What AARP doesn't want you to know about Social Security

[Antigen]

http://www.atgpress.com/guest/gu043.htm

 

     "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic" Dresden James

The following was submitted to AARP and they refused to print this in their paper. They are supposed to be an organization formed to protect the Retired people and this is one of their aims listed on their web page.

AARP is a strong advocate in addressing the issues that
are important to the 50+ population. Whether ensuring
the long-term solvency of Social Security or protecting
pensions, prescription-drug coverage in Medicare or
patient protections in managed care, long-term care or
living independently, AARP is a dynamic presence in the
nation's capital, in state houses across the country, and
in the courts advocating on behalf AARP members and
their families, making sure their voices are heard.

Was it because they are government incorporated and therefore are a government controlled organization and do not want the truth out, or was it because they believed the quote above by Dresden James? I do not know, you will have to ask them. So here is the article they did not want to print for you fellow AARP members and soon to be members and others interested.

7055 Mountain Rd.
Oxford, North Carolina
November 21, 2001

Modern Maturity
C/0 Editorial Submission
601 E Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20049
292 434-6830
http://www.aarp.org

Dear fellow members of AARP,

Since I am a legal researcher, I was presented with the SS Fraud article from an email that appears herein and read it. I have cut parts to save space because what I have is longer than Mr. Richman who wrote the article. I had to dispel some of the myths that even this writer, Sheldon Richman, had on Social Security and to support what he did find about Social Security with legal documents. So we go first to the article, then to the legal support for just what Social Security is not, based on my research over the years including all the government documents that support the authors findings.

The Social Security Fraud
by Sheldon Richman, September 2001

" Treasury Secretary Paul O?Neill upset some people recently simply by telling the truth. He had the temerity to say that the Social Security Trust Fund has no tangible assets. It?s empty.

O?Neill is right. The Trust Fund is a figment of our collective imagination. There?s no "there" there. It doesn?t exist.

Every cent that the American people pay in FICA payroll taxes is immediately spent. Anything left over after the current retirees are paid off goes into the general treasury where it is used, first, to make up any operating shortfall, and then to pay the government?s creditors. The Social Security Trust Fund is credited for that money in the form of nonnegotiable bonds that purportedly earn interest.

In other words, there?s no difference between having the trust fund and not having it.

It?s worse than a fiction. It?s a lie. Rangel may believe Social Security holds tangible assets, but no one else who has taken a close look could possibly think that. From the start, Social Security propagandists, led by Franklin Roosevelt, have tried to make the American people believe the system was like any private-sector pension program. They called taxes - - i.e., forced exactions under threat of imprisonment - - "contributions" and conjured up the phony-baloney trust fund. They wanted us to think that the money we "contribute" is put away for us individually, somehow invested so that when we retire we can draw a return on our money.

Nonsense! There can?t be a return: our money is consumed and gone forever. All the politicians really promise is that when we retire they will tax someone else and give that money to us.

I guess you could say that Social Security really does hold tangible assets: the taxpayers. But that sounds more like a hostage-taking or slavery than a pension program.

They also made Americans believe that employers contributed to the system. What a crock! It only appears that workers "contribute" about 6 percent of their wages, matched by a like amount from their employers. In reality there is no way that employers can make a contribution. Anything they pay is simply another form of compensation to their workers. If there were no Social Security, that cash would go directly to employees. The employer contribution is another illusion in a thoroughly dishonest system."

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of
Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered
Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State
***************************

My letter of response to the Future of Freedom Foundation writer Sheldon Richman.

Dear Sirs;

The article written on Social Security is kind of out dated as this was known by me back in 1955. Many other researchers know this also, so it is not new to us, but maybe to the writer Sheldon Richman. The documentation is overwhelming and it comes from the government itself. For your information here is part of the documentation to support the words of Mr. Richman.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY!

This was stated in two cases in the 1930's by the US supreme court and in the 1953 Congressional Hearings that I have. Here is the court case with the courts reasoning, which shows two distinct taxes proving the employer never pays the "other half" to your supposed account.

