Steve,Issue discussion (please be respectful and positive - no personal attacks)

[GreatOwl]

Steve, I have moved to a new thread because I would prefer to explore the issues and not the candidates at this point. 

-------------------------
1.  National Defense
     A.  Strengthen the military & U.S. Intelligence
     B.  Secure the borders
     C.  Aggressively prosecute the Global War On Terrorism
     D.  Counter the gathering threat from the Peoples' Republic of China
     E.  Deter nuclear proliferation
F. Counter resurgent Russian belligerence


Keeping in mind that the US populace has a limit to how much more than can afford to spend on defending the world,  how do we do this without the help of the UN?  Our allies are not like they used to be.  I see them more likened to a scared bunch of children pushing their older brother forward to defend them.  Yup, many of them are right behind us ……………..  way behind!!!!!

---------------------

2.  Economic Strength
     A.  Resist and roll back Socialism
          1)  Reduce or eliminate wealth transfer programs
     B.  Stem the tide of off-shoring of manufacturing, especially to China
     C.  Reject "carbon taxes" and other global warming nonsense
     D.  Fix Social Security, which is undeniably insolvent
          1)  NO Social Security tax increase
          2)  NO increase in the income threshold subject to Social Security taxation
          3)  NO means testing
          4)  Establish a clear, quick path to privitization
     E.  Improve Health Care Delivery & Accessibility
          1)  Establish/improve portability of insurance coverage
          2)  Prohibit various insurance carrier abuses
3) Improve legal recourse for those denied coverage by their insurers

-------------------------

This one needs to be broken apart a bit more since, I am not sure I understand your claims of movement towards Socialism.  There exists a wider gap in wealth distribution than ever before.  I tend to blame much of this on the movement of our jobs to other countries.  Our statistical date on employment is very misleading.  Being able to subsist on the wages and benefits now offered compared to decades ago is just not possible for most in the lower income brackets.  Companies have been able to either move jobs out of country or have reduced hours of employees to a point where they no longer qualify for benefits.  Couple this with the rising cost of medical care and premiums and it becomes a disaster.  People simply can not find jobs which pay a wage which matches the demand placed upon their needs.

I agree, Social Security is broken.  I am not convinced that privitization is the answer to the entire problem.  When you have a ceiling on who pays social security tax and it has not risen proportionately with the cost of living or the rise in wages for the past decades, it places more responsibility on those who are less able to assume that responsibility.

I am still able to pay for premiums, but it does take a ever increasing chunk out of my resources every year.  In 2008 the premiums for health care and prescription drugs will raise nearly 40%.  This greed on the part of someone.  Our inability to obtain drugs from Canada has left us at the mercy of the American suppliers for medications.  As long as we create laws which reduce the competitive nature of any business, there is going to be price gouging.

------------------

3.  Law & Order
     A.  Remove illegal aliens from U.S. territory
          1)  Prosecute those who hire illegals
          2)  Deny birthright citizenship to all but the children of citizens and permanent resident aliens. 
          3)  Protect the sanctity of the voting franchise
          4)  Deny ALL benefits to illegal aiens
     B.  Deny Federal funds to States and jurisdictions that resist or undermine enforcement of Federal laws. 
     C.  Defeat the homosexual agenda
     D.  Fully enforce existing environmental laws
     E.  Defeat judicial activism
F. Enforce Americans' pension rights against their employers



I can’t disagree with many of these points, however, I am not sure that some of the points can be resolved without a major over haul of the constitution.  Judicial conservatism especially at the level of the Supreme Court appears to be a major stumbling block.  Even at lower court level it is impossible for a person of modest means to pursue any action against corporations or huge lobby organizations. 

I can not address all of the issues in this one response, however, I do feel you have laid the ground work for some interesting discussion.  I am not necessarily disagreeing with most of your points.  I am questioning whether we have the resources to implement and pay for much of this without a domino effect which again trickles down to those least able to pay for it.

[GreatOwl]

The caution of being respectful was not meant to be directed at Steve.  The thread title merely did not allow enough characters.  Steve has presented some very valid points on issues and done so in a matter completely in a respectful and positive nature.  If you have an issue with an individual candidate or party, please take that somewhere else. 

We have a very long time until the actual election and I would like to just focus on the needs of the country and those who are citizens here.

[mrs. red]

I will add to the discussion about how we stem the illegal alien bust on our system. There is an email going around entitled "How much does lettuce actually cost?"

