Rob wrote- >Sure......but what is happening is that medical and drug coverage is >decreasing, and the patient has to bear the balance of what is no >longer being covered. > >I used to not pay for medication at all. Then for a few years I had a >10$ co-pay for pretty much every drug. Now I have a 30$ co-pay and >many drugs are not covered at all. >I know some older folks who pay a good percentage of their income on >medication. > >If these kinds of problems are not addressed, fixing Social Security >will not mean much for many many retirees and quite a few of the rest >of us.
Drug cards seemed like a good deal, but I found it interesting how it didn't take long to fall into just another insurance shell game. Used to be that people had "high" copays of 20% of the cost of their $80 meds. With a drug card they paid $10-15 and now many pay $20-25 (or up to $40 in our area) of what has now gradually become a lower price $60 meds. Some of the drugs are gradually becoming generic, but even those can be interesting. If I have a med that is roughly $7 per month, my insurance company would expect me to pay my $10 copay. As much as insurance/medicare reform might be needed, medication price reform should be on the table the same time. Another perspective to keep in mind is that many people do not "need meds" in the strictest sense.... many of you are "right" on that. As much as I, or others, may be against "unecessary meds"- I once had an interesting "adult learning experience" talking with a cardiologist. Many people can "avoid" blood pressure meds, etc for decades after the doctor advises them to start... but that could mean that the increase pressure on the eyes, kidneys, heart, could mean more medical problems or meds are needed later on. Her philosophy was "one drug now or 3 later in life". Just thought I would throw that out there, Dee _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
