Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich Says He Doesn't Regret Supporting Medicare Drug Plan Which Is Now a $7.2 Trillion Unfunded
CNS NEWS ^ | 3/18/11 | Nicholas Ballasy

Posted on 03/18/2011 2:11:08 PM PDT by Nachum

(CNSNews.com) -- Former House Speaker New Gingrich (R-Ga.), a likely 2012 presidential candidate, told CNSNews.com today that he does not regret supporting the enactment of the Medicare prescription drug plan which now presents the federal government with a $7.2 trillion unfunded liability.

An unfunded liability is a benefit the federal government has promised to pay that is not matched by tax revenue to fund it and thus represents an anticipated increase in the national debt.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: broke; debt; gingrich; medicare; newt; regret; rino; spending; supporting; trillions; unfunded
Gingrich Says He Doesn't Regret Supporting Medicare Drug Plan Which Is Now a $7.2 Trillion Unfunded Liability
1 posted on 03/18/2011 2:11:11 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Former House Speaker New Gingrich (R-Ga.), a likely 2012 presidential candidate, told CNSNews.com today that he does not regret supporting the enactment of the Medicare prescription drug plan which now presents the federal government with a $7.2 trillion unfunded liability.

From the taxpayers pockets to the coffers of the drug companies, make possible by the Fed Govt.

2 posted on 03/18/2011 2:12:43 PM PDT by mlocher (Is it time to cash in before I am taxed out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Why is it all these Republican hopefuls are sounding so wishy washy? Same thing with the GOP leadership in congress, they ran on getting rid of Zer0care and now they seem to be backing off. The Tea Party members are seemingly being left to twist in the wind.


3 posted on 03/18/2011 2:14:38 PM PDT by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

FUNG!


4 posted on 03/18/2011 2:14:38 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
New is Mitt Romney writ small.
5 posted on 03/18/2011 2:16:30 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
"... a likely 2012 presidential candidate..."

... a likely 2012 losing 2012 presidential candidate...

There, I fixed it. Go away Newt, you RINO!

6 posted on 03/18/2011 2:17:17 PM PDT by Slump Tester (What if I'm pregnant Teddy? Errr-ahh -Calm down Mary Jo, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Is this the President Bush must have prescription drug plan.....another 7 trillion on to the deficit. Wonderful. Now he is up to 12 trillion dollars that he alone put on the debt (he added 5 trillion during his presidency and he should get credit for this 7 trillion too).....of course that is only if this story is true. He sure did have his socialist ways.


7 posted on 03/18/2011 2:22:39 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

*FDR and the Dems gave us SocSec.
*LBJ and the Dems gave us Medicare.
*Bush and the GOP gave us govt drugs.
*Obama and the Dems gave us Obamacare.

Liberal socialism at its best. What’s next, Newt?


8 posted on 03/18/2011 2:25:21 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlocher
From the taxpayers pockets to the coffers of the drug companies, make possible by the Fed Govt.

This bashing of corporations is not even funny any more. Socialists have painted the world in the colors of their choice and you have swallowed it lock-stock-and-barrel.

Firstly, drug companies are not particularly profitable. They are made scapegoats, just as oil companies, by the Left, because it is easier to entice your hatred. You can go to Yahoo and check the profitability of drug companies --- and oil companies, while you are at that.

Secondly, what coffers are you talking about? You are still thinking of corporations as if this were 19th century of robber barons. It is not. Drug companies are owned by tens, if not hundreds, millions of Americans, especially retirees, widows and orphans. That is who holds the "coffers" of drug companies. If you have a 401K, IRA or a share of a mutual fund, chances are you own drug companies, Citi, BP, and insurance companies such as AIG.

Does it make you suspicious that you are angry at precisely what the leftist scum wants you to be angry at --- American corporations that have made us prosperous and doubled our lifespan in the 20th century? Does it borher you at all that you repeat, however accidentally, the same mantra that they peddle?

9 posted on 03/18/2011 2:31:36 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Did he mention Callista? He says her name about 40 times when Hannity interviews him for 5 minutes on the radio. I like Sean Hannity but he loves RINO scum.