The writer talks about by the time you add in the issues surrounding our resources the lettuce actually costs more by the hiring of illegals. There has to be some middle ground. 

I disagree with amnesty - why? I have seen the hardships endured by those that came into our country legally and actually contributed back.  I would venture to say that most of the Mexican illegals that come here do so for a better life - granted. But it is a startling point that the biggest export into Mexico is American Dollars. Same with several other countries... including Hondrus and Columbia - both of which have given us some incredibly bad gang members the M13, I believe it is called.

That all ties into the threat of terrorism... for me.  I think it's all intertwined.

Also, Owl I agree that these days there is no way that wages compete with the cost of living... which of course has, IMO helped to create the credit mess. Another thing that never existed before was the out sourcing of jobs to temporary agencies... who of course charge $7 an hour over the worker's wage... just so companies don't have to pay benefits like health insurance.

Our company has gone to a high deductable, insurance that is for catospheries and they actually contribute up to $200 per month for an account that stays with the employee once they leave the company and fully vests at retirement.  If one doesn't utilize the doctor's office very much it saves the company money and allows savings for the employees... just food for thought.

[GreatOwl]

Mrs Red, I certainly can't disagree with your assessment of those points.  I am not real sure what the solutions are in the long run.  When it comes to health care, I really do not have much choice.  My medicare continues to increase, as does the supplemental insurance and prescription drug coverage.  With drug costs going up it is very easy right now to reach a coverage gap since that is determined by how much a particular pharmacy charges here in America.  The drug costs here in the US are many times greater than out of the country.  I am not happy with laws preventing competitive bidding when it comes to our medications.

[SteveDinMD]

GreatOwl:

I'd first like to take up the issue of Social Security in detail, it being probably the nation's costliest crisis visible on the horizon.  The timing of the crisis is also helpful in that it affords us ample time to take corrective action.  The essential fact is that Social Security, as currently constituted, is absolutely INSOLVENT.  That is, its long term obligations exceed its assets and future revenue streams, by a wide margin as it turns out.  Eventually, unless something is done, this insolvency will manifest itself in bankruptcy in 15 to 30 years, depending on whom you believe.  How did we get to this point?  Since its inception in 1935, the Social Security "system" has suffered from many flaws and failings of stewardship.  One of the great myths created by the Left is that Social Security suffers from having too few workers currently contributing to be able to support the large number of beneficiaries.  This is like saying that the only thing wrong with a Pyramid Scam is the lack of "investors" at the end collapse.  The explanation is so utterly and obviously WRONG as to be an insult to listeners' intelligence.  For the record, how many contributors are required to support each beneficiary of a properly constructed, defined benefits pension plan?  The answer is ZERO.  Beneficiaries of such plans are paid from the accumulated proceeds of investments purchased with their lifetime contributions.  Period. 

If there really isn't a shortage of contributors, this leads us to the question, "What happened to all the money?"  In short, it was SQUANDERED, or at least spent on things other than its intended purpose.  How did this happen?  Proceeds from Social Security taxes have been spent by generations of politicians as though they were ordinary Government revenue.  In return, the U.S. Treasury has issued a special series of bonds to the Social Security Administration which, as I recall, earns interest at either the Federal Funds Rate or Discount Rate -- the shortest term, lowest interest rate in the USA, generally far lower than any other Treasury securities.  From an investment standpoint, it's ridiculous for an entity with an indefinite life span (like the Social Security Administration) to invest 100% of its funds in such short term, low yield instruments.  From the standpoint of the Government, however, this represents a wonderful opportunity to borrow artificially cheap money with which to finance ongoing operations.  Among other things, Social Security proceeds have over the years: 

1) in part paid for the New Deal,

2) in part paid for the Second World War,

3) in part paid for the Cold War,

4) in part paid for the Great Society welfare state, and

5) in part are paying for the Iraq War. 

Given such profligacy, it's no wonder, then, that Social Security is insolvent. 

