Are You Getting Ripped off by Your Pharmacy? It Pays to Shop Around

IT PAYS TO SHOP AROUND FOR YOUR MEDICINE

In these tough economic times many Americans are losing their health insurance along with their jobs.  Others are desperately trying to hold onto what they have. Everyone is looking for ways to cut cost and save money. When it comes to pharmaceuticals it pays to shop around, and surprisingly you may find savings in the least expected place, your local pharmacy.  The price difference can be substantial.

I recently saved $63.00 on two prescription drugs I bought at Union Discount Drugs in Union Mississippi.  Their price, $54.00., was a much better bargain than the $117 dollars Walgreen's Pharmacy wanted to charge me.  

According to Robin Bauer, owner of Union Discount Drugs, “Chain drug stores always have gimmicks like five or ten dollars off certain prescriptions, coupons, whatever it takes to get you in their store.  However, if you buy a prescription from them that is not on the gimmick list, they often charge you 2 to 3 times the price you would pay at our store. Some chain stores have a list of generic medications that you can get for $4.  We can usually match that too.”

Another way consumers get the short end of the stick, on their pharmacy needs, is their co-pay.  If you are shopping at Walgreens, find out what the cost of your medicine is before you go to get it filled.  If you have a $35 dollar co-pay, and your medicine is only $5 dollars, Walgreens is going to charge you the $35 dollars, I know, I've been there and done that.

"If they have a co-pay, and their prescription is only $5 dollars, I'm not even going to run their card through, says Bauer, "I'm just going to charge them the $5 dollars."

We have let big corporations take over America, and sell us the lie that they are cheaper, when in actuality your biggest savings may be right at your hometown store, and the good news doesn't stop there.

“Another service you won’t find at a chain drug store is pick up and delivery of your prescriptions. We provide this free service to most of our customers in Meridian, Newton, and Neshoba counties.  When Union Discount Drugs says, “WE DELIVER”, they mean it. 

Amy Winehouse Dead at the Tender Age of 27. Rest in Peace Amy.

Singer/songwriter Amy Winehouse, dead at 27, from a suspected drug overdose, was not what I expected to see when I checked my facebook account this morning, but my reaction was what I found even more puzzling.

I don't know that I cried when Elvis died, or Michael Jackson, or any number of the other celebrities that have passed in my lifetime, but for some reason, Amy Winehouse was different. Maybe it was because she was so young, maybe it was because she was a tortured soul; addicted to drugs and alcohol or maybe because she was a voice speaking for a lost generation, or because the writer in me identified with her, or maybe it was the voice of her friend, Kelly Osbourne, crying out on Twitter, ""I cant even breath right now I'm crying so hard i just lost 1 of my best friends. i love you forever Amy and will never forget the real you!"  Whatever the reason was, I found my self running for the tissue paper to blow my nose, and dry my eyes, for one of God's children that has so much  potential, but could not overcome her demon's.

Any Winehouse's voice is one that transcends generations; unique and captivating, with a soul searching depth that will outlive it's master for generations to come.  Rest In Peace Amy.

Was it Really Beasley Denson's Fault There is Going to Be a New Tribal Election?

According to public statements issued by Miko Beasley Denson, he was forced into delivering the tie vote that triggered a new election, because Phyliss Anderson and Kevin Edwards refused to recuse themselves from the vote. 
     Vickie Rangel and Mack Jimmie, who filed the complaint, had requested that council members running for office should recuse themselves from the vote, because it was a conflict of interest.
           The Tribal council goes by what is called, "Robert's Rules" (common rules and procedural guidelines for holding meetings fairly.)  http://www.robertsrules.org/
According to Robert's Rules,  in order for any measure to pass, there must be a 2/3 majority.  
     "Beasley was the first one to stand up and say, "I can't vote on this," says Gwen Willis, but then Anderson and Edwards said they were going to vote, so Beasley voted too.  We are not for Beasley, we are for honesty.  If our leaders continue to break this law, it opens the door for other laws to be broken.  This is not about her (Anderson) and it is not about him (Denson), it is about the law."
     Willis goes on to say, "My sisters are mad at me cause Beasley is still in office, but we felt this issue was more important."
     Many people were left with the impression that Miko Beasley Denson was holding up the election because he had something to hide or that he was a sore loser.  However, upon further investigation into the matter, this does not appear to be the case.
          The grievances that were filed by Vickie Rangel and Mack Jimmie, were complaints filed on two issues.  The first issue was about tribal election laws, that state, the polls are to close promptly at 8:00.  "There were two hundred people waiting in line, and those people were allowed to vote after 8:00.  "Those were not valid votes, says Rangel, and should not have been counted." (It should also be noted that this is a problem that has arisen at many US voting sites, and has had to be addressed. For newspapers to say it is some obscure law, is pure rubbish.)
     It should also be noted that Vickie Rangel is not a supporter of Miko Beasley Denson, in fact, she has tried to rally people to vote against him, and her complaint was filed against him allowing the polls to stay open past the designated time to close. 
     A new election is bitter sweet for her because she says, "Sometimes when you win, you lose."
     The second grievance that was filed, was on a new voting site in Henry, TN.  "The election started on the 8th, and they did not approve the site until the 12th, and you can not pass a law that is an ex post facto law or a retroactive law (ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law) after the election has already started, it was not an approved voting site prior to the start of the election, and no boundaries have been drawn for that voting site.  The 27 voters that voted there are not valid voters, says Rangel, they need to go to a valid voting site, but It would be ok for the next election."
     Gwen Willis is undecided who she will vote for, and Rangel says, "A good leader forgets about themselves and does what is right.  I was for Anderson, but if she wont' stand up on this law, will she be able to uphold our laws?"
      The fact that there is going to be a third and possible fourth round of voting does not mean the Choctaw system is broken, rather it means that it is working, and the rest of the United States should be so lucky. 