"The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935, c. 531, 49 Stat. 620, 42 U.S.C., c.7,(Supp.)) is challenged once again. In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, decided this day, ante, p. 548, we have upheld the validity of Title IX of the act imposing an excise upon employers of eight or more. In this case Titles VIII and II are the subject of attack. Title VIII lays another excise upon employers in addition to the one imposed by Title IX (though with different exemptions). It lays a special income tax upon employees to be deducted from their wages and paid by the employers. Title II provides for the payment of Old Age Benefits, and supplies the motive and occasion, in the view of the assailants of the statute, for the levy of the taxes imposed by Title VIII. The plan of the two titles will now be summarized more fully. Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an `income tax on employees,' and `an excise tax on employers.' The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. § 801 The excise tax on the employer is to be paid `with respect to having individuals in his employ,' and, like the tax on the employees, is measured by wages. § 804 . . .. The two taxes are at the same rate. §§ 801, 804.
.... The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like the internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. § 807(a)." Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 634, 635. Emphasis added. "

And in a summary this is what the court also stated
1. The Social Security Act may be amended or repealed at any time. (Can?t repeal insurance)
2. The Social Security System is a form of social insurance. (A bald faced lie as you will read.)
3. Social Security is a tax.
4. The foundation of Social Security is founded upon predictions of economic conditions "which
must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate."
5. Employees have no contractual interest in Social Security.
6. "Congress included in the original Act and has since retained, a clause reserving to it the right
to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the act 1104, 49 Stat. 648 42 USC 1304.
Fleming v Nestor 363 US 603.

1. The tax on employers is an excise tax.
2. The tax imposed on employers is constitutional. [sure, because the employer is one created by Congress and is not the private sector employer)
3. The tax is an excise on a business pursuant to the Congressional power to tax in Article 1,
Section 8.
4. Social Security is not an accrued property right.
Stewart Machine Company v Davis 301 US 548.

Here is what else the Helvering court stated;

"Title II has the caption `Federal Old Age Benefits.' The benefits are of two types, first, monthly pensions, and second, lump sum payments, the payments of the second class being relatively few and unimportant. The first section of this title creates an account in the United States Treasury to be known as the `Old Age Reserve Account.' § 201. No present appropriation, however, is made to that account. All that the statute does is to authorize appropriations annually thereafter . . . Not a dollar goes into the Account by force of the challenged act alone, unaided by acts to follow." pg. 635, 636. Emphasis added.

This is what Congress has done since the inception. It made "appropriations annually" from the general treasury as there is no trust find at all, just as the 1953 Congressional Hearings brought out. It's all a Ponzi Scheme that somehow got legal because government did it. Not only do the courts recognize there is no trust fund but others do also. Quoted by Warren Shore in SOCIAL SECURITY: THE FRAUD IN YOUR FUTURE. The Macmillian Co., N.Y. (1975) pg 22;

"Obviously, there is no pool, just as there is no trust funds. Both words remain in the Social Security Lexicon not because they are true, but because they help foster the notion that Social Security is like insurance with its premium pools and trust funds regulated to support the promise made."

The people out there have no idea what is going on as long as Congress throws them a bone once in awhile and constantly lies to them. Here is the kicker directly from the man who started this Ponzi Scheme in the Congressional Hearings. [Read on, Steve, - as I was writing this to another researcher---]

Steve, whoever did the research overlooked the 1953 Congressional Report where Mr. Altmeyer recanted his 1936 statements and stated just the opposite that it is not insurance and that there were mistakes made in 1936 and wrong information published because it is not in any way shape or form a Contract of insurance at all. Why was this not found? I found it 7 years ago. The Informer put it in his The New History of America in 1996, so why did not these learned researchers find this report? I believe it can also be found on http://www.atgpress.com site Here is Altmeyer's statement before the House.

SOURCE: Analysis of The Social Security System, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Eighty-Third Congress, November 27, 1953, Part 6), starting on page 881;

page 881;

MR. WINN. Did the social-security law as enacted on August
14, 1935, designate the title II arrangements as insurance, Mr. Altmeyer?
MR. ALTMEYER. No. It did not.
* * * *
MR. ALTMEYER. Yes, Sir. Now, in justice to Mr. Witte, and
because of the importance of this legal question, which I
have no doubt will be raised, and has been raised by the
chairman of the subcommittee on previous occasions, it is
important to note that Mr. Witte uses this expression
`insurance contract' not as a lawyer would use that term.
This insurance is established as a matter of statutory right.
There is no contract between the beneficiary and the
Government.
MR. DINGLE. Congress knew that, did it not?
MR. ALTMEYER. Yes, of course. I'm sure it did.
CHAIRMAN CURTIS. Mr. Altmeyer, is it your view that the title
II does not provide an insurance contract?
MR. ALTMEYER. In the sense of an individual contract it does not.
CHAIRMAN CURTIS. The individual who perhaps was 21 years
of age in 1937 and who has been in covered employment
since then, since 1937, and will have to continue to pay
these taxes until he is 65, has no contract? Is that your position?
MR ALTMEYER. That is right
CHAIRMAN CURTIS. And he has no insurance contract?
MR. ALTMEYER. That is right.