What, though, is the solution to the problem?  Should we continue to rely exclusively on Government, or does the private sector offer legitimate alternatives?  Lets do a comparison.  For this purpose, I volunteer my own case, since just recently I studied our online "Benefits Calculator" at work.  I've been a Federal employee for 21 years.  For this entire period I've been paying total combined Social Security taxes at the rate of 15% of my gross salary, with my salary exceeding the maximum threshold the last 6 years.  Assuming the same contribution level going forward, I can expect at my retirement age (67 1/2) to receive a monthly Social Security benefit of a little under $2,000.00 per month.  For the past 21 years I've also contributed on a tax deferred basis 15% of my gross salary to my account with the Federal Thrift Savings Program (TSP), essentially a 401K equivalent.  I've been rather conservative -- probably too conservative -- with my TSP investment options to date, dividing my funds between Government securities and a broad market index stock fund, yet the power of the free market is staggering.  Assuming my same TSP contribution level going forward, and also assuming a relatively conservative return on invested funds, at age 67 1/2 I can expect to purchase a life annuity yielding a benefit of over $26,000.00 PER MONTH!!!!!  Granted, for the past 6 years my 15% TSP contributions have been made against a higher base than my 15% Social Security contributions.  Overcompensating by 30%, this still yields an $18,000.00 per month annuity from TSP -- over 9 times the benefit from Social Security.  It's no contest. 

In the above comparison, as in ANY fair test, the free market easily wins over Government-run Social Security every time.  Moreover, superior results don't require unique business acumen.  Any idiot could recreate the results cited above.  No one, given the choice, would ever voluntarily opt for Social Security over private, free market alternatives.  What should be obvious to anyone who cares to look, though, is that Social Security is actually IMPOVERISHING people rather than providing for their secure retirement income.  Social Security is a ridiculously poor pension plan.  Contributing to Social Security is the financial equivalent of throwing away 89% of your money right off the top, then investing the rest.  Every additional dollar a person "contributes" to Social Security makes him LESS able to independently plan for his retirement, and therefore puts him at GREATER risk of financial hardship in old age.  Why, then, do Hillary, Obama, and all the Democrats favor higher Social Security taxes and thresholds?  I personally believe it's because they want to drive people ever further into Government dependency in order to suit their political ambitions.  Since I assume they're not stupid people and that they can do the math, I have to conclude that they're evil and self-serving. 

What's my recommendation?  In that, I defer to logic.  The first rule of finance is: "Sunk costs are irrelevant; they don't affect the future."  By this rule, attachment -- emotional or otherwise -- to Social Security is irrational and counterproductive.  People should focus exclusively on the best future outcome rather than lamenting past misdeeds or wishing that Social Security had been better managed.  The second rule of finance is:  "Don't throw good money after bad."  Given our 70+ year historical experience, we can say with near absolute certainty that throwing additional money into Social Security makes no sense at all from the standpoint of future beneficiaries.  My recommendation, then, is a complete and immediate privatization of Social Security.  First, rather than contributing to Social Security, each employee and his employer can contribute equal amounts into the employee's self-managed Individual Retirement Account.  Second, the Government can establish a Net Present Value cash equivalent settlement with each future beneficiary.  Special series zero coupon bonds can then be issued in that amount to each beneficiary's IRA.  This accomplished, the problem is solved forever, and quite nearly everyone is better off.  True, it will be expensive, but not ruinous, as will be the case if we wait another 10 to 20 years.  The zero coupon bonds also have the advantage of being immediately cash neutral to the Treasury, allowing time to absorb the cost into the budget structure over many years. 

[Anna]

I think the first step is to stop the hemorrhage of money out of our government coffers by curtailing and repealing many of the social programs, especially those that have proven to have little or no actual value, which have been enacted into law by politicians on both sides in order to literally buy votes using our taxes.

Not sure about what comes next but I do think this would be a starting point.  Trying to match the socialist systems of the EU will result in the same things it has resulted in there, mainly just about bankrupting those countries that enact them.

Some day, we might actually be able to afford all those two month vacations and free health care, etc. but that time is not now.  Not for us and not for them as they all are experiencing financial problems as a result.  We have not yet achieved Utopia and need to realize that people are still basically responsible for themselves.

JMO
.

[GreatOwl]

Steve, what you write is something I do wish I would have had the option of doing instead of paying into a SS fund.  However, I am not real sure we have a society attitude of knowledge which would result in the majority of our citizens investing the money wisely.  While I certainly could have done a better job investing if I would have had the resources I contributed to SS there are those I know who could not.  We live in a society of gamblers.  While none of this will affect me in the long run I do shutter at the thought of people taking their funds to the casinos or lottery counters to invest in the big payoff. 