     Although it was a very proud day in Choctaw, Mississippi, as Phyliss Anderson was elected the first female chief of the Choctaw Tribe, it will be an even prouder day, when the election process is proven to be in harmony with the voters, and the winner, totally free from any stain, sets the issue to rest.
___________________________________________________
A new election was held, and Phyliss Anderson, by a larger margin than before, was once again selected by the people to lead Pearl River Resort.  She brings a lot of positive energy and hope to the tribe, as well as employees of the resort.  We all wish her well, and a bright future.


   

Florida's Controversial Law Requiring Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients is a Waste of Taxpayer Money

The state of Florida just passed a controversial law, whereby, they may drug test people applying for welfare assistance.  While to most people this sounds like a great idea, in my opinion, it is just plain stupid, the way it is written, and a waste of taxpayer money.

It isn't that I think they should not be able to pass a test, it is that I don't think the test is going to work the way taxpayers intend it to.

Why, you may ask?  Let me give you a few things to think about, and you decide.

 First off, they are only, from what I read, going to test them when they apply, and if they fail, they will have to get someone else to get the money, and that person will make sure it goes to the children.  That sounds reasonable, but are they also going to test the person that will be in charge of giving the money to the person that failed the test, and if that person is going to give the person that failed the test, the money anyway, what is the purpose?

Secondly, most people that want to pass a drug test to get assistance, will probably stay clean long enough to take the test, and then what?  Also, the most dangerous drugs, like Crystal Meth, leave the person's system quickly, so those abusers would not be caught.

Thirdly, they are going to ask the person to pay up front, and quite frankly, if the person had money to spend on a drug test, they probably would not be applying for assistance in the first place, and what happens to the person and their children, that cant' afford the test.

You have a lot of people on assistance, that have worked hard all of their lives, but because so many have lost jobs, people that never needed assistance before, are now applying in droves.  If they are hungry, and their children are hungry, do you really want to tell that person, you can't get any assistance because you don't have any money to take a drug test.

Also, you just had a state, make a requirement, for the Federal Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which is a Federal Program, not a state program, so constitutionally, the state is violating the rights of the Federal Government.

How about going after dead-beat dads.  I know of one young person that received assistance, told the welfare department, where he worked, what time he worked, and they have done absolutely nothing to try and collect, and that was several years ago, and nothing has been done.  If the mother's and father's could get the money owed to their children, they probably would not qualify for welfare assistance.

Also, what kind of test they are going to give will be important.  With the spread of MRSA, if it is a blood test, you are requiring a person to take an invasive procedure, that could endanger their lives as well as the lives of their children, since it is very contagious.

When you give the government an inch, they always take a mile.  DNA testing for every man, woman, and child is probably not too far around the corner, and insurance companies will be able to eliminate you from the insurance pool, if you are genetically predisposed to an inherited disorder.

At first glance it sounds like a good idea, but in reality, I don't see how it is going to work, and it is going to create more jobs for the government, a rise in taxes, cost the taxpayer untold millions, maybe billions, and create more paperwork for an already overburdened agency, and since they are only tested once, will serve no useful purpose, because if they are a drug user, they will start back immediately after passing the test.

However, the public seems to want them tested, so I think the most effective way to handle this, and eliminate some of the above problems, would be to do a random drug screen, that way there is no time to prepare, it will keep cost to a minimum, and if the state wants to give the test, the state should pay for it.

What to do if they fail the test also needs a solution.  You can suspend their benefits, but what about the kids? Foster care, well, you will need to test the Foster Care parents too, and states already have enough trouble finding people to take kids as it is.

Most of the time, all you have to do is follow the money trail, to find out why an ineffective program is pushed upon the public. The best solution is always prevention, and that will mean a change in the way the failed War on Drugs is fought.

What do you think?
.