Thanks for reposting this article. I saw it but didn't really pay attention. Medicare is a great program and most seniors couldn't live without it. But, it has its pitfalls like anything else. This article really spells them out. Here is a link that might be useful: Satisfying Retirement

**Also, if it so wonderful, why won't congress and the first family take this coverage** That's sort of a confusing question--it seems like you think the new law creates new insurance policies that we all have to switch to, or something? And so you're wondering why Congress and the first family don't switch to the new policies? But the law doesn't do that. There is no coverage that Congress or the Obamas, or you for that matter, could switch to. The only new coverage options are the state-run exchanges for people with preexisting conditions who cannot get insurance on the private market, and a few new options for low-income people. But if you don't have a preexisting condition that has prevented you from getting insurance, or if you aren't low-income enough, you don't qualify for those new options. So there's nothing that Congress, the first family, etc., could switch to. Under the new law, you just keep your existing insurance (or move to whatever other policy your employer offers that you want). And so does Congress and the first family. What the law does is (1) change the rules for insurance companies so that your existing insurance is more reliable, (2) requires everyone to have health insurance, and (3) creates more options for lower-income people and for people with preexisting conditions, so that such people can get insurance more easily (through state-run exchanges, Medicaid and so on). So in other words, the coverage you have under it is the same as the coverage you have now--and the coverage Congress and the first family have is the same as what they have now--except with better rules: now your insurer can't cancel you for getting sick, can't exclude your kids for pre-existing conditions, as of 2014 also won't be able to exclude adults for pre-existing conditions, has to let you keep your children on your insurance until they're 26 if you want to, can't impose a lifetime cap on benefits, and so on. As for the waiver, I really have a problem with Fox News and others leaving out a few critical details, like the fact that McDonalds, Universal Orlando (the theme park), and other very mainstream companies got it (and you can google "McDonalds political contributions" to see that most of McDonalds' donations went to Republicans), and the fact that the waiver only lasts for one year. Apparently the purpose of it is to let part-time lower-income workers keep their extremely basic plans, which do impose a lifetime cap on benefits, while the details of their new plans get ironed out and the new system gets up and running. Most employers don't offer such bare-bones plans, so they don't need a waiver. I'm also a little confused by what you said about creating dozens or hundreds of new federal agencies. Here's an article (link below) that clarifies that. I took a look at the letter you posted, but there's no sense in responding to it because it's not talking about the law that actually got passed. It's talking about certain things that, at the time the letter was written, were being considered. I'm just going to stick to the law we actually have, not a 15-month-old letter about other possibilities. But I do want to point something out--you were comparing the price projections on page 28 of the letter to your own insurance premiums in 2010. Those price projections were for 2016. Even assuming those projections turn out to be correct--which would be a total fluke, since they were based on things that did not end up being passed in the actual law--it doesn't make sense to compare your price in 2010 to a projected 2016 price and then say, based on that, that the new law is going to increase your costs.

My DH's former employer also uses VIA. We just spoke with them yesterday and the day before to: a) Be sure we are each registered as having POA's for one another; and b) Select our Part D plans for 2019. When we called to do the Part D we discovered they had failed to 'save' the call from the day before, and only half of the POA information had been registered. Selecting the Part D plans involves two different people at VIA. The first person helps you select the plan(s), then you're transferred to a second person who sets up the legal and financial end. We selected our two (different) plans, then were transferred. The first person had sent along the wrong plans for *both* of us, so we had to go back through those loops again with another 'selection' employee. The second part took ages (due to having to listen to legal boiler plate) but it got done eventually. I'm concerned about our Medicare supplement coverage for 2019. We each have a high deductible Plan F with BSCS. The company isn't going to want *me* again anyway, now that I require expensive treatment for multiple myeloma -- even if they weren't trying to eliminate Plan F in general.

Concerning the comment above not unlike the one attributed unconvincingly to Marie Antoinette (Let them eat brioche), the vast majority of people work in the private sector and from the info in the attached link, it looks like more than 80% do not receive any form of employer medical benefits at retirement. So no,, that's usually not an option. This is at larger employers, the scene is likely zilch for smaller employers. That's why the public insurance marketplaces are so important, even if often expensive. Retiree Health Benefits - Kaiser Family Foundation Edit to add - I agree with gardengal, Cobra coverage is often EXTREMELY expensive and marketplace coverage can be cheaper. There are a lot of people who go through periods of their life, often long ones, with no medical insurance and for many, their first opportunity for comprehensive coverage is when they qualify for Medicare.