There it is right from the man himself. What SS is, is a flat rate income tax. One on the employee and one on the employer, and, they are totally separate and the employer DOES NOT match the employee's tax. That is a fraud of monumental proportions. Even in this 1953 House Committee Report they quote the supreme court case exactly as I did before in this expose letter, that states there are two separate taxes. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court also cited;

MR. WINN quotes from a court case concerning Title II to
Mr. Altmeyer:
"Moreover, the act creates no contractual obligation with
respect to the payment of benefits. This court has pointed
out the difference between insurance which creates vested
rights, AND pensions and other gratuities, involving no
contractual obligations, in Lynch v. United States (202 U.S.
571, 556, 557." Is that a correct statement Mr. Altmeyer?
MR. ALTMEYER. Do you mean does that appear in the brief?
MR. WINN. Yes
MR. ALTMEYER. Yes, it does.

Dear readers, Mr. Winn then cited the case I cited above Helvering v. Davis. It would be good to go back and read it and it will take on a much different light.

So now Steve, you can tell the researchers they can research this also. Pretty damning evidence, that fraud abounds, huh? What is interesting is when reading the 1953 report it clarifies what a lot of us have been saying for years and no one wants to listen. SS applies only to federal employees operating under federal corporations and not to the private man. Here is one small piece of that puzzle from that 1953 report. It is a much over looked part.

COVERED EMPLOYMENT is the key word overlooked and applies to federal workers. That is why it is titled FEDERAL Old Age Assistance. It does not say NATIONAL does it. In legal terms a Big distinction right? Think covered employment does not mean only federal workers? Here is proof that it does right from the same report within minutes of the covered employment statement when they talk about federal workers.

MR. ALTMEYER. * * * Now, it is inconceivable to me that the
Congress of the United States would ever think of taking
action to prejudice their right that have developed under
existing legislation. On the contrary, the Congress of the
United States has continually improved, increased their benefit rights.
MR. EBERHARTER. An unmoral Congress could take away a
veteran's pension. An unmoral Congress could take away
the retirement benefits of the civil-service employee, could
they not?
MR. ALTMEYER. I think so.


Who are they talking about? The CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE. Whose benefit rights? Now who might that be, me, you? I never worked for the civil service of government, have you or anyone else on this board? I doubt it but there could be a few. Did they talk about the private sector worker? Absolutely not. Remember Railroad was all owned by government and that is a civil service employee they are talking about as the Federal Government owns those corporations.

So there you have it. There is much more research I have on this subject to make people want to go out and lynch every Congress critter who are all criminals. As said by Mark Twain _HERE IS THE EXACT QUOTE after this letter was written and is now added 3/12/02

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress"

The 1953 Hearings also stated that the IRS considers the SS benefit as a GIFT. That's right a "GIFT" and when Congress wants to stop that annual gift, they can do so and people have no recourse whatsoever. Steve, I really feel sorry for these people thinking they have some wonderful government when they have been stolen from all their years and that includes me. No, don?t get me wrong, I am not feeling sorry, just extremely angry and frustrated that people can be so ignorant. I guess being unaware of being unaware is bliss until SS can?t support you when you depended on government telling you it would when it wouldn?t.

