Rick's Cafe Americain

The New York Times reports today that, according to government estimates, over one third of all retirees with employee-sponsored prescription drug benefits will lose those benefits when Medicare begins to offer similar coverage in 2006. 

Isn’t this really an argument against Medicare in general?  Don’t know who
you consulted, but the retirees I know (all middle-class or below) had their
employer-provided medical insurance pulled once they were eligible for
Medicare.  Another “race to the bottom!” Obviously, that isn’t something
the current administration is responsible for, so why complain about the
same thing (possibly/eventually) happening w/drug-benefits?  And the NYT
article states that retiree health benefits have been eroding for over a
decade, which also predates the current administration.  It seems those most
likely to take a hit in their benefits are the ones who will most likely be
able to afford to pay a little more once they’re 65.  On the other hand, my
previously uninsured parents will gladly take the new benefits.  And wasn’t
that the point of the new law?

- Dan T. Ortiz

A lot of smaller employers try to provide at least coverage that can
complement or supplement Medicare.  However, just because the system failed
us before doesn’t mean we shouldn’t blame this administration (or any) for
perpetuating a failed system.

I’m not sure why you conclude that “those most likely to take a hit in
their benefits are the ones who will most likely be able to afford to pay a
little more once they’re 65”.  I don’t have data to support or refute
that, but I wish your parents well when there’s no money to fund their
“new benefits”.

Was that the point of the new law?

- Rick Blaine

So what is the reason for believing anything the NYT prints.  They don’t seem to be too reputable to me.

- 2______