10 posted on 03/18/2011 2:36:58 PM PDT by Frantzie (HD TV - Total Brain-washing now in High Def. 3-D Coming soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb

I’d say it’s the male GOP hopefuls. Nothing wishy-washy about Palin or Bachmann.


11 posted on 03/18/2011 2:38:47 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

He also sits on couches with Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.
I wouldn’t go to the same building with either in it.
You are over newt,
Go find another younger sportier richer model there pal.
NO more RINOs.


12 posted on 03/18/2011 2:44:33 PM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Obammy, the man is too small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Proof of the current republican leadership , they like spending just as much as the democrats. They were really happy during all of that lame duck spending. Hogs knee deep in slop.


13 posted on 03/18/2011 2:47:52 PM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I won’t regret not voting for the RINO Gingrich.


14 posted on 03/18/2011 2:53:04 PM PDT by CheezyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I thought that it was law that Congress couldn’t pass a spending resolution without the revenue to support it.


15 posted on 03/18/2011 3:00:11 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I thought that it was law that Congress couldn’t pass a spending resolution without the revenue to support it.


16 posted on 03/18/2011 3:00:11 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Does it borher you at all that you repeat, however accidentally, the same mantra that they peddle?

Before going off the deep end, I strongly encourage you to reread my comments, very, very carefully.

I was blasting the federal government for this program. The drug companies are merely the beneficiaries, but not the perpetrators.

No need to going nuclear on me, TopQuark.

17 posted on 03/18/2011 3:03:45 PM PDT by mlocher (Is it time to cash in before I am taxed out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark

“drug companies are not particularly profitable”

Unfortunately, in absolute terms, they are. Of the top 12 publicly owned pharma firms, profits in 2010 were at double-digit levels with very few exceptions, regardless of whether profits were measured as a percent of revenues, assets or stockholder’s equity.
2010 figures here:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/industries/20/index.html

What IS true, but rarely successfully conveyed to the general public, is that pharma is much riskier than other industries. Therefore, the cost of capital is higher (pharma has to pay higher dividends to stockholders or interest on debt in order to persuade investors to put their money into the industry). CBO and others have done careful studies showing that once you account for this higher cost of capital—reflecting the higher volatility of returns—pharma’s profits are only a teensie bit higher than what would be expected compared to less risky industries.


18 posted on 03/18/2011 3:05:38 PM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; Delacon; ...

Thanks Nachum.

I shudder to think how much worse Obama would have to get to lead me to throw up my hands and vote for Gingrich for President.


19 posted on 03/18/2011 3:12:50 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: SunkenCiv

I hate entitlements, just loathe them. This is one I cannot complain about. When I went to Med School, I was “taught” that more than 2-4 meds were unecessary. No longer - we have one of the worst life styles on the Planet and a long life expectancy. It is due, in large part, to medications. I only wish we could lower costs for everyone.


21 posted on 03/18/2011 3:21:19 PM PDT by AZFolks (uet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AZFolks

I know what you’re saying. When we had to start taking care of my MIL, I discovered she was on 16 or 17 different meds.
My amateur medical opinion was that amount of medicine could screw up any healthy person.

I think seniors who see a multitude of specialists wind up getting a lot of scripts.


22 posted on 03/18/2011 3:25:21 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DrC
Unfortunately, in absolute terms, they are.

That is exactly the point. That is precisely how the leftist media manages to anger the public. "ExxonMobil made $10B --- wow, that's a lot of money --- my money," think Joe and Jane.

Firstly, profit is not profitability. That is not profitability. Sure, $100 is excellent profit if you invested $200, but it's a lousy one if you invested $1,000,000. Neither pharma nor oil companies are particularly profitable --- as measured by return on investment.

And they cannot be particularly profitable. If they become such for a couple of quarters, people start buying more stock, the price of stock increases, and profitability falls.