There is one more puzzling item and that is that the Social Slave number, oops - - sorry - Social Security number, is a taxpayer ID number, NOT an insurance contract number EXCEPT for one instance. (It is a taxpayer ID because of the "special income tax" collected as the court stated.) When the Social Security number has a letter after it such as an "A" it no longer is a taxpayer ID number. This is found in 26 CFR 301.7701 (11) wherein it states "Such term (Social Security Number) does not include a number with a letter as a suffix which is used to identify an auxiliary beneficiary under the social security program. Source Treasury Decision 7306, 39 FR 997, March 15, 1974

What is disturbing is the term auxiliary beneficiary. So who is the real beneficiary if I am only an auxiliary beneficiary? Look to the legal dictionary and standard Webster?s to see the definition of 'auxiliary'. You and I know legalese and this is very frightening when still we are not the beneficiary, until I remembered the court and the Congressional Hearings saying we have "no contract," "no insurance" and "no rights to Social Security" and the IRS even acknowledges what we get is a "GIFT." It is now very clear how the fraud works on the people of America who are simply auxiliaries to Congress, as Congress, who are the real beneficiaries, in that they used the money from day one as it was put into the general treasury and as the court stated "not earmarked in any way" regardless of any other subsequent laws passed. What a corrupt government. There is no way the average or above-average layman would understand this. Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing on March 4th, 1933, when allowing the private Federal Reserve banking cartel to change The Trading with The Enemy Act to include the people of America as the enemy of the banks so they could institute the tracking number (SS#) to pay the sorely need money under the guise of an insurance premium when all it was , was a special income tax as stated by the court. Guess this is why Congress (beneficiary) can retire with full pay while we (auxiliaries) are left with the crumbs thinking there would be enough money to live on at retirement age due to all this so-called interest that would accumulate. Compare the interest on life insurance you get and ask, where is the accounting of the interest on Social Security that I should have received? It just is not there, just as there is no trust fund.

Sincerely;
Albert

Now after this letter was written the article that was most interesting for those that want to read it, which supports what I said, click on this--

http://www.atgpress.com/inform/ss003.htm.

All you retired and people receiving SS or SS disability benefits - what do you now say to people or government, when they ask you for a SS number when the law clearly states you don?t have one?

And for you young people still paying, you can read the following to see what "covered employment really means. http://www.atgpress.com/inform/ss002.htm

Now why would the AARP organization not want to publish this so the AARP people receiving the Social Security would know the truth. What has happened is that the lie of Social Security is ingrained in all of us so much so that Congress cannot disclose the real truth for fear of being hung by the people, YOU, they defrauded all these years. The reason they want to privatize the SS or put it in stocks is because then they can say, when it collapses, that they cannot be held accountable and that?s the breaks of the game and they are off the hook. They know they can do it no other way. With the Enron going under and God knows how many more, how would it affect you if Enron company had most of the so-called SS money dumped into it? Where would you be now is the question?

I just can?t believe that AARP would not print this article when their goals are stated as such:
                                 AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership
                                organization for people 50 and over. We provide
                          information and resources; advocate on legislative,
                          consumer, and legal issues; assist members to serve
                                 their communities; and offer a wide range of unique
                                 benefits, special products, and services for our
                                 members. These benefits include AARP Webplace at
                                 http://www.aarp.org, Modern Maturity and My Generation
                                 magazines, and the monthly AARP Bulletin. Active in
                                 every U.S. state and territory, AARP celebrates the
                                 attitude that age isn't just a number - it's about how you
                                 live your life.

If you have questions then contact AARP and ask why did they not want to print the truth for you to see rather than making me put it on the internet? Are they your advocate AARP members, when they have a truth and don?t want their members to know it? Remember the quote at the very beginning of this and ask yourself, is this man, I, a raving lunatic? Remember the majority of this message is from the government documents and court cases of the Supreme Court decisions and others that cannot be refuted.



 

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
-- Ashleigh Brilliant

[Anonymous]

That is interesting, here is what
I know, or think is true.

Social Security does pay 45% of the
US medical bills, prior to the
Medicare Part D program. Now it will
be more.

When Bush said the fund was going to
run out, the social security actuaries
uses a very conservative 1.5% US GNP
growth rate. Historically the US grows
at 3.0%. This last year has been at
4.2%. So funding the fund is higher
than ever on an annual contribution
analysis.

The fund?

Yes, the US Govt. borrows from it and
issues notes against it.

So does anyone borrowing from the US,
most notabley Japan and China and
most other nations that run in the
black.

Nation's and investors buy US Securities
because they are the most stable in the
world.

So, although the points brought out in
the article are interesting.

Historically Social Security has paid
out what it has supposed to have.

