Mirtazapine 15mg – 1 at bedtime (anti-depressant)
Citalopram 20mg - 1 at breakfast (anti-depressant)
Diazepam 10mg – 1 at bedtime (sedative)
Lithium Carbonate 300mg – 1 at breakfast and 1 at bedtime (anti-mania)
Risperidone 1mg - half at breakfast and half at bedtime (anti-psychotic and anti-bipolar)
Lovaza 1000mg – 1 at breakfast and 1 at bedtime (cholesterol)
Niaspan 500mg – 1 at bedtime (cholesterol)
Omeprazole 40mg – 1 at breakfast (ulcer)
That's what I take every day, in addition to vitamins and supplements. I'm a crazy insomniac with an ulcer and elevated cholesterol.
I decided to do my due diligence and shop around for my prescriptions. I told the pharmacies that I had no insurance to get the raw prices they charged. I figure that would be the best way to find who was charging the least overall.
The Walmart Experience
Wally World was first on my list and there were lines at the pick-up counter and at the drop off counter, but not the consultation counter. I walked up to the counter and looked in expectantly. In the next ten minutes, I fiddled around with everything, including other people's prescription bags and diabetic syringes. I wasn't helped until I yelled, “Hey! I can reach the syringes!” Then someone scooted over and took my list of medications.
Out of the eight prescriptions on the list, three were incorrectly quoted back to me.
Total: $366*
*Cost lowered by mistakes made and recommendation of Niacin over Niaspan.
The Publix Experience
I like going to Publix for prescriptions. The pharmacists are on a raised platform. It's like walking up to the judge's seat in court. And since they hand down pills, it's like getting ambrosia from the gods. Friendly and helpful, they got all the prescriptions right.
Total: $305
Walgreens
Walgreens was the least fun pharmacy to go to. There was one window and two windows were blocked off with boxes. So uninviting. They did have a special card that if you pay $20 a year, you get a special PSC price on your pills.
Total: $579
With PSC: $471
CVS
CVS had the friendliest, most helpful pharmacists who answered the most questions and seemed genuinely interested in my concerns. This is the only pharmacy where my pharmacist introduced himself by his first name, Naresh. Naresh pointed me in all the right directions to get the best prices. CVS had good prices, but they got even better with a Health Savings Pass, a $10 card that got me a bunch of pills for free.
Total: $394
With HSP: $316
Of course, I do have some insurance and even though there's an ungodly deductible before the benefits “kick in,” pharmacutical companies give a benefit even if you have insurance. So I ended up going with CVS with the HSP card and my insurance kickbacks.
Total: $60
Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
A) Yes.
B) No.
C) Cannot be determined.
This is from this month’s Scientific American — article unfortunately costs money. It’s about “dysrationalia,” which is what happens when people with nominally high IQ’s end up thinking irrationally. A phenomenon I’m sure we’ve all encountered, especially in certain corners of the blogosphere.
And the answer is the first option. But over 80 percent of people choose the third option. Here’s the solution: the puzzle doesn’t say whether Anne is married or not, but she either is or she isn’t. If Anne is married, she’s looking at George, so the answer is “yes”; if she’s unmarried, Jack is looking at her, so the answer is still “yes.” The underlying reason why smart people get the wrong answer is (according to the article) that they simply don’t take the time to go carefully through all of the possibilities, instead taking the easiest inference. The patience required to go through all the possibilities doesn’t correlate very well with intelligence.
REVIEW OF AN ANTI-MEAT BOOK: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/09/091109crbo_books_kolbert
LOOK! A Bald Bear.
Five Myths About Our Land of Opportunity, by Isabel V. Sawhill and Ron Haskins, Brookings: Americans have always believed that their country is unique in providing the opportunity to get ahead. ... But rising unemployment and financial turmoil are puncturing that self-image. The reality of this "land of opportunity" is considerably more complex than the myths would suggest:
1. Americans enjoy more economic opportunity than people in other countries.
Actually, some other advanced economies offer more opportunity than ours does. For example, recent research shows that in the Nordic countries and in the United Kingdom, children born into a lower-income family have a greater chance than those in the United States of forming a substantially higher-income family by the time they're adults.
If you are born into a middle-class family in the United States, you have a roughly even chance of moving up or down the ladder by the time you are an adult. But the story for low-income Americans is quite different; going from rags to riches in a generation is rare. ...
2. In the United States, each generation does better than the past one.
As a result of economic growth, each generation can usually count on having a higher income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the previous one. ... But that kind of steady progress appears to have stalled. Today, men in their 30s earn 12 percent less than the previous generation did at the same age.
The main reason today's families have modestly higher overall income than prior generations is simple:... Women have joined the labor force in a big way, and their earnings have increased as well. But with so many families now having two earners, continued progress along this path will be difficult unless wages for both men and women rise more quickly.
3. Immigrant workers and the offshoring of jobs drive poverty and inequality in the United States.
Although immigration and trade are often blamed, a more important reason for our lack of progress against poverty and our growing inequality is a dramatic change in American family life. Almost 30 percent of children now live in single-parent families, up from 12 percent in 1968. Since poverty rates in single-parent households are roughly five times as high as in two-parent households, this shift has helped keep the poverty rate up... Among women under age 30, more than half of all births now occur outside marriage...
In addition, we have seen a growing tendency among well-educated men and women to marry each other, exacerbating income disparities. If we add to these family changes the fact that wages for low-skilled workers have stagnated or declined in recent decades, we can explain most of the increase in poverty and much of the increase in the income gap as well.
4. If we want to increase opportunities for children, we should give their families more income.
Of course money is a factor in upward mobility, but it isn't the only one; it may not even be the most important. Our research shows that if you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to complete high school (at a minimum), work full time and marry before you have children. If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent, and your chances of joining the middle class or above rise from 56 to 74 percent. ...
Many American families need supplements to their incomes in the form of food stamps, affordable housing and welfare payments. But such aid should not be given unconditionally. First, the public is concerned that unconditional assistance will end up supporting those who are not trying to help themselves. Second, new research ... has shown that individuals frequently behave in ways that undermine their long-term welfare and can benefit from a government nudge in the right direction.
And third, policies with strings attached have had considerable success. ...[S]ocial policies will be more successful if they encourage people to do things that bring longer-term success.
5. We can fund new programs to boost opportunity by cutting waste and abuse in the federal budget.
Can we cut enough ineffective programs or impose enough new taxes to put better teachers in classrooms, expand child-care assistance for working families and provide more financial aid to disadvantaged students while reducing projected deficits? The answer is a resounding no. ... Just three rapidly growing programs - Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid - along with interest on the debt threaten to crowd out all other spending in a few decades.
So we also need to revise the contract between the generations in a way that gradually reallocates resources from the more affluent elderly to struggling younger families and their children. Such a shift would not only help create more opportunity, it would improve the productivity of the next generation, making its members better able to contribute to the costs of retirement - including their own.
The idea that the poverty problem would be much smaller if people would get married seems to me to avoid the important question of what factors are driving the change in the marriage trend. To the extent that these factors are economic and hence that poverty is also a cause of the falling marriage rate (if it is), then it's more complicated than suggested above.
Also, with respect to the last sentence, retirement funds -- Social Security funding -- is not the long-run budget problem we should be worried about, this can be handled relatively easily with a few minor changes. It's health care costs that are the problem. The argument that we should help people in poverty so that they can help pay for Social Security is far down the list of reasons I'd put forth for helping.
Update: See Mathew Yglesias on single parents and poverty.
adamsimon. Blogger Template created by Deluxe Templates
CSS Template by Breezy / Support by Dante Araujo
