer not to "patch" the Canadian system, first because it does not allow for private clinics (those that exist are illegal, except in one area as ruled by their Supreme Court).

I will never advocate the government takeover of the entire system, or even most of the system and will fight against that kind of direct socialism.

Secondly because we have an opportunity to allow areas to create their own solutions and find the one that works best to institute across the board. By all means do something, but it is unnecessary to create or emulate systems we already know have problems even with patches, and equally unnecessary to set in stone one solution without testing.

 

[Good Luck]

Once again we see the black hearts of Cons on display.

They’ve been told before, that the “wait times” in Canada, are for non-emergency or elective surgery. Nobody with a medical emergency is put on a wait list.

And what the f*ck, 50 million people in this country can’t even get an MRI. Somebody tell me why the eff Cons are whining about a three month wait for an elective, non-emergency medical procedure?




That’s not too fucking bad. It could be better. It could be as good as France or Germany. Maybe France is who we should emulate. But that would make Sean Hannity’s head explode.

Actually this is an excellent example of why universal care systems are no better than pay-or-suffer. Emergency services in the U.S. are required by law to treat emergency cases, also. If you wander in a U.S. hospital with an arrow sticking out of your cranium, they will treat you. It's the non-emergency services we are having difficulty with, to include non-emergency diagnostics, and ESPECIALLY preventative diagnostics.

If you're not technically an emergency case, then your wait times are going to be as advertised by the "ignorant" conservatives. Problem is your case could well go critical while waiting. Then what? You die because you were not diagnosed as emergency until it was an emergency, whereas getting diagnosed and treated BEFORE you are an emergency saves your life.

 

[Damocles]

I just went to the Florida site. I picked one drug out of only 1 hundred represented. My wife's cancer drugs weren't included, nor was the $125 each nausea pill, so I chose one drug at random, Lamotrigine 100mg. I know nothing about the drug. The list showed the 30 day supply from Walgreen to be $239.99, from Publix, $240.49, a difference of 50 cents. Walmart or CVS weren't listed though it is my guess they also handle the drug which makes the site useless, at least for this drug and making my system(landline) more efficient, and lets not forget those out there without the luxury of a home computer. It is going to take an awful lot of purchases at 50 cents difference to add up to a $ million. Might I ask the source of your information and how they reached "millions saved" in their analysis? Methinks it could be political hokum with a party label. Beyond that, Canadian prices remain a fraction of the US price, what can Florida do about that?


Now my friend, the kicker:

Lamotrigine 100mg:

US PRICE $239.99/ 30 day supply
CANADIAN PRICE $59/ 100 day supply

If cost saving is your objective, I have supplied it in spades!
I rest my case as to which system is fairer and better your honor.

Anyway, since you would not link to it I went and found it.

I found it by starting here: http://www.floridahealthfinder.gov/reports-guides/prescription-drugs.shtml

Which gave me this link:
http://www.myfloridarx.com/

I'll also note that you did not read this part:

Note: The drug list and prices are updated monthly. If a county, city, or drug does not appear in a selection list, that means pharmacies have not reported monthly sales of the drug in that county or city. If a drug is not listed for your city, change the city selection to "All" to see if the drug was reported for any city in that county. If a drug is not listed in your county, try adjacent counties.

A bit more searching may find the drug you are looking for.

The only reason that nausea pill was not listed is because none of the pharmacies reported a sale of the drug in the past month for the county you selected (probably just as randomly)

So, I went and put in a random drug... Like you did.

I found that if you used the site and selected the cheapest price you would save well over $100 on ACTONEL 35 MG TABLET.

The lowest being: 97.95 (admittedly more expensive than the Canadian price)
The highest being: 213.98...

The drug you selected the difference was even more pronounced. This gives Floridians a tool that is not in other places that can save them literally thousands per year on some of the more expensive drugs.

(FYI - Unless you called well over 50 pharmacies in the Miami area you would not get this list this quickly. The I could call around thing.. Not nearly as convenient or even likely.)

My point was that this has saved the state and private health insurance companies quite a bit of money as well as the regular user. While it is a first step, it is a step in the right direction in saving people a bit of money.

Again, I agree with you that we should negotiate pricing like the Canadians do, but until then it is best to save as much as possible to keep costs down, especially when costs can be so divergent between pharmacies for the same drug.

 

[belme1201]

Again the silly straw man that suggests that I argue to do nothing. Have you nothing more?

It is getting tired.

I'd prefer not to "patch" the Canadian system, first because it does not allow for private clinics (those that exist are illegal, except in one area as ruled by their Supreme Court).

I will never advocate the government takeover of the entire system, or even most of the system and will fight against that kind of direct socialism.

Secondly because we have an opportunity to allow areas to create their own solutions and find the one that works best to institute across the board. By all means do something, but it is unnecessary to create or emulate systems we already know have problems even with patches, and equally unnecessary to set in stone one solution without testing.

