|
Edited on Sat Nov-12-05 10:57 AM by zann725
Just same old crap.
Check the details. ONLY "a third" of Senior Medicare recipients will benefit from new discounts.
AND, most importantly, ALL Medicare recipients must FIRST spend $3,600 out-of-pocket in prescription drugs, BEFORE their "discounts" kick in. Since most Seniors AND particularly Disabled who are disqualified from other discounts due to their slightly higher than Social Security income, will find it difficult, if NOT impossible to even first clear that $3,600 "bar." For many in both groups, it will no longer be a matter of cutting their pills in half to make their meds last budgetarily. As of 2006, paying $3,600 FIRST out-of-pocket, means most of both groups will NOT even be able to afford the pills to EVEN cut in half...because of this LARGE out-of-pocket "up-front" cost. Something the Neo-cons can't even begin to understand...or don't want to.
And these "discounts" include a heavy "reliance" on "generics." May I say that I am currently on a "generic" (to save $$), and like other generics, the quality is inconsistent, and doseage does NOT even feel similar from generic manufacturer to manufacturer.
And since Rumsfield is now in the "pharmaceutical" business, my (apologetically tin-foil) thought is that any "discounts" Seniors or the Disabled eventually get once they clear the $3,600 "bar," could quite possibly be experiemental generic drugs. As neither the Elderly nor the Disabled are groups that the Neo-cons wish to see continue receiving "entitlements." Given that, what kind of discount drug "benefits" do you truly believe are being offered?
|