Secondly, it is unfair to point to a particular year. Look at a decade of any pharma company or an oil company and you'll only confirm what I said. I don't recall people sending donations to ExxonMobil a decade ago, when oil was $11/barrel and the oil companies were loosing money. Nobody worried, "All those poor tens of thousands of people that are going to be layed off -- may be we should pass special tax cuts for oil companies." What I do remember is how people, even "conservatives," were urging special taxes on oil companies when gas was $4 and "record profits (absolute, of course) of ExxonMobil" was all over the newspapers. So, please take multi-year averages, as one should in such cases (more precisely, take total dollar profit in 10 years and divide by the initial price of the stock).

Finally, as you pointed out so well, it is not the profitability itself but risk-adjusted profitability that is the only correct criterion. Why do people buy a stock that grows 5% on average rather than another stock that grows 8%? Precisely because the latter is more risky.

So, do the writers in the media not know these basics that every finance or MBA student learns in his introductory course? Of course they do. But you never here any of that in the news. By hiding relevant facts and deliberately misusing the measures --- reporting profits rather than profitability --- the media is deliberately and grossly misleading.

What distresses me personally, is that they are winning even among the "conservatives" --- judging by the routine bashing of corporations, Wall Street, CEOs, bonuses, etc. without any basis in fact or reason. Just post something --- it does not matter what --- with the words "Goldman Sacks" and watch the sparks fly.

23 posted on 03/18/2011 3:28:57 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mlocher
Please accept my apology if I misread your comment: the sentiment it appeared to express is all too comment of FR. Like you, I blame the government --- for the socialized drugs and health-care, the bailout of Detroit, the housing bubble, etc. But at the same time, I try to remember that "corporate coffers" are not in the basements of corporate buildings but in the living rooms of tens of millions of Americans who own those corporations.

Thank you again for your clarification.

24 posted on 03/18/2011 3:36:02 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Go away, Newt. You had your day. It started out great (Contract With America). But it didn’t end well.


25 posted on 03/18/2011 3:49:13 PM PDT by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark

So are you really saying that pharma stocks are not particularly profitable, because they are priced too high?


26 posted on 03/18/2011 3:53:24 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
I think we are of the same mind on this topic. I agree with you that there sometimes is a sentiment on FR that one should use Big Government to do "Conservative Things", which of course is an oxy moron, so to speak.

At this very instant, I cannot think of a single social or economic problem in the US whose origination, or magnitude, is not directly linked to government rules and regulations.

27 posted on 03/18/2011 4:15:25 PM PDT by mlocher (Is it time to cash in before I am taxed out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
I think we are of the same mind on this topic. I agree with you that there sometimes is a sentiment on FR that one should use Big Government to do "Conservative Things", which of course is an oxy moron, so to speak.

At this very instant, I cannot think of a single social or economic problem in the US whose origination, or magnitude, is not directly linked to government rules and regulations.

28 posted on 03/18/2011 4:15:41 PM PDT by mlocher (Is it time to cash in before I am taxed out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

*FDR and the Dems gave us SocSec.
*LBJ and the Dems gave us Medicare.
*Bush and the GOP gave us govt drugs.
*Obama and the Dems gave us Obamacare.

DEE—PRESSING


29 posted on 03/18/2011 4:17:24 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Maybe Callista is insecure because she knows that marriage never stops him from clearing his desk with a new babe on top of it. (why, women? Why?)


30 posted on 03/18/2011 4:18:18 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mlocher

A a great man once said, government is the source of our problems, not the solution.


31 posted on 03/18/2011 4:18:43 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
I have a plan that will save all kinds of money and we would be a healthier society, too.

Simply stop taking all these drugs. They cause more trouble than they cure.

At our house, we take NO drugs and we are senior citizens are we are doing much better than those our age who are continually going to doctors and the drug stores.

Take a drug and run into side effects, which requires another drug to counteract that drugs, etc., etc., etc.

32 posted on 03/18/2011 4:26:24 PM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Just one more reason why I WILL NOT VOTE for this elitist Washington insider turd.


33 posted on 03/18/2011 5:03:31 PM PDT by ExpatGator (I hate Illinois Nazis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

should have never happened. There was no need. The poor elderly already got Medicaid to cover their meds. Now all those on Medicare no matter what their wealth get almost free medications. This was soooooooooooo stupid.