My reference to the Florida system you introduced me to and what I ultimately discovered, was merely to enlighten those interested in what I found and to point out the failure of our system, state and federal, in the pharmaceuticals area alone. I showed where the user of a particular drug saved $222 monthly buying the same drug from Canada. To some people that's a lot of money. It has nothing to do with you and it is a fact.
I advocate what I believe, not, as do you, denigrate others for their opinions. You can believe what you want, but try to remember the world doesn't revolve around your opinions or you. I disagree with you, that is nothing personal against you. You say you want to do something, I believe you, but after reading the etherial, pie-in-the-sky words as in your final paragraph, I see no direction whatsoever as to what that change might be. Your second paragraph says what you won't do but where can I find what you would do?
On prescriptions alone the Canadian system is superior to ours for the patient/consumer, for a start would you adopt that portion of their system?
I presume the "areas" you allude to would be by law and thus be governmental. Do you think the system can survive with 50 different entities with 50 different sets of laws if states were the defined "areas" for example?
While people are suffering financially or physically, is there a time frame for changing the system? The problems today are the same as 20 years ago, and the situation is worse. When will the time be right?

 

[apple0154]

So we have to wait until a government bureaucracy decides if a new treatment is "worth" the cost? There is one of many problems with the whole idea. Are you aware of how slowly large federal bureaucracies move? The drug companies are supposed to wait and ADDITIONAL several years AFTER the years needed to go from phase 3 trials to FDA approval for marketing? And THEN go immediately to generic wholesale pricing under government universal care mandates?

We already have that scenario through medicare. The result is elderly people forced to pay themselves for new, better drugs for their ailments because medicare is 2-3 years behind, which results in a system as bad as having no government plan (as you yourself point out.) What is the advantage of a government plan which, for the first few years of a new treaments' existence, is as if there IS no government plan? The people who NEED the drug are forced to pay for it themselves, or do without. Kind of like the very system you are railing against now, isn't it? Except when a universal plan exists, it interferes with and vastly diminishes any private plans that may have paid at least part of the costs for the new drug, which in turn vastly diminishes those who can afford the new drug while waiting for one more level of government approval.

So, FINALLY after several years waiting, the government gets off it's dead ass and decides it is more cost effective to approve this "new" drug to be paid for by government's plan. Congratufuckinglations. The drug company went bankrupt waiting for you. So much for encouraging health care innovation.

What "more" could a drug company want? The answer is the current market - why else are the major drug companies fighting this supposed blessing you paint? If it were in their best interest to put their eggs in the big government basket, you can bet you they would do so. Instead they spend a WHOLE lot of their profits fighting it. You think they are ignorant? They know VERY well where their bread is best buttered, and it is NOT through your rosy colored, but so very inaccurate assessment of how government would "encourage" new medical innovations.

New innovations is the bread basket of the medical industry. And those who do the innovating are absolutely convinced they are better off without more government interference.

And again, the agreed GOAL is to maximize the availability of health care. But only the brain dead, sheep, or narrow minded fools think there are only two possible alternatives: the current mess or universal through big government.

Private plans also evaluate whether or not they'll cover a drug. They don't just automatically add it because it has passed the FDA.

No universal system is going to be perfect. The whole point is what is beneficial to the majority of people and if someone wants to pay for a new drug themselves they're welcome to do so.

The drug company is not going to go bankrupt. If the drug is good people will buy it whether or not the universal plan covers it.

In many cases new drugs are simply an improvement on current drugs. For example, a pain reliever that doesn't cause stomach upset. Or a time release tablet. Or a combination of drugs combined in one tablet.

Are we to expect a universal plan to pay double the cost simply for the convenience a patient doesn't have to take two separate pills instead of one?

As I mentioned before if a medication becomes available that significantly reduces a patient's hospital stay or doctor's visits or treatments the government will cover it as it will save money.

I'll repeat again. Check out the countries with a universal plan. Are they all wrong? Why do they keep their plans? There's not one example one can point to where a country reversed it's decision. Not one. It's not even discussed by politicians in those countries. What more needs to be said?

Any universal plan is better than what's currently in place. Any plan. Pick one and then adjust it. Otherwise nothing will get done as we've seen for the last 15 years since Hillary mentioned it.

Maybe there's a lesson to be learned here. Maybe it's time to look at other social programs instead of one burying their head in the sand and then crying about not having any input. Maybe it's time to stop going against the tide and contribute ideas/suggestions. Maybe certain politicians should be participating instead of blindly fighting against it.

 

[Cypress]

So we have to wait until a government bureaucracy decides if a new treatment is "worth" the cost?.....

The government financed healthcare that John Boner, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, and other federal employees get give equal or superior access to treatment as your or my employer-fianced or individual policy health plans.

Medicare always paid for my Mom's medical treatments in a timely and equitable fashion. I never saw any difference between her medical access, and what I got through my medical plan.


Can you provide examples where George Bush, Dick Cheney, or any republican in government or retired military dude whined and complained about how their "government plan" was atrocious and didn't afford them access to treatment?

I know you won't be able to.

Do you really think Blue Cross and Aetna are really doing a much better job at giving people unfettered access to medical treatment, compared to government-financed plans?

If you do, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

 

[Topspin]

and if you think the gov plan for everybody would be cheaper you need to share what your smoking. The get salary raises high than most peoples annual salary. Should we get that too?