The ill-health of health care

As a retired New York City Transit worker, I switched health-care plans at 65 when my previous coverage expired. I happily chose traditional Medicare with Aetna as my secondary insurance. Now I find that if current transit workers approve the contract negotiated by the Transport Workers Union, my choice will be null and void. The only options would be Medicare Advantage plans.

These are touted as having more benefits. But its critics have cited their limits on what doctors you can use and the need for pre-approval for essential medical procedures. I have not read any convincing denials of this from Medicare Advantage's defenders.

Unlike city workers, active transit workers can stop this by voting down the contract. But just like city retirees, us transit retirees do not have a vote.

Will current transit workers have the foresight to see this will hurt them when they retire? Also, how come we still have so many labor leaders who are so weak that they feel they have to trade givebacks for raises?

But the "raises" total 9.98 percent over three years plus two one-time signing bonuses totalling $4,000. According to a CNBC article published on April 14th, prices rose 13 percent over the past two years.

Then there's the savings to the government. According to city officials, the plan being pushed by Mayor Eric Adams on New York City retirees will save the city $600 million a year. This is less than 1 percent of the city budget. The June 13th Daily News article, "MTA Medicare Revolt," includes this claim, "The plans are subsidized at a higher rate than traditional Medicare options, producing budget savings for local governments."

But just what are these subsidies? Numerous attempts to Google whether this is a law, a presidential policy or whatever, come up with nothing. Is the source of the subsidies classified information? Perhaps the information has been seized from Donald Trump by the FBI.

But if the federal government truly subsidizes Medicare Advantage plans at a higher rate, the question should be why. According  to a Nov. 11, 2021, NPR article, "Medicare Advantage cost to taxpayers has soared in recent years, research shows," Medicare overpaid the private health plans by more than $106 billion from 2010 to 2019 because of the way plans charge for sicker patients.

Traditional, government-administered Medicare has worked and if anything, it should be expanded. We need Medicare-for-all, which would be the equivalent of what the rest of the developed world has. We don't need more private insurance.

Expanding Medicare to provide complete medical coverage for every human in the United States is obviously the right thing to do.

Of course, this would mean that health coverage would be one less thing for union leaders to tout when selling contracts to their membership. This explains why so many union leaders did not support Bernie Sanders for president. But everyone's health is more important than the political concerns of these so-called leaders.