Medicare drug cards will do little to help seniors
Published April 1, 2004
Re: New drug discount cards on the way, March 26.
It would appear that senior citizens are being duped even before the program begins. Each person must pay $30 in order to get a card (with the exceptions for low-income situations).
Your article notes that Dr. Mark B. McClellan, incoming administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, "said seniors will be able to know exactly what they would pay for a specific drug under each card before they enroll, rather than relying on vague percentage-off claims."
The card sponsors will be allowed to raise drug prices once the program is in effect. This will nullify the promise that senior citizens will "know exactly what they would pay for a specific drug."
The drug companies will not lose money on these so-called discount cards because they are already addressing that aspect by raising their prices and will be allowed to continue that practice.
Senior citizens will truly not be getting any relief in the cost of their medications and will have paid $30 for that "privilege."
-- Grace C. Forsythe, Clearwater
Watch out for drug card scams
In an announcement last week, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson made it known that 28 private companies have been chosen to provide prescription drug discount cards authorized under the new Medicare law. The cards will become available in May and go into effect in June.
How is one to determine which company to use? Hopefully, information on how to do that will be forthcoming.
Although the cards are not to be sold by any telemarketers or door-to-door salesman, there apparently is reason to be concerned that Medicare beneficiaries could be tricked into giving their Social Security numbers and other information to those presenting themselves as qualified agents.
-- Nathan L. Belkin, Clearwater
They're using our money
In the March 29 letter, Medicare mess should be no surprise, the writer wanted to know how much of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent for Medicare ads.
Our president is utilizing $9.5-million of our taxpayer monies on TV advertising, another $3-million of our money on Internet and newspaper advertising and is mailing out 40-million letters to those enrolled in Medicare, according to information revealed in recent televised investigations.
You bet it's time for a change!
-- Myrna B. O'Sullivan, Dunedin
Stop the political juggernaut
My father once told me that to stop a boulder from rolling down a hill, one needs to find a substantial barrier to stop it with.
The time has come for the average American citizen to become that barrier and stand firm against the political machine that is rolling down the hill at such a speed that it can hardly be stopped.
This is not hard to see when the lawyers overcharge for everything they do, and that includes the things they cause to happen through legislation (those things for which one must now hire an attorney, or else). The same applies to doctors who do the same thing, and especially the drug companies that excel in that area.
I can remember when the drug companies' excuse was "drugs cost so much because so much money is put back into research."
Unfortunately, we all know just by reading your newspaper that the government subsidizes those research programs. The colleges and universities take part in those projects, and states like ours even pay large companies out of tax money to move to their state and give the companies more handouts.
The time has come to say "no!" We are all sick and tired of watching the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer, and there are few "in between" financial areas left. Hard work does not pay any longer when after retirement you cannot live a decent life if you have any illness at all.
Social Security benefits rise substantially less than congressional retirements and wages do. Medicare benefits cost much more and we get much less than Congress does.
Something is wrong with this system, and it is time we get our heads out of the sand and look the problem square in the eye and do something about it.
-- Thomas J. Ault, Inverness
State priorities out of kilter
Re: Painful cuts loom for Medicaid, March 29.
Why is it that the great state of Florida has bushels of money for the Scripps Research Institute's venture in Florida, then openly states that painful cuts loom for Medicaid?
Something is very much out of kilter. I am not on Medicaid, but I feel deeply for the people who are.
-- Paul Levinstein, Seminole
Paying for Social Security
There are two ways that government can raise money to pay for things. Government can borrow money, incurring a deficit and the interest that the people must also pay on the debt, or government can raise taxes to pay for services.
When taxes are raised, we pay as we go and there is no interest to pay on increased debt. We make a more secure future for us all by not saddling our youth with greater debt that is really ours.
I recommend higher Social Security taxes now and a suspension every other year of the Social Security annual cost-of-living increase to secure Social Security for the future.
Let's not burden our children and young people with the responsibility of supporting us when we retire and the responsibility of paying back a huge debt plus interest.
-- Harvey William Hugunin, St. Petersburg
Church should reach out to all
Re: For Methodists, verdict launches combat, March 30.
