Here's an article from National Review Online:
Costly PrescriptionsThe 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

) 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?