I happen to have worked with such a population and now volunteer in helping a large % of people who can not manage money.  These are the people who will need some kind of support once they reach retirement age.  If not SS then what?  We will just need to create some sort of extra support program for those people who have chosen to waste their opportunities.  I am always surprised when I speak with people about saving and they respond by telling me they live for today. 

I have not seen a privatization plan which addresses this issue.  You and I and perhaps a good percentage of people who read here would do great by investing ourselves.  I just happen to know a very large group that would not.


Anna:  Just what social programs do you have in mind that we can do without?  One of the major problems we do have now on a state and local level is that their are far too many Federal mandates of programs without attached funding.  We make laws which require services and then leave it to the states and municipalities to find a way to pay for them.   I am not in opposition to trying to reduce our social programs, I just don't know which ones and how we would go about it.

[SteveDinMD]

GreatOwl: 

Your concern about people squandering their retirement funds is, I believe, misplaced.  Consider this; if we can't trust people to care for themselves, how can we trust them to vote?  This, you see, is the Socialist Paradox.  In order to be able to provide for everyone's every need, under all circumstances, the Socialist State must ultimately assume absolute, tyrannical power over its citizens.  Freedom, by contrast, is a great, yet sometimes messy thing.  If we give people the freedom (and responsibility) to manage their own retirement finances, some percentage of them will undoubtedly act foolishly and lose all.  What might that percentage be?  Will it be 5%?  Will it be as much as 10%?  Remember; the alternative is Government run Social Security, which hasn't exactly set a high benchmark for financial achievement.  If, in their freedom of action, the people collectively manage to lose less than 89% of their retirement funds, they'd be better off without Social Security.  How can they fail to exceed THAT level of performance?  Frankly, it's inconceivable that the people wouldn't do far, far better than that; they do so in their daily pre-retirement lives.  It's obvious, then, that it would be far better to abolish Social Security and let some percentage of the people lose their savings than to mandate that the Government lose it ALL for EVERYONE. 

This brings us to an interesting point.  What would become of those who, in their freedom of choice, will have squandered their retirement savings?  It seems that we as a society long ago had implicitly decided that Government would assume the burden of providing for life's losers.  Would this not also be the case for indigent retirees?  It seems plain enough to me.  In fact, it would be no different than the current situation, except that it would be far more managable.  With Social Security abolished, the Government would need only concern itself with those who, for whatever reason, wound up destitute.  The vast majority of people would require no assistance whatsoever.  In fact, increased tax revenues stemming from increased private investment in the aftermath of Social Security's abolishment would make caring for the indigent all the more affordable. 

[LouiseVargas]

Wow, there is a lot going on in this thread. A lot of good points. I'd just like to present a case study (my experience).

I worked for many years, at least twenty years until 1998. In 1997, I got the SS Statement called "Your Personal Earnings and Benefit Statement from the Social Security Administration" and I get one every year. This notice was the first I ever heard about how age determines what benefits one can collect. For example, I can collect xx amount of $$ if I retire at 62. If I wait until I'm 66 I can collect more and if I wait until I'm 70 the payouts will be larger. There was no dilemma for me. Who knows if the world will still be here five years from now? We could be nuked. I applied in July 2006, a month before my 62nd birthday. It was very easy to apply by telephone and sign the papers sent to me and return them to SS. And with no trouble at all, in September 2006, the SS checks were automatically deposited to my bank account.

IT WAS EASY.  Just another story from the millions of stories in the City of The Angels from Louise

[GreatOwl]

Louise, you have made a wise decision.  As Steve will point out it is never wise to leave your money with SS once you have a chance of gain some benefit from it.  If you have an adequate amount of money to live on without SS then live on it and invest the excess. You can get a greater return on your money than will ever be realized by leaving it in the SS fund.

Steve,  I know exactly where you are coming from.  However, without going into all the statistical jargon of Standard Deviations I would predict that there would be far greater than 10% who squander their retirement opportunities.  I might even approach as high as 40%.  I agree about the voting aspect also.  Why trust them to vote, however, again we work with the deviation from the norm when it comes to knowledge and intelligence.  While I can not do it off the top of my head, i am sure that someone actually has predicted which class of people will stay home from the poles and why.  It has nothing to do with trust.

I have spent an entire professional career with those who fall below the norm in most categories and they certainly do not reason nor think the way you or I would.  I still would have liked to have invested my own money over the past 50 years.  Hell, I would like not to have to pay in to SS right now and use the money to invest the way I want to.  It is frustrating to see deductions from my Pension and SS money going into a fund which I know I can improve upon. 

