Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Prescription Drugs for Seniors
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Health and Medicine
Google
Amlord
Here's an article from National Review Online:
Costly Prescriptions

The AARP has recently endorsed the current version of the "Drugs for Seniors" entitlement.

But look at some interesting facts:
QUOTE
Americans as a whole spent one percent of their income on drugs in 2001, the last time the government tabulated the data. Americans spend less on prescription drugs than they do on alcohol, tobacco, and admission fees to concerts, movies, and cultural and sporting events.

The average senior spends $884 a year on drugs, roughly three percent of his income. This is less than the amount seniors spend on entertainment. "You could just as easily say that football was the problem," wagged Princeton health-care economist Uwe Reinhardt.

Private data tell the same story. Research compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that four in ten seniors spend less than $250 a year for prescription drugs. One in six spends nothing. The reason isn't complex. Seniors already have multiple sources of drug coverage, including employer provided retiree coverage, Medigap policies, and Medicare HMOs. Lower-income seniors often rely on Medicaid and targeted state programs.

Drug spending does appear to be a major problem for two percent of Medicare beneficiaries who earn less than twice the poverty level yet spend $4,000 a year on drugs. Yet a two-percent problem requires a two-percent solution, not the massive-yet-inadequate program Congress is contemplating.



The details of the plan:
QUOTE
Between its premium and deductible, a senior will have to spend $695 on pills before the new plan offers anything. Seniors can then expect to pay out-of-pocket for $481 until they've purchased a total of $2,200 of product. At that point, they're on their own for the next $2,844 in spending. It's only at that point, after a senior has spent $3,600 out-of-pocket on drugs and $420 on the premium, that the plan acts like a private prescription drug plan and pays for everything save a $5 or $10 co-payment.

The bottom line is that Congress is offering American seniors, 76 percent of whom already enjoy third-party prescription coverage, a drug plan with a $4,000 deductible. A private insurance company offering such a deal would likely have no takers.


Are the pols simply pandering to a voting bloc here? Most seniors do have some form of coverage for prescription drugs. Most currently pay LESS now then they would under the new plan.

I can take any group of individuals and find some "hard luck" cases in there of people who need more, want more, or simply demand more. I can give an example of someone's grandmother (probably Dick Gephardt's ermm.gif ) who can't buy prescription meds.

Do Seniors really need this "perk"? Is it a sound idea that the Federal Government provide it for them?
Google
Paladin Elspeth
For those who really need it, it's not a perk, is it?

I can think of so many other "perks" that, if refused to people, would not endanger their health in any way. This is a health issue, and as such, its importance is greater than whether an exec gets to take his family to Bimini next year.

The proposed prescription plan the AARP is promoting is hand-in-glove with what the President wants passed. Having had experience with HMO-type plans, I question that it would be more effective than what the seniors have now.

Wouldn't it be time better spent finding a way for prescription drugs to be less expensive in this country? It's the exorbitant cost of drugs in the US that makes health insurance providers balk at providing assistance of any sort.

(edited)
Amlord
Seniors are more caught up in the "prescribe something" culture in America than any other group.

Of course, they will, on average, have more prescriptions.

But using the argument that "if it helps one person, it's worth it" doesn't really fly with me. The fact is that the taxes needed to support such a program hurt people, real people. For every example given of someone helped by a program like this, I can show you an example of someone who is unemployed or bankrupt because of government regulations or taxes.

Government intervention, be it taxes or regulations, hurts businesses. They hurt individuals too. That's why we need to limit what we allow the government to do.

Does anybody think that when the government sets up a new program, it does so for free? No, it costs money, everyone knows that.

To me, once a "Senior Prescription Plan" is approved, there is no defense against a challenge under the 14th Amendment that I deserve the exact same coverage. Equal protection under the law. Why should I be discriminated against because I am in my 30s?

People need to stop and think where the money comes from when they demand new government programs.
Ultimatejoe
I hope you are being facetious Amlord; you know all too well that we DO consider where the money comes from, and any assertion otherwise is beneath you.

Sure, taxes can hurt people. So do people living in poverty, people spending more time in hospital than their homes, the mentally disabled, and any other group or social dynamic you can think of. What it comes down to for someone like me, is weighing the costs and benefits. If, as you suggest, prescription costs for seniors are as low as they are, then such a drug plan will not have a dramatic impact on the economy, while at the same time enabling people to live their lives with a modicum of dignity.
Amlord
I never said the costs for a prescription drug program would be low, I said the benefits would be low.

I was not being facetious when I said that most people do not consider the costs of a government program. I was being exactly the opposite: dead serious. I truly believe that lawmakers (especially) do not consider the costs of new programs (and expansions to existing programs) in real terms. Sure they bandy about number (10 billion here, 3 billion there...) but they really do not take into consideration where that money comes from...

The total federal budget (US) is $ 2.1 TRILLION. That is $7500 per person. Everyone should ask themselves: Do you get $7500 worth of benefit from your government?

Specifically, this program: does it benefit the country in general? Is there a better way? Would it be legal to exclude 30-somethings from such a program? Does it even help the people it is targeted at?

The answer to each of these is in question, so I am questioning the validity of the program.
Juber3
I think that it is a wonderful idea. Seniors need help with persription drugs and this will help them. Surley, this was a great idea. People who are retired (now seniors) dont get as much money as they use to get. This drug perscription plan will allow them to get cheap drugs.

HOLT OUT
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.