I agree with you.  Considering that those disabled who don't have jobs and
aren't retirement age (65) and most of them are on Medicaid which pays for
some prescriptions, that was not an appropriate way to mark the ADA
anniversary.  It was just PR, in my opinion.

Kat

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Keplinger" <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.c-palsy
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: aarp and ada


> i just don't think he pick right way to mark the ada day.
>
> Salkin Kathleen wrote:
>
> > Yes, but we're talking about two different groups as far as the
government
> > is concerned.  There are the disabled who are all ages, and there are
the
> > retired folks.  There's a lot of overlap between the two, but the AARP
is
> > designed for retirees, and the medicine bill is designed for those
retirees
> > who are on Medicare and no longer have group coverages that cover meds.
> >
> > Kat
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Keplinger" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.c-palsy
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:26 AM
> > Subject: aarp and ada
> >
> > > i saw in apaper that bush marked the 12th year of ada by
> > > signing a bill for better drug coverage and this was a
> > > big thing for the aarp. how does this help the disabled
> > > communitty as a hole?  at a quick look at the aarp web
> > > site it said anyone over 50 can join aarp, but not just
> > > being disabled.   to me ada is  to benefit people with
> > > disabilies, not one portion of the group.
> > >
> > > dan