In the future if it stops it will be
because of a US Economic collapse, of
which Social Security will be just on
of many, many worries its citizens and
the world economy will have to contend
with.

I think we are ok, I have heard this
criticism of Social Security since I
can remember. All the old timers where
where skeptical are now collecting it
and it is paying their medicals bills.

They may still be skeptics, but they
are benefiting from Social Security.

[Anonymous]

Social Security does pay 45% of the
US medical bills, prior to the
Medicare Part D program. Now it will
be more.

I meant to say:

hospital bills

Social Security does pay 45% of the
US hospital bills, prior to the
Medicare Part D program. Now it will
be more.

[Antigen]

I don't know if it's Commonwealth law or a good turn of political solidarity, but whenever I get a hospital statement, they break it down in detail. I have one relative on public medical assistance and one w/ private insurance. Know what both insurance companies actuall pay? Roughly 10% - 20% of the alleged total. Know who pays the rest? Anyone unlucky enough to own property and not have insurance on the day they receive a dx.

It's a sham. Start to finish, top to bottom, nothing but a defunct Ponzi scheme. Always was. Know how they determine the retirement age? It's always been just around or less than life expectancy. See, young people signing on always think they'll live forever. The people offering the deal, though, never expect to actually pay out to fully half of us who pay in.

Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
--Isaac Asimov, Russian-born American author

_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82

[Deborah]

Related
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=0#137615

[Anonymous]

Yes the politically based Medicare Part D
has many, many problems.

Yes, Social Security works, has always
worked and has always been tweaked
by politicians.

I am curious what your sources say is
the history of Social Security.

Why was this program created?

[Anonymous]

ROBERT D. NOVAK    THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

A political miscalculation on Medicare

January 9, 2006

It is said only in hushed tones and not by anybody of prominence, but a few brave souls in the Bush administration admit it. President Bush's Medicare drug benefit that went into effect Jan. 1 looks like a political blunder of far-reaching consequences. Furthermore, these critics assign major responsibility to Karl Rove.

The hideous complexity of the scheme, which has the effect of discouraging seniors from signing up, is only the beginning of difficulties it entails for the president and his party. It will further swell the budget deficit without commensurate political benefits. On the contrary, the drug plan may prove a severe liability for Republicans facing an increasingly hazardous midterm election in November.

This program looks less like a bump in the road than a major pothole on Rove's highway to permanent majority status for the Republican Party. As Bush's principal political adviser, Rove has a brilliant strategic mind and can take credit for crafting the 2000 and 2004 presidential election victories. The drug plan was an audacious effort to co-opt the votes of seniors, reflecting Rove's grand design of building on the electoral majority by adding constituency groups. By failing to win new supporters while alienating old ones, the drug plan betrays a flaw in Rove's strategic overview and points to potentially disastrous consequences.

This is the winter of Republican discontent, even if it is not openly conceded. GOP members of Congress live in terror of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal touching them. Once House Republicans return from their global junkets in about two weeks, they face increasing pressure to elect a new majority leader to replace Tom DeLay. The Bush Social Security reform concept lies strangled in its crib, while his tax reform did not even get that far. In this atmosphere, the consequences of passing the drug benefit two years ago become unpleasantly clear.

Just before Christmas of 2003, the White House and the House Republican leadership forced the drug benefit down the throats of unhappy conservatives. In a memorable pre-dawn session, resisting Republican House members were threatened with dire consequences and offered rich rewards as the roll call was held open for more than an hour to erase a 12-vote deficit.

Rove's aim was to entice low-to-middle income seniors who vote heavily Democratic and complain about the cost of prescription drugs. That political maneuver was translated by bureaucrats and health care technicians into a government program so difficult to understand that someone now receiving any prescription drug care would be inclined to stick with the present program even if it seems inadequate. For many whose existing insurance does not help pay drug bills, the Bush program is only a disappointment.

An earlier Bush attempt to co-opt the opposition also failed. The "no child left behind" education bill was passed in 2001 only after considerable arm-twisting of conservatives, but it has not produced political dividends. The president remains as unpopular as ever inside the education establishment, where school administrators complain about constant testing and paperwork required by the act.

Loyalty is the watchword among Bush administration officials, particularly White House aides. Consequently, George W. Bush in the course of his working day is unlikely to hear a discouraging word.