I just don't get why being a homosexual is such a big deal for the Methodist church. Why would Methodists, or any religious group purporting to spread Christ's message of love, want to exclude other human beings? I attend a Methodist church and teach Sunday School, so I thought, "Hey maybe I missed something in the Holy Bible they presented to my daughter." I looked through the concordance in the back of the Bible. Homosexuality isn't even listed. Neither is divorce. Adultery is though. Maybe we better sniff out all those adulterers taking up pew space better filled with purer souls.
Wait a minute, up in the front section, it states that "Surely the fundamental truth of the Scripture is that God is love and that we are called to be in loving relationships." This was Jesus' radical message, and Jesus was indeed a radical guy who often went against the standards of his time. It seems to me that Jesus would want anyone acting on his behalf to embrace, not shun, anyone seeking to hear, or in the case of the Rev. Karen Dammann, to spread, his message of love.
The Methodist church should be there to reach out to everyone seeking spiritual comfort and community, gay or straight. It is the loving thing to do.
-- Maryellen Mariani, Seminole
Courage on display
Re: For Methodists, verdict launches combat.
I am not surprised the verdict of not-guilty by the United Methodist Church in the case of Rev. Karen Dammann proved to be devisive. When such decisions are made, people who are afraid of change or lack the ability of broader understanding, will feel threatened. I applaud the moral courage of the Rev. Dammann, a pastor who also happens to be lesbian, to remain steadfast in her decision to stay within the Methodist system and pursue her rights even though it was emotionally draining. A less courageous person might have given up.
A recent letter writer opposing the verdict stated: "Sin is defined in God's terms, not what humans want to be right or wrong." I concur completely and see this supports the Rev. Dammann's position that she is doing what God wants for her within the Methodist church, although it is different from what some others within the church may profess.
-- Eleanor Cecil, Tampa NOW, Lutz
Kerry's use of Scripture isn't offensive
Re: Kerry's use of Scripture draws retort, March 29.
Sen. John Kerry's use of Scripture to criticize leaders who consistently talk of compassion and justice, but then take the opposite route in their actions, is hardly offensive. Indeed, this goes to the core of James 2:14 when it is translated to the mostly secular public sphere. We have a president who never misses a chance to have a photograph taken with a worker, a senior citizen or a poor child, but then passes $3.1-trillion in tax cuts geared toward the wealthiest 5 percent, ignores calls for investments in education, jobs and health care and deems a $5.15 minimum wage for the working poor to be dignified. This president embraces the hard-pressed poor, but then works tireless for the hard-pressed rich.
Indeed, it is the Bush administration which should be ashamed in its use of religious faith as yet another "divide and conquer" political tool. Time and time again, this administration has sought to capitalize on the religious divide in this country by appealing not to the religious and civic values that unite us but, rather, to the cultural issues that divide us.
The central truth is that religious teachings should not necessarily affirm an elected official's politics in a free society such as ours. Religious faith can certainly be a factor in our politics. For example, religious faith can be a contributing factor in such issues as the protection of God's earth, religious liberty, protection of all life, civil rights, poverty, peace and justice issues. However, the problem arrives when politicians have absolutely no justification for the laws they seek to implement on others other than their religious faith. Therefore, Roman Catholics, and I count myself as one, should allow their faith to inspire their public positions, but not lead them to the point where they serve as a burden on the otherwise free rights of others to live in a free society. Religious faith can serve as a personal moral compass, even a general social moral standard, but never a sole justification for passing something as repressive as a law inhibiting the free exercise of religious faith or intruding upon the privacy of others.
-- Luis Viera, Temple Terrace
Separate church and politics
Re: Kerry's use of Scripture draws retort.
The only retort due John Kerry - or any political candidate who "campaigns" in any house of worship - is to ask: Where are the First Amendment purists who complain about any governmental connection with religion?
I never see any outcry about candidates from any political persuasion using pulpits for propaganda. Houses of worship - tax exempt buildings - should be used for their intended purpose. I trust that a collection plate is never passed to line an invited candidate's war chest while he or she is stumping in a house of worship. Why any pastor would turn his pulpit over to any candidate is beyond my understanding of "worship." My purpose in going to worship on my Lord's day is just that - and to escape the world for a brief time.
Where are those who cry (mostly incorrectly) about the "separation of church and state"?
Where is the proper retort?
-- Kenn Sidorewich, Oldsmar
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
