In so far as the so called "Blue Hairs" as you so arrogantly choose to refer to them are concerned...they truly do find themselves in a dilemma with the donut hole provision of the current Medicare prescription drug provision. They often find themselves having to choose between the prescriptions that they need most and in some instances having to choose between medications and food because they live on fixed income. Many are not able to afford supplemental medical insurance, and many of the plans that cost little or nothing for supplemental coverage also cover little or nothing in the way of assistance. I personally know of someone who thought he was covered through supplemental insurance for something under one of these low cost plans only to find that he was not. As usual the insurance industry makes certain that the monthly /quarterly premiums are paid on time, but construe the insurance policies as narrowly as possible to avoid paying claims. By the time the insured is able to file and process a claim to enforce it with the Insurance Commissioner's Office it may be too late.

I know that there are many that oppose socialized medicine. I personally have no problem with it. It has worked in Scandinavia for many years. The Swedes have one of the longest life expectancies in the world. I would think that with all of this country's wealth a better universal health care plan than the current Medicare system could be devised.

There was an interesting item on one of the televised news magazine's recently...I forget whether it was 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. They examined the recent federal legislation on prescription drugs. It would appear that the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry did their jobs very well. One of the provisions was a prevention of Medicare from using its superior buying power to negotiate lower drug costs for Medicare recipients. They compared the cost of the Medicare prescription drugs with those of the VA which is able to use its buying power to negotiate lower prices. The difference between the two was astounding. Interestingly enough a number of the legislators that voted to enact the law went on to take jobs with pharmaceutical companies.

In these circumstances there are many that have no discretionary income to "gamble away".  As far as gambling away the "kiddies' inheritance" is concerned...the "kiddies"  have no right to a legal inheritance until the death of the "Blue Hair". .. simply because there is no decedent's estate until then. These funds remain the property of the parents or grandparents until then...to be saved or spent at their discretion. If they choose to spend a few hours of entertainment at a casino...at their age they have earned it. The "kiddies" should not be relying upon mom and dad's estate, and start building their own futures.

to post a reply: login - or - register