34 posted on 03/18/2011 5:07:17 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma

100 percent in agreement with you. It is amazing how many scrips doctors give to patients. It is definitely an endless cycle. I am so glad that you are healthy. Have a great weekend!!!!


35 posted on 03/18/2011 5:18:31 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
*LBJ and the Dems gave us Medicare.

To be sure, LBJ did press this entitlement to the Congress but the real force behind it was his vice president, Hubert Humphrey. It was Hump's baby.

36 posted on 03/18/2011 6:29:09 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

The mindset that all drugs are good and that more drugs are better is patently false. Drugs should only be used as a last resort.


37 posted on 03/18/2011 7:29:15 PM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Yeah, Newt.

You should throw your hat in the ring for 2012.

Go back under your rock, Newt.

And you don’t have to worry about getting cold. All this gloBULL warming (AGW) you believe in will keep you nice and warm.


38 posted on 03/18/2011 8:24:26 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Well said!!

Here I am, searching out page after page of the breaking news for “gingrich” so that I can throw replies onto the threads pointing out his RINO-ism...and worrying I was the only one!

Let’s not forget that this guy was on tour with leftists talking about global warming and how it was the fault of human activity.

Now he wants to be a candidate in 2012 so he takes pot shots at Obama...as if that will make conservatives forget about his relationship with lefties.

I agree, FUNG.


39 posted on 03/18/2011 8:26:40 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
What distresses me personally, is that they are winning even among the "conservatives" --- judging by the routine bashing of corporations, Wall Street, CEOs, bonuses, etc. without any basis in fact or reason. Just post something --- it does not matter what --- with the words "Goldman Sacks" and watch the sparks fly.

This tendency distresses me too because this sort of rank populism is employed by the left to undermine the entire capitalist system which conservatives ought to be defending.

This is a thread about Newt Gingrich and his support of the drug bill but if one bothers to actually view all of the videos on the YouTube thread starting with this report, one will see Gingrich criticizing the government's czar rolling back bonuses which he believes are inappropriate. No one says it better than Gingrich and no one can argue the case better than Gingrich.

Gingrich understands and can articulate that we are confronted by a concerted and calculated attempt to dismantle our capitalist system and our system of representative democracy.

For those conservatives who proclaim to the heavens that they will not vote for Gingrich, let them say for whom they will vote, and why, and why he or she has a better chance of winning than Gingrich, and whether such adamant refusal to vote for Gingrich extends beyond the primary to the general election?

Look at Gingrich's record while in office, consider his public statements since then, compare them to the rest of the field, eliminate those who cannot win, and tell us who is more conservative?

Gingrich is not perfect and he is not without baggage God knows, but as the man answered (to use an infelicitous analogy) when asked, "how is your wife," he said, "compared to whom?" Gingrich must be compared not to Ronald Reagan who is not available to run, but to the field and the field must be partly judged on ability to win. Neither Michele Bachmann nor Sarah Palin have a realistic chance to win. That is the regrettable but unavoidable reality. I would prefer either to Newt Gingrich but I cannot have them.


40 posted on 03/19/2011 12:51:34 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Newt is for Newt, not for our country. No more RINOs.


41 posted on 03/19/2011 3:22:42 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

"Sorry Newt. Life's unfair sometimes. Medicare Part D got me re-elected! Must have been those 'Daily Dose of Dubya' threads!"

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/19/happy-birthday-medicare-part-d

42 posted on 03/19/2011 8:03:42 AM PDT by KantianBurke (Echo Chambers are dull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
So are you really saying that pharma stocks are not particularly profitable, because they are priced too high?

I am saying that profitability is measured by the rate of return, i.e., profits divided by some base B. When you want some managerial subtleties such as how well the assets are used, you use company's assets as B. When people speak of profitability in popular terms --- "How much money does this company make?" --- that means how much its owners make, and B is therefore equity of the firm. Accordingly, profitability is earnings per share divided by the price of a share or, which is the same thing, the reported earnings of the company divided by the entire market capitalization. The last time I looked, pharma companies are not particularly profitable.

