Monthly Archives: March 2012

The ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ of healthcare

If the press is any indication, the Supreme Court will rule on the most controversial case in recent history.    If I didn’t see photos of twenty somethings camping out for viewing tickets like techies awaiting the next iPad release, I still would agree, but not for the reasons currently bandied about: [il]legality of compulsory purchase by citizens, [il]legality of fines for those that don’t purchase, or that such subscriptions run afoul of interstate trafficking laws, or that forced coverage violates ethical/religious principles, freedoms- all alarming and valid.

My concern is practical and unfortunately, not part of consideration currently before this Court – the two tiered system of prescriptions that will result by class.   Last week, several publications featured lawsuits of patients harmed by prescription drugs.  Those who successfully sued, were prescribed the brand label, and those that didn’t, generic.   This nationwide health care bill features savings under generic prescription coverage.  It is this  ‘estimated’ [purported] savings based on generic prescription costs of national coverage that are being rammed down our throats.   Physicians will write specific instructions for branded prescriptions and that will blow all these estimates sky high, or will be prevented from doing so, or governed by vague  instructions as to circumstances that allow for deviation in procedure.  Let’s be clear,  the Supreme Court is not deliberating about the constitutionality of  national mandated health care;  it is deliberating the constitutionality of governed health care- George  Orwell’s ears are ringing.