The New Drug Benefit
Wow...
You actually have to pay MORE outta pocket if you go with the new Drug Benefit. And they won't let you get additional insurance to cover the costs. No matter what you have to shell out $3600. That's alot if you're living on social security.
There is a school of thought about the new Medicare bill, which will be signed into law (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...4.medicare.ap/) by the President today, that goes something like this: Yes, the bill is quite bad -- but something is better than nothing. But the more you know about the Medicare bill the more you realize that this theory (expressed in AARP ads as "we can't afford to wait for perfect") is dead wrong. The most recent example: the NYT reports that, under the bill, "Medicare beneficiaries will not be allowed to buy insurance to cover their share of prescription drug costs (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/politics/07MEDI.html) ." That means that Medicare recipients under the standard benefit "would pay $3600 of the first $5100 of drug costs" and could not purchase private insurance to help defray their costs. Many seniors would be responsible for an even greater share of the cost because the Medicare drug plan will "establish a list of preferred medicines" and "Medicare will not have to pay anything for drugs left off the list." Those who currently have Medigap policies that cover prescription drugs could renew their policies but only if they "chose to forgo the new Medicare drug benefit." Employers could help pay beneficiaries' shares of drug costs "but those payments would not count toward the $3,600 limit on out-of-pocket spending" -- making employee contributions worthless for seniors who need it most. (To read more about why the Medicare bill signing is No Cause for Celebration read American Progress President John Podesta's new column today).
You actually have to pay MORE outta pocket if you go with the new Drug Benefit. And they won't let you get additional insurance to cover the costs. No matter what you have to shell out $3600. That's alot if you're living on social security.
There is a school of thought about the new Medicare bill, which will be signed into law (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...4.medicare.ap/) by the President today, that goes something like this: Yes, the bill is quite bad -- but something is better than nothing. But the more you know about the Medicare bill the more you realize that this theory (expressed in AARP ads as "we can't afford to wait for perfect") is dead wrong. The most recent example: the NYT reports that, under the bill, "Medicare beneficiaries will not be allowed to buy insurance to cover their share of prescription drug costs (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/politics/07MEDI.html) ." That means that Medicare recipients under the standard benefit "would pay $3600 of the first $5100 of drug costs" and could not purchase private insurance to help defray their costs. Many seniors would be responsible for an even greater share of the cost because the Medicare drug plan will "establish a list of preferred medicines" and "Medicare will not have to pay anything for drugs left off the list." Those who currently have Medigap policies that cover prescription drugs could renew their policies but only if they "chose to forgo the new Medicare drug benefit." Employers could help pay beneficiaries' shares of drug costs "but those payments would not count toward the $3,600 limit on out-of-pocket spending" -- making employee contributions worthless for seniors who need it most. (To read more about why the Medicare bill signing is No Cause for Celebration read American Progress President John Podesta's new column today).
Comments
Originally posted by Chinney
I wonder if people in the U.S. will see through this sham...or whether Bush will neverthless gain some votes for it.
Oh, you better believe that Republicans will beat the Democrats over the head with this phony baloney bill. And beat 'em good. They will basically say that Dems are uncompassionate to Seniors with a massive, multi-million dollar TV campaign. Mark my words, Bush will use every ounce of this bill to his advantage next November. Why else pass it?
Originally posted by BRussell
It's a hard role for the Republicans to play, because people just don't trust them on an issue like this. If people start to see this as a negative, it could hurt Republicans.
I hope you're right.
But, the conservative echo-chamber is massive and currently has the ear of the sleepwalking masses. They will figure out how to spin this into their favor, they'll create a fantastic catch-phrase (framing the issue) that demeans liberals and will thusly repeat said catch-phrase over and over and over (Gore is a liar, Gore is a liar, Gore is a liar) until election day. And, I'm afraid, it will work brilliantly for the Repubs.
I know that there are equivilent stories in U.S. news describing the dangers of 'socialized' Canadian healthcare (some of these have been thrown in my face on these boards..."waiting lists" etc.). I thought that some might want to see how your situation, in turn, is viewed from here.
Although the Canadian system does have its problems, the overall level of satisfaction with it is higher than the U.S. level of satisfaction with their system.