Are seniors ‘entitled’ to prescription drugs?

In 1996, Bill Clinton and Al Gore won reelection largely because they
managed to scare one of the nation’s largest and most reliable voting
blocks, senior citizens, into believing that Republicans were going to
reduce or take away their Medicare and Social Security benefits. Only
on election night, after all ballots had been cast, did the major
network anchors and reporters begin telling their audiences that this
was not true.

With our aging population, the senior citizen block is more important
this year than it was in ’96, and it will become more and more important
with each passing election. It now appears that the 2000 election
hangs on which candidate can convince the nation’s senior citizens that
he will give them something (in this case prescription drugs) for
(little or) nothing.

If this works, 2004 likely will hang on which presidential candidate
can convince seniors that he or she will give them long-term care. What
then? In 2008 will the candidates promise to pay any outstanding
mortgages held by senior citizens? After all, some seniors who failed
to pay off their mortgages by retirement might be skimping on food to
meet these obligations. And what about giving them free food? You
might be able to get by without drugs, but certainly you can’t get by
without food. If we continue, by 2012 candidates will be promising
seniors new cars, or better still, the right to door-to-door
transportation? Does this sound ridiculous?

Certainly, there are seniors who are having trouble paying for all of
the aforementioned necessities, but does the fact that they simply have
reached retirement age make them “entitled” to these benefits? It does
not!

Our present retirees are in many ways the fortunate ones. They have
managed to recoup all of the money they have poured into the nation’s
retirement programs and then some. The payback for a one-earner couple
who retired at age 65 in 1995 is $2.6 in benefits for every dollar in
taxes, and that’s with a 2 percent real interest rate. Soon that will
be reversed. Those born after 1945 will not be able to recoup even
their initial investments.

Why should today’s workers bend over backward to see that our present
retirees receive more and more benefits when Social Security and
Medicare are going broke? Is it because, when politicians concentrate
on the few hard cases, we feel guilty or is it because most people —
even responsible people — simply cannot resist the lure of the promise
of getting something for nothing, if not now, someday?

Representatives of the American Association of Retired People are
making the rounds of the nation’s talk shows telling us that we must
guarantee prescription drugs for everyone in order to “preserve the
dignity of those who need prescription drugs but can’t afford them.”

Presently, 26 million of the nation’s 39 million retirees have
prescription drug coverage. Of the 13 million who have no prescription
drug coverage, another eight million are comfortable. “Enough” always
is defined as “a little more than you have.” However, only five million
of our senior citizens, who have no prescription drug coverage, have
incomes that make them vulnerable to rising drug prices. What the AARP
is telling us is that we must provide this massive new entitlement for
39 million seniors in order to preserve the dignity of the five million
who failed to prepare adequately for their retirements.

Is it necessary, or even a good idea, to go to such extremes to
preserve the dignity of those who never worried about tomorrow or who
blew all of their income during their working years? What is this
saying to the younger generation? “Don’t worry about planning and
saving for a rainy day or your retirement. If you get into trouble the
government is going to bail you out. Live only for today. Blow your
money on high living, drugs or gambling. It makes no difference because
the government will create an entitlement to cover over your mistakes
and preserve your dignity.”

To be sure, some people have fallen on hard times through no fault of
their own and are worthy of our help. That doesn’t mean we need to
destroy the options that currently are available to seniors in order to
create a one-size-fits-all plan to accommodate the needs of a few
deserving people.

When Medicare was created, there was no provision for medigap plans
with prescription drug coverage. There was no need. There were very
few miracle drugs. Those that were available usually were taken for
short periods of time. Today, new drugs offer hope that simply was not
available a decade or so ago. These new drugs are not only desirable,
they are expensive.

Today, most seniors have been offered a plan that includes
prescription drug coverage. Many of those 13 million, currently
without, turned it down. In other words, they opted to cover the cost
of their own drugs and spend the money that would have gone for
additional premiums on other things.

Sadly, some seniors simply were not adequately informed of this
option when it became available and, for those who truly need this
coverage now, that is unfortunate. However, many of these seniors have
children or other family members who are more than able to help these
individuals offset the costs of their prescriptions.

If you are retired, don’t fall for the old something for nothing
prescription drug benefit. It won’t be free, and studies have shown
that the new premium likely will be more than the average senior citizen
is spending on his or her drugs right now. If not, the program will
have to be heavily subsidized and your children and grandchildren will
be saddled with a massive new entitlement they cannot afford.
Presently, our effective tax rate is 33 percent. However, the lifetime
tax rate for those born after 1995 is calculated to be 56.3 percent, in
order to cover the cost of our government as it exists right now. That
is if there are no changes in Medicare.

If you are working, talk to your parents about their present
situation. If they are without prescription drug coverage, don’t miss
the blessing you will receive from sending a monthly check to help out
in this area. Churches, synagogues and charities should sponsor seniors
who are not classified as poor, but have serious health problems and
have fallen through the cracks. This is an extremely small percentage
of our elderly population. If we meet the needs of our own family
members and those in our community who truly need help, we all will come
out ahead.