One mid-level presidential appointee, however, laid out for me the parameters of Bush's predicament with three full years remaining of his presidency. Bush is essentially a war president, leading the nation to fight an unpopular war that promises no temporary victories much less a final one, and at best offers the prospect of withdrawal from Iraq with honor. He needs something to energize the nation in his second term, but he has failed to do that with Social Security reform and has not even tried with tax reform. There is no clear sign the president appreciates the size of his problem.

Now, to begin his sixth year in office, Medicare drug benefits come into play, a major new entitlement that offends Bush's friends and does not placate his foes. There is not much at this point that can be done about it, except to try to convince seniors and conservatives that the program is really not that bad.

[try another castle]

What I find ironic is that there was so much energy put into this bill, yet the administration itself said that it would be cutting funding to medicare within the next few years.

The government giveth, and the government taketh away.

I am on medi-cal, (the california version of medicaid) because I am disabled, and I am also on medicare. (You are forced to join if you have medicaid and SSDI.) Medi-cal paid for my prescriptions, and I was totally satisfied with their coverage. Sure, sometimes you ran into red tape and restrictions that needed to be appealed, but it was almost always workable, and the pharmacist was always comfortable giving me advances for a limited amount of my meds until the paperwork went through.

However, medi-cal stopped covering drug perscriptions for all people who had both medi-cal and medicare as of Jan 1 of this year. We were all forced to join medicare coverage, which is essentially getting coverage with a private insurance company that has worked out a deal with medicare. Now we have co-pays, whereas before our medicines were free.

I am fortunate in that I have dealt with red tape and systems like this for so long, that I am able to find out the information that I need to, go through the process of finding which plan has all of my medications in their formulary, and get switched over to that plan. (Because let me tell you, the default plan that they put the medicare/medicaid people under, Humana, sucks donkey balls and has restrictions up the ass. The medicare people calculated my monthly copays with them at around $200.) But I am sure that people who have not had as much experience with systems like this are going to have an even more difficult time than I did.

The medicare/medicaid people do have an advantage over people who just have medicare in that our copays are almost nothing, but that is only IF you choose the right plan. We can also change our plans once a month if we don't like them. (People who are just on medicare can only change them once per year.) I didn't even bother doing any of the brainwork myself in trying to figure it out. I called medicare, gave them a list of my meds with the dosages, and they found the three best plans for me. However, I bet that a lot of people who had to make the switch didn't even know that this service was available for them. All they got was the big ugly booklet with outlines of each plan, which is so discouraging that the idea of having to call someone and deal with it just didn't seem bearable. I didn't even bother cracking that book open, because I knew that the medicare hotline would know it better than I would and could help me.

Another thing people don't consider is that once they are given the breakdown of which plans are the best for them and cover all of their meds, they should call their pharmacist, ask which insurance company is the least difficult to deal with, and then go with that one. In addition, the pharmacists also had access to the medicare plans and could essentially do the same thing the medicare hotline could, except quicker and easier, because all they had to do was take the database of all the medications you have ever been prescribed and input it into the medicare database, and they would then get a printout of the best plans they could give to their customer. (Or at least walgreens could do that.) However, this information didn't always match what was in the actual medicare database if you had called them directly, which, I am hoping, was the more accurate one. In addition, NOBODY WAS INFORMED THAT THIS WAS AN OPTION. Medicare gave next to nil advice on how to find out what you needed to to get adequate coverage. (My opinion is because the government didn't really want people to get coverage, so they made it as hard as possible.)

Which brings me to the point about what absolute hell it was last week at the pharmacy trying to work all of this out. First of all, a lot of people who enrolled in December hadn't even received their cards in the mail yet. I was given my membership number over the phone, but the person at the insurance company neglected to tell me my group number, so the pharmacy had a hell of a time trying to get that info. In addition, the pharmacy database still had me listed under the default insurance, which was incorrect. I had already changed plans to a better one. When we finally got the correct info, it listed my copay as about $60 instead of $3, so THAT needed to be worked out, too. To top it all off, the phone lines were so bogged down at my (and I'm sure everyone else's) insurance company, that I was on hold for FOUR HOURS, and I still didn't get in touch with a person. The first two ended with going from hold music to a busy signal, and then me being disconnected. So I had to call BACK and wait another two hours, at which point I finally gave up. All I have to say is, thank god for speakerphones.

