"Dear Valued AARP Member...."

So begins a letter from Bill Novelli, the Executive Director of the organization formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons. "I’m writing to you today to give you some important details about the Medicare prescription drug legislation – why AARP supported it, and what it means to you."

He goes on to state: "...we’ve all heard some exaggerations of both advantages and shortcomings of the legislation...AARP would never support legislation that would threaten traditional Medicare."

Along the same lines, AARP placed full-page newspaper advertisements in national daily papers, listing eight "highlights" of the new law, the first of which was the assertion that it would not affect Medicare.

In her speech published in the Congressional Record (Vol. 149 No 172 11/23/03) California Senator Dianne Feinstein stated: "I intend to support this bill, and not because it is perfect, but because I believe it brings substantial help to people who need that help..."

Secretary Tommy Thompson said: "...the beneficiary protections in the Medicare drug benefit are extremely comprehensive..."

Consumers’ Union (http:www.consumersunion.org), on the other hand, writes: "Because the Conferees failed to adopt a plan that curbs prescription drug expenditures, and instead developed a model that relies on an insurance industry eager to see Medicare privatized while collecting more government subsidies, Consumers’ Union reluctantly concludes that, on balance, Medicare beneficiaries will be severely harmed by this proposal."

As Consumers’ Union sees it, the legislation: "Results in continued profitability for the pharmaceutical industry (guaranteeing larger markets without governmental pressure to restrain prices) while asking nothing for the public good in return."

Others have expressed the view that this is the first step in dismantling Medicare. Privatization and "choice" for Medicare beneficiaries can only result in a two-tiered system, where the wealthy will migrate to increasingly expensive private plans, leaving the most vulnerable, the vanishing middle class and the working poor and those with the greatest health care needs in a shrinking, under-funded Medicare system.

Many health care advocates believe that this "reform" will increase the cost of health care, further fractionate the health care system, increase the number of uninsured families, and accelerate the "death spiral" as the older, sicker population is isolated in under-funded government programs, while the rest of us face increasingly unaffordable premiums for eroding health benefits in the "private sector" market place. Health care advocates believe that true Medicare reform would entail controlling costs and expanding Medicare to cover all Americans in one common risk pool.

Between one and two million Americans are now purchasing prescription drugs from Canada. By mail order and internet, Americans are buying American-made, American-packaged, American FDA-approved medicines at an average saving of almost half they would cost if purchased in the USA.

Drug manufacturers and their supporters in the White House and in Congress, where there are more than twice as many drug company lobbyists as there are legislators, assert that the high and ever-increasing cost of drugs in this country is necessary to support research.

Research on new and better drugs would come to a halt, they say, if Americans were to be charged as little for their products as Canadians and Mexicans pay. They claim that the rest of the world is getting a free ride on the American taxpayer’s dollar, and prescription drugs in the USA could only be lower if the rest of the world were to pay more toward the costs of the research from which they benefit.

The truth is, the bulk of the cost of research for new and better drugs is already paid for by the American taxpayer. The Institutes of Health and the FDA are funded by tax dollars, and not by the inflated cost of drugs. Most of the money we overpay finds its way into drug companies’ enormous profits and extraordinary salaries and benefits for their officers and executives, while billions are spent on saturation advertising for that "little purple pill" and all its variations.

Advertising budgets of drug companies may be found in their glossy annual statements, but no one knows how much they expend on lobbyists and their "gifts" to our elected representatives, nor for the costs of "detail men" who call on doctors and hospitals with their free samples and expensive "tokens" and inducements – up to and including free cruises.

The Administration and the FDA are desperately anxious to convince the American people that they should stop buying "re-imported" drugs from Canada or Mexico. They insist that this is because of safety concerns, counterfeit drugs and FDA inability to authenticate "unapproved" drugs. In fact, re-imported drugs are exactly the same as those sold in America.

Meanwhile, the governors of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota as well as the Mayor of the City of Springfield, Massachusetts are looking into the possibility of buying drugs in bulk for their states’ employees and retirees, with Governor Blagojevich of Illinois actually sending a delegation to Canada to explore the possibilities, while appearing on national television to denounce the FDA’s policy.

Isn’t it high time for this nation to call a halt to this charade and regulate the drug companies, as part of a genuine, meaningful and systematic national program of health care reform?

Continue with Next Page