A physician writes: "a public option (nationally or at the NYS level) is a necessary and desirable alternative to private health insurance."
Further, he reflects upon his own experience: "As a newly eligible Medicare user it is clear that the private Advantage options are both expensive for medicare and a rip off for the consumer.
The only issue that I have about Medicare ... is that after paying a fortune in Medicare taxes over 30 years and after (also) building an adequate retirement plan, I find that my Medicare premium is based on my 2007 income (including tax free bonds). For A and B it comes to over $300 a month and if I choose to not play, I will be surcharged 10% FOR EVERY YEAR that I wait."
sk
His colleague responded:
ReplyDeleteSK,
I cannot help but wonder, after your first experience with Medicare coverage and personal costs, compared to what you have invested in the program, that you continue to support a public option; particularly since it is highly likely that your Medicare benefits will decline and costs will increase if such a plan is implemented.
It is good to be optimistic, but the projected costs of this experiment are beyond comprehension.
There is a need for restructuring and equity requirements for the private insurance industry to achieve competition, not obliteration.
CL
To which this response was provided:
ReplyDeleteIn spite of my irritation about the new sliding scale for medicare..it is a relief to have it.
..I (and my hospital) was screwed over by the private insurance companies (E****) for years. If medicare kicked in at (age) 60 or 50 I don't think anyone would complain ... even if the premiums were somewhat higher than what the seniors traditionally paid.
One part of the equation seems to be that the pool of young (currently uninsured) potential insurees are coveted by the insurance companies.
As for the public option..one major problem could be fixed if the public employyees were given the public option (which of course would be crucial to its success)..most of the the resistance to the public option seems to be from well insured (and subsidized) private and public workers who fear the loss of their golden benefit. Bizarrely some medicare recipients have their medicare premiums paid by their union, in addition to having private insurance.
I would not be so in favor of a public option if the private options for those fortunate public and private workers weren't so heavily subsidized by tax breaks and employers.
SK
And in turn this:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that (after a shaky start) Medicare has worked reasonably well in years past, and is certainly a necessity for seniors, despite the disparity of investment to benefits.
However, as with all govenment driven programs, this "jewel" is about to be decimated in a major way to pay for universal care , not just the creeping reductions of the last 2 decades. Your assessment of its bounties might take a big hit.
Instead of looking to reform the current insurance system, with all its inequities, and institute a non profit system that competes but does not obliterate the entire program, this government wants to topple all private insurance by
* forcing a standoff with a tax supported public "option",
* maintain their own cushy plans,
* limit technological development for financial reasons,
* force doctors into subservience, and
* turn our excellent care into an unknown experiment.
I am not against universal coverage for the truly indigent and those that need it, but we need to enroll the eligibles (folks currently uninsured but who are eligible for public programs) to get a fix on the real need.
I, like most Americans, am totally opposed to a public option, or any plan that causes increasing government control of our professional and personal lives. This is an agenda driven administration that is happy to treat (physicians) like a commodity, not a profession.
cl