Fortunately, things seem to be squared away now, but I don't want to get too optimistic.

Now, this experience here is coming from someone who is pretty handy at figuring out how to work through red tape and get the information he needs. In addition, I also have the benefit of being on medicaid, so that helps in terms of my benefits. Think of all of the elderly people who may not have as much experience working with beaurocracies, AND never had medicaid, so their copays and benefits are going to be more restrictive. That must be a nightmare. My grandmother didn't even bother. Her "discount" on her meds was so minimal that it was almost negligable, in addition, she would have to fork out money for a monthly premium and a deductible. (Medicaid people were granted the privilege of having a $0 deductible and $0 premium.) So she would probably end up paying more on the plan than she would just paying out of pocket for her meds. For those people, it seems more about private insurance companies getting money from old people, than it does about true coverage. I think the only people who are actually getting adequate coverage are people in my situation, who have the medicaid/medicare coverage.

All in all, I think it was a big mistake. Those of us who had medicaid drug coverage, (or at least myself and several other individuals I spoke with) were perfectly happy with it, and the people who were only on medicare really are dealing with a false economy, and not getting much in the way of help at all.

The only people who truly benefit from this plan are private insurance companies, in my opinion. However, it seems to be backfiring, because a good portion of the people who were able to get drug coverage aren't going to use it. The only people who are in the majority of using that coverage are the people like myself who don't have any other option.

_________________
[ This Message was edited by: sorry... try another castle on 2006-01-14 18:52 ]

[Anonymous]

Bush ordered $10 billion dollars in
Medicaide cuts over the next five
years. Congress complied.

Yup, the politicians don't make any
sense. They add prescription coverage
to win an election. Then they cut
funds to the program.

Then they figure out how to add a layer
of private insurance companies to further
increase the costs of prescription medications.

Go figure.

Oh, you mentioned California. I just read
that that state cut reimbursements to doctors
by 5%, making that state the lowest paying
Medicaid state in the US!

The results of this will be less doctors
taking Medi-Cal (different name, but same
exact program as Medicaid in the rest of
the US).

The effect is less services, or a furthur
cut in the program.

[Anonymous]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... editorials


From the Los Angeles Times
EDITORIAL
The drugs they need

January 11, 2006

NO ONE REALLY EXPECTED the new Medicare prescription drug program to be "fail safe" (although federal officials actually used that phrase). But early signs, in California and other states, are that the days-old program may be failing those who need it most.

A worrisome number of seniors are having a difficult time getting vital medications under the program, which began Jan. 1. Seniors who should be covered are being forced to pay for expensive drugs out of pocket. Pharmacists are having trouble finding out which plan people are enrolled in, forcing some to leave pharmacies empty-handed. The most desperate are showing up at emergency-room doors hoping to get the medication they were promised. Meanwhile, waits on help lines set up by the government and private insurers have stretched into hours.

Mark McClellan, head of the agency that oversees the program, points out that it is filling as many as a million prescriptions a day. But it appears low-income seniors and disabled people known as "dual eligibles" ? the 6 million Americans covered under both Medicare and Medicaid, the federal program for the poor ? are disproportionately having problems. Unlike everyone else ? who have until spring to sign up before getting penalized ? those on Medicaid had to switch to the new drug plan on the first day.

The problem: Federal officials didn't process all of their applications on time, so when an untold number of the poorest and often sickest seniors went to fill their medications in recent days, they weren't in the computer. At least four states ? Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Vermont ? have already decided to spend millions to care for those who are slipping through the cracks, even though it is unclear whether the federal government will pay them back. As of Tuesday, California officials said they were considering doing the same. The tab could exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.

What is most frustrating is that there was ample warning about potential problems, and people on both ends of the political spectrum worried that starting the plan now was overly ambitious. But the administration insisted it begin in an election year.

There will be plenty of time for finger-pointing down the road. What's important now is to solve the mess at hand. California should follow other states and fund prescriptions for those who are going without, even for a few days, and cross its fingers that the feds pay the money back. Beyond that, it is hard to see how the federal government could choose to do anything but open its wallet to fix this problem. One idea is for the government to sign up a private insurer to temporarily cover any eligible senior who is having a hard time getting medications ? a solution that would take only a matter of days to implement. And in this case, speed is both politically expedient and practically necessary.