More For Medicare

As they say, them that has, gets.

Item One on "The Politicians' Rules For Success": Never underestimate the power of large groups of people who regularly vote.

We've never seen a specific number about this, but it is our perception that of the active members of AARP somewhere between 90 and 100% always use the voting booth. When you don't have a real job anymore, and the kids no longer need babysitters, what's to keep you from voting (as they used to say in Chicago, "early and often")?

Two current activities, one direct and the other indirect, indicate the power of a large, well-organized, voting bloc. The direct method being used by AARP is their involvement in a lawsuit against several drug manufacturers. In this legal action, companies are being challenged in the courts for practices which lead to higher drug costs.

Specifically, AARP charges that several pharmaceutical companies have restricted licensing some of their successful drugs to "generic" manufacturers unless the generics' price is very nearly the same as for the original agent. The generic advantage is thereby negated, and AARP is yelling, "Foul!" In this case, we are on the side of the plaintiffs.

The indirect effect mentioned above is manifested in the scurrying in Washington to see which political party can appear to be a better friend of the elderly. Each is promoting a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, and each is predictably claiming the other is doing it for political reasons. It seems there is to be an election held in November this year, and it looks like the test for survival is how one votes on the old folks' drug program. Forget about terrorism, kids and family programs, and the economy. They are going to be non-issues if AARP members have their way.

Of those two items of business on the AARP agenda, we're in favor of the first and opposed to the second. Our opposition is to any program which injects money into one portion of an economic system as a "solution" to a problem which has many facets. Money, or not having enough to buy certain medicines, is only one. Others are advertising pressure on patients and physicians, a tendency to over-prescribe drugs for conditions which will resolve by themselves, and failure by both providers and consumers to realize that "new" is not always "better."

If a generous (anything they send out of Washington will be "generous" to the Voting Addicted Medicare Gang) drug relief bill is passed, look for the following consequences:

1. Prescription drug prices will rise in a valiant effort to absorb the "new" money. (AARP will want a price freeze, but the pharmaceutical lobbyists will withstand the challenge.)

2. More patients will be given the newer (and more expensive) of two or three drugs for a condition, even though the doctor knows there is little difference among them.

3. Use of broad spectrum antibiotics (typically more expensive) will increase, and drug resistance by bacteria will keep pace.

4. More restrictions on the use of expensive drugs will be put in place by HMOs and insurance companies which don't deal with Medicare.

5. Hold onto your wallet if you aren't on Medicare. You'll need all your cash in order to buy prescription drugs for your kids or yourself.

6. Insurance premiums for everyone will continue to rise at their current, excessive rate.

7. Agitation for some form of national health program will increase (with England and Canada as the examples used to promote something similar here).

You might say, "Hold on! Aren't you overreacting here? After all, they say it's just $200 million or so we're considering tacking on to the Medicare budget." The short answer is, "No, this is our usual response."

"Means testing", a dirty word / phrase at AARP headquarters, would show that a small percent of seniors need help with their drugstore bills. (Their sad stories are trotted out by the TV news anchors to spice up the broadcasts whenever Congress considers prescription drug programs.) We should help them, and could easily and fairly cheaply do so.

It may be true that the ones who need help the most are not so likely to vote! We would hate to think that all of AARP's very active voters are simply greedy.