ACA impact on drug sales
An article in the Nov. 21 Bulletin describes how low ACA enrollment might result in lower-than-anticipated prescription drug sales, noting that they would be less than the “best case” estimate of $460 billion, which would be an increase of $132 billion from the current level of $328 billion. The increase would be due to increased utilization by people previously uninsured but does not include any of the other costs involved with providing the services that would result in the increased numbers of prescriptions written. Things like premium subsidies, provider fees, lab costs and hospital charges that might amount to costs many times more than the cost of the drugs, possibly exceeding $1 trillion/year.
This is just one more piece of evidence that the claim that the ACA will actually lower health care costs is no more realistic than the claim that if you like your plan you can keep it.
Tell Congress what you think
As Americans, as Oregonians, it’s our duty and our privilege to be in touch with our Congress persons. I do hope everyone will write to Sen. Ron Wyden, Sen. Jeff Merkley and Rep. Greg Walden to express your views on:
Obamacare, Benghazi, IRS targeting conservatives, NSA recording our cellphone calls and perhaps emails, cutting military PX stores and military pay, amnesty, the Keystone pipeline, prolife, and the highhanded Senate nuclear decision. All three of these Congress persons can be reached by Googling their names, then writing your opinions.
Object to unfounded remark about traps
As a supporter of TrapFreeOregon.com (TFO), I am offended by the unfounded remark attributed to Don Nichols, fur sales manager for the Oregon Territorial Council on Furs, in the article “Traps found in Shevlin Park still being investigated” (Dec. 12): “I suspect that the people that don’t like trapping planted them there,” he said. “Just to make it look bad.”
Accordingly, on behalf of my friends in TFO, I believe a response to this comment and an apology from Nichols are in order.
Nichols’ slur is another cheap shot in the tradition of if-you-can’t-attack-the-message-attack-the-messengers, a tactic that commonly uses scurrilous insinuations unburdened by supporting evidence.
Given the inhumane attitude trappers have for wildlife and their unintended victims, it is not surprising that Nichols would have a similarly callous indifference to the personal sensibilities of people who prefer to be compassionate toward animals.
The referenced article suggested an apparent rush on the part of Sasha Sulia, natural resources manager for the district, to remove signs warning of traps possibly being in the area. There have been other reports of a couple of dogs in the county caught in legal and illegal traps. Surely, a concern for dogs and their owners would have encouraged a better-safe-than-sorry policy instead of what appears to be the opposite.
What happened to being responsible?
This illustrates another way in which our society is changing. About 10 years ago my son put up a fence to keep my little dog from getting on the road. I live at the bottom of a slight hill and at the end of a curve. This is the third time someone has misjudged how slick the snow was, couldn’t make the curve and slid into my fence.
When I was growing up my parents taught me if I damaged someone’s property I was to go to their house, apologize, and offer to help repair it. That still seems like the proper thing to do.
Granted, even though I am on a limited retirement, I can afford to buy a few new fence posts and about 30 feet of wire fencing. And, being close to 80 years old, I will have to ask someone to help me repair it. I can do that, too. But it would have been nice to at least get an apology from the people who damaged my fence.
When did our way of thinking change from “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” to “do unto others … and run!”?