Still I have to wonder how we are going to care for those who just either use very poor judgement or those who are not able to make the judgement for themselves.

[SteveDinMD]

GreatOwl: 

Based on your experience dealing with underperformers, I think you would find the Social Security Administration to be familiar territory.  The people there are drawn exclusively from the left half of the Bell Curve.  They're the ones I'm concerned about, sitting slack-jawed in their cubicles, squandering the collective savings of four generations.  By contrast, my fellow citizens providing for their individual retirements gives me not the slightest concern whatsoever.  Rest assured; people can be amazingly resourceful when they have to be.  I've seen many "uneducated" people achieve great affluence, but only in the absence of Government so-called assistance.  Not once, though, have I ever seen the beneficiary of a Government program achieve anything other than greater levels of dependency.  Independence, it seems, is life's greatest teacher.  It must therefore be encouraged if our society is to continue to lift itself to ever greater heights of achievement. 

At any rate, if people are unsure how to invest their retierment savings, they'll have lots of help in deciding what to do.  The private sector is already awash with financial advisors of every sort, and they're currently serving only that small fraction of the population that has disposable resources to invest.  If Social Security were to be abolished as I propose, the financial services sector will predictably expand by leaps and bounds to meet the needs of generations of new investors, guiding them toward financial optimality.  For the truly lazy or disinterested retirement investor, we can make things extremely simple By emulating the Federal Thrift Savings Program.  The TSP offers a limited but representative collection of funds and portfolios of funds, all index based with ultra low overhead.  Why not offer everyone the same set of options?  All a person would then have to do would be to check off his preferred investment mix.  If he failed to make a choice, his money could automatically revert to the lowest risk option -- the G Fund, exclusively comprised of Treasury holdings.  Even if he did nothing and would up in the G Fund by default, a person could expect to do at least three times as well as under Social Security.  If, after all this opportunity, a person were still to wind up indigent, then society will be called upon to support him in a manner prescribed by law, which would be the case anyway.  Frankly, I see no downside to my proposal.  The risks are more illusory than substantive. 

[GreatOwl]

I understand everything you have presented.  I will just have to digest the whole information package.  Since I now represent 7 people through full guardianships I know that there still will be a need for some assistance.

I am not sure what turning all this over to private providers will accomplish.  I do know that as soon as it is done there will be "financial advisors" coming out of the woodwork.  Those least able to invest will be the one's most likely to be taken advantage of by scams.

Private business and the government have both the same credibility issues with me.  I am pretty knowledgeable in handling my affairs, but I can tell you that Medicare Part D has become a nightmare.  Each provider, 50 plus and counting, has multiple programs and it takes days to analyze which one fits today.  A month from now it may not.  Then each year they change the guidelines and you have to begin all over again.

[SteveDinMD]

GreatOwl: 

You didn't realize it, but you touched upon a raw nerve for me.  Medicare Part D is a nightmare for MANY people, my mother being one of them.  Her story serves to underscore exactly why Government should NEVER be trusted to provide for people's basic needs, or to substitute its political judgement for that of individuals and the free market.  My mother worked as a teacher for a certain public school system in New England for 35 years, retiring in 2003.  She could have earned significantly more had she opted to work in a different school system, and believe me; the money would have been quite welcome with my sister and I being raised in a single parent, single income household.  Our mother, however, opted to work where she did in large part because of a superior benefits package, and a big part of that package included generous health and PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE in retirement -- no deductible and no annual limit for LIFE.  My mother, you see, didn't ever want to be a burden on her children in old age.  She was always responsible and future oriented, so we all did without, and my mother worked very hard for 35 years, thus reaching her well earned retirement. 

Fast forward to 2005:  My mother now suffers from severe rheumatoid arthritis.  The only thing keeping her alive and allowing her to exist without constant, agonizing pain are her monthly infusion treatments with a medication called Remicade.  With Remicade, she leads a near-normal, largely pain free existence.  Without it, she is completely incapacitated and wracked with pain.  Remicade is effective, but it's also expensive -- my mother's Remicade treatment costs well over $1,000.00 per month.  With her private prescription drug coverage, this wouldn't matter at all, except that Medicare Part D now threatens to destroy her life.  You see, the Medicare prescription drug legislation was only able to pass Congress with widespread corporate backing.  That backing was obtained only by including in the legislation provisions that allowed employers currently paying for their retirees' private prescription drug coverage to DUMP those retirees into Medicare Part D and pay the Government an annual premium amounting to but a fraction of their current outlays.  My mother's school district is now considering transferring its retirees into Medicare Part D, and guess what?  The Medicare Part D formulary DOES NOT INCLUDE REMICADE.  I've been told it includes Viagara, though, which pretty much tells you where the Government's priorities are. 