I have also mentioned that under normal free-market conditions, no industry can be consistently more profitable than others because of the free flow of capital. Suppose farma companies do become more profitable for a couple of quarters. Then you will sell your holdings in railroads and buy pharma stocks. This increased demand drives the price of pharma stocks higher and selling drives the price of railroads lower. Profitability of the former drops and of the latter rises. This continues until the (risk-adjusted, etc.) profitability of both become equal. So, yes, an industry can be more profitable than others in the short run, but that cannot be sustained over long periods of time. A report "Pharma industry has a very profitable 2010" may well be true, but not a report of the form "Pharma industry makes a killing, gouges consumers" etc.

And it is latter kinds of reports that you read in the newspapers. When gas was $4 and it was easy to anger the populous against the "evils of capitalism," they would constantly report "Exxon made record $10B in profit!" Well, it's not much if you consider that people ---- hundreds of millions of Americans and others --- invested $200B to make that profit. This is only about 8% return on their money: a few years back you could make 5% on your bank savings account without any risk and without doing any work. If newspapers said, "Exxon made 8% on its investment," people would yawn. It's so much easier for the commie newspapers to throw in a seemingly huge number like $10B --- that'll sure make 'em little people angry at the "capitalist pigs." This is nothing but manipulation by the newspapers.

That's essentially what I tried to say in the previous post. Sorry if I did not manage to make that clear.

43 posted on 03/19/2011 8:55:01 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark

I think you were unfairly shooting down the OP’s argument by defining profitability by ROE for a public company when, as you note, stock prices should adjust to equalize with the return available from other stocks and assets, risk adjusted.

Simple business margins are probably a more fair way of comparing profitability, since they do tend to differ by industry, which is what the OP was getting at.


44 posted on 03/19/2011 11:54:45 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
I think you were unfairly shooting down the OP’s argument by defining profitability by ROE for a public company...

I think I was careful to mention that there is not single measure of profitability and it matters whose profitability we are talking about.

I do believe that, when the public discusses whether pharma or oil companies make "fair" or "unfair" profits, the talk is about the "killing" that the companies' owners make. If so, this is return on owners' investment, i.e, equity.

when, as you note, stock prices should adjust to equalize with the return available from other stocks and assets, risk adjusted.

The tendency to equalize does not invalidate or make the measure impractical. Consider air in your room. If left alone, its temperature will equalize across the room. But that does not make temperature inappropriate or impractical as a measure of energy, right?

If I misunderstood your argument, please clarify.

Simple business margins...

I am sorry but I don't understand which margins you have in mind here.

are probably a more fair way of comparing profitability, since they do tend to differ by industry, which is what the OP was getting at.

That depends on what we are trying to measure. Again, media tells us, essentially, that owners of pharma make more money than others. How do you measure that? The only way I see here is to compute what those owners have made relative to what they invested.

I am not sure who OP is. My post was in reply to a post that linked to an article which gave profits and no ratios at all, and did so for a single year. That is both inaccurate and unfair: one cannot measure someones productivity by choosing a sinology minute in a working day, right? The media, the public and the policy-makers accuse pharma of gouging the consumer. That is a general statement, which must therefore be supported by averages rather than what happens on a single year. When oil companies were bleeding losses, I don't anyone suggesting that "the consumer is gouging oil companies."

So, if you want to establish whether there are unusual profits, it seems that multi-year profits relative to investment is an appropriate measure. To prove that pharma owners have unusual profits, one can take those profits for the last 5-10 years, divide by the investment into that industry, and show that this ratio is greater than the corresponding ratios for other industries.

Again, if I misunderstood your point, please clarify.

45 posted on 03/19/2011 1:33:12 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

a dreadful, pitiful history of entitlements. The giant is going down at the hands of the Lilliputians


46 posted on 03/19/2011 6:36:29 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Right on! There is a way around this and perhaps you can use it. EVERY visit I had my elderly take in a brown bag with ALL their medicine. You may find grandmom is taking the brand name and generic of something.


47 posted on 03/20/2011 11:58:46 AM PDT by AZFolks (uet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson