The problem with Medicare Part D is that it's not actually operating based upon the Medicare model. It is operated by third-party insurers, but paid for by Medicare. Medicare was not given the power to directly negotiate prices for pharmaceuticals, plus it has to pay a middleman to administer the benefit. The only role Medicare has in the whole debacle is determining initial eligibility.

This is what you get when a political party that purports to hate 'big government' designs an entitlement program. They go on and on about how government doesn't work, and then do their damnedest to make sure that's the case. The only reason the Republicans passed this p.o.s. legislation is that continuing to do nothing on Medicare prescription drug access would have amounted to political suicide in the 2006 elections. So, Part D is what they came up with: a 'drug plan' that's more effective at giving away tax money to private insurers and PhARMA than actually providing prescriptions to Medicare recipients.

To give you an idea of how totally FUBAR this situation is: In my state there are over 150 private insurers qualified to provide Medicare Part D coverage. Seniors are expected to shop the formularies of every one of those and figure out which one gives them the best deal for the drugs they take. The formularies and the premiums change every year. God help you if your drug regimen changes mid-year, because who knows if it will be covered or how much it will cost.

JiminyChristmas

badteaparty

These plans may be "Medicare", but they are run by private corporations. They are an abomination put in place by the Bush administration and a Republican Congress. These programs are worse than if the government ran it themselves. But, that was not the point. Bush and the Republicans wanted to make this program shitty so that people WOULD question "big government", just like you did with your statement.

Yes, universal health care run completely by the government would be better. Get rid of the money-grubbing private companies whose only incentive is profit. They only care about patient care as long as they're making money. It's time we joined the rest of the industrialized world in removing the profit motive from something as critical as our health.

XopherMV

The premium for the prescription plan at the company I work for is going up by 33% as of next year (after going up 28% last year) and my only choices are pay it or have no drug coverage. And unlike Medicare, our plan has a hard ceiling and no catastrophic coverage provision.

I'd much prefer to have the option to negotiate with multiple vendors, with the coverage requirements outlined by federal law and a safety net courtesy of Uncle Sam. And there are a lot of people in worse circumstances than my coworkers and I; my company is a major healthcare provider, out there on the leading edge, with huge negotiating power simply because we're a service provider to most insurers. I can't imagine what it's like for employers who don't have an "in" and want to have health insurance for their employees.

Oh, and the part of our company medical plan premiums that the employees pay has gone up by "only" 25% as of next year. "Only" because the company is eating the rest of a 45% rate increase. These rate increases simply aren't sustainable for much longer.

If you have a plan that's better than "Medicare for all" I'd love to hear it.

fhic

I'm lucky enough to work for a university and I'll be paying all of $3/month more, but I wince every time I open that enrollment brochure, expecting to get slammed. So far they've kept our costs very moderate but I have to wonder how much we're really being shielded. How bad is it for those who work for private companies?

Buran

DrGirlfriend

Auntie M.

Forget being "Internet savvy." That thing would confuse a computer scientist...

OldSpinDoc

vex

MENDOZA!!!!!

Thanks for the heads up Consumerist. Looks like I know how I'll be spending my night tonight, helping my dad go through and find the best plan for him.

SexCpotatoes