If my mother winds up on Medicare Part D, her monthly infusion treatments will not be covered.  She will be forced to bear 100% of her monthly medication bill out of pocket, which will amount to over 40% of her pension income.  This wonderful new Government "benefit" will have robbed a struggling single mother of her life's work, and at a time when she will be least able to absorb the loss -- in her infirm retirement.  I'm sure there are countless similar stories, but you never hear about them.  They're consistenly drowned out amid the universal media acclaim greeting each "compassionate" step toward Socialism.  Such is the case with every "universal" benefit provided by Government.  For some to gain, others must be sacrificed, with the process repeated until all have either been liquidated or enslaved to the politic elite.  If we wish for succeeding generations to know what it is to be truly free men rather than merely supplicants before the god of Government, we must take care to cut out this Socialist cancer before it metastasizes to the point of overwhelming our society.  Social Security is the primary malignancy.  If we can kill it now, its various offshoots may well expire in due course. 

[GreatOwl]

Steve, I can understand your frustration.  It is certainly justified.  I have no idea what State we are talking about and don't know anything the doctor approval for REMICADE, but I looked it up under just one of the programs I know about through HUMANA.  Here is the lay out of the cost.

0 - $275  - individuals cost is 100%
276-2510 - individuals cost is 25%
over $2510  - is again 100%
over $4050 - it drops to 5%

I run into problems myself with one or two medications when it comes to the coverage gap.  The keep widening it each year.  There is however some relief in 2008 after a person reaches $4000.

As I said, it is difficult to go out and compare all programs.  Using the Medicare sites helps some, but at times I do consult with a professional agent who happens to serve on an advisory board with me.  Without that help I would have difficulty tracking down all the possible programs and combinations.

[SteveDinMD]

GreatOwl: 

At your suggestion, I just looked up the Humana plans offered in my mother's coverage area on the medicare.gov site using their formulary finder.  It's not at all clear what they cover.  First, "Gap Coverage" is either unavailable or available for generics only.  Remicade isn't a generic, so it's not obvious to me whether or not the catastrophic cost limits you list are applicable to this particular medication.  I also looked up the plans' formularies.  Remicade is listed as "Tier 4" for Humana.  The various Tiers relate to different levels of coverages, the specifics of which were unobvious after my relatively quick investigation.  Then there's the issue of dosage.  Remicade is only listed at the 100mg/month dosage, which is a small portion of what my mother currently receives.  Is the coverage limited to that dosage?  Again, it's not clear.  Then there's the matter of how she would be transitioned from her private, retirement coverage to Medicare Part D.  Will there be limitations on her choice of plan?  I personally haven't the faintest idea.  It's apparent from all this that prospective subscribers to any of these plans need to exercise extreme care when making their choices. 

For her part, my mother has been following this issue with great interest, and her analysis from over a year ago revealed that she could be facing somewhere in the vicinity of $15,000.00 in annual out of pocket costs.  Now, it's entirely possible that coverage options have improved for 2008.  Even so, she could be looking at something like $4,000.00 out of pocket assuming a favorable scenario.  That's nevertheless $4,000.00 she wouldn't have to pay at all except for some stinking Government program and its so-called "help."  As far as I'm concerned, they can shove it.  It's possible the school district won't opt to transition its retirees, at least not this year.  There's considerable political opposition to this move, but it shouldn't have to come down to that.  My mother EARNED her coverage through 35 years of hard work and self-denial.  It's a crime for the Government to suddenly steal it from her. 

[SteveDinMD]

GreatOwl: 

If it's not too personal, may I ask how you came to exercise full guardianship over 7 people?  That's seems like quite a lot of responsibility for one person to bear. 

[GreatOwl]

Steve,  Many of the questions you ask is exactly the reason why I use an agent to help me research and file the paper work for Part D.  I can answer some of the questions and if I miss something just hit me with it again or get to me at g_owl@yahoo.com and I will give you my regular e-mail address. 

Yes, your mother may choose any plan she feels that would fit her particular needs based upon the prescriptions she takes.  The website for medicare will help to narrow the selection.  Once you have done that it is best to go directly to the website of the various companies to check out what their benefits are for 2008.  Each company and then each individual program has its own unique premium and set of deductibles.

It doesn't matter whether a drug is generic or brand name.  If fact, it is usually the brand names that would have the tendency to push the coverage past the "gap."  All are covered under every plan I have examined.  Since reaching the gap is based upon the actual cost of the drug and not just what we pay out of pocket it is also a good thing to locate the costs at different pharmacy's.  I have generally found that Sam's Club has been the least expensive, followed by Walmart and Target.  Many of these coverage companies have their own mail order program which is even less expensive  and it also can save a great deal of money.  I have yet to find a doctor who will not work with me in writing prescriptions to different places for different drugs based upon what the cost might be.

This all takes a great deal of work and it is wise to work through an independent insurance agent if possible.  Find someone you trust.  Most pharmacies will also provide a print out of current medications and how they relate to some of the best companies which is of course based upon their own retail price.  Remember that what is retail at one pharmacy may not be the same at another.  I have personally come across medications which would exceed $100.00 for one months supply and then picked up the same prescription at Sam's Club for $4.00.  You can no longer afford to go to just one pharmacy once you begin Part D.

There is an open enrollment each year beginning on November 15th and I believe it lasts until March first. (the last date I am not sure of)  A person can change companies or plans every year to fit their current needs.  I am currently making a change from United Health to Humana because of a notification that my premiums and co pay would be going up by 40% in 2008.  You need to shop these programs because they change every year.  It is how the insurance carriers make their money.  They can be very low in one year and then raise the next.  Those people that are lazy or not knowledgeable end up paying the insurance company back for the "down" years that companies use to gain clients.  It is not illegal, just free enterprise at its worst.

As to my guardianships, I spent my entire professional career working with those who had disabilities.  Mostly those with developmental, emotional and physical in nature.  I now volunteer with health and human services.  I take on guardianships that are appointed by the courts because those people are judged incompetent and either have no families or the families are unable to care for the individual.  The court appoints me and then I go through a screening process with the Social Security Administration.  I open up individual bank accounts for these people and take care of their financial needs and I also make medical decisions or even personal life decisions when it is necessary.  Most are either in group homes or institutionalized.  There are thousands like me around the country who do this on a volunteer basis because the Federal government has cut back the funding to so many of the governmental care programs.  While it has gone on for many years the biggest push came during President Bush # 1 and his "1000 points of light" initiative.  The unfortunate aspect is that it did open the flood gates to a great deal of abuse until some of the professionals who actually knew what was going on got into the volunteer programs after retirement.  There is still abuse going on, but it is gradually being weeded out by new policies in how we have to report and be accountable for our decisions.  I have to file several reports each year on each individual and I work closely with Health and Human Services to keep up with the needs.  I generally spend about 50 to 60 hours a month on issues related to these guardianships.  All of it is volunteer.

[GreatOwl]

Oh, if you do write to g_owl@yahoo.com please leave a message here because I do not always check that e-mail every day.

[pdh3]

GO and Steve - Great thread! Thanks for participating. You have a very civil discussion,full of information and food for thought. I have learned a great deal about Social Security in language that is understandable.


GO - God Bless you for your volunteer work.

Steve - If it does come to pass that your Mom loses her drug benefits, then maybe you can get the drug maker to provide the drug to her at a greatly reduced rate. We did this for my Mom, and her medicines, which would cost her over $1500 a month without help are now affordable. She is even receiving her diabetes supplies at a greatly reduced price. When she lost her drug benefits, we had no choice but to find an alternative way for her to pay for them. She needs her medicine to stay alive, and she could not afford to pay the costs out of pocket.

[GreatOwl]

I always thought I knew a great deal about all this until I turned 65 and started to really understand how much of a persons income can be eaten up by rising costs when someone lives on a fixed income.  It is true that my fixed income is somewhat artificial since i do have investments put away for later in life, but I do try to live within a fixed budget and each year that passes makes it more and more difficult.

I have been very fortunate over my lifetime to be able to save.  I don't know how some make it the way they do.  I can see how much of a struggle it really is.