3 ms·
>So you will have the magical illusion of a $0.00/mo premium and the insurance company then makes a substantial profit to boot. I spend about $300/mo for A+B+G+
by jasode 3y ago
>So you will have the magical illusion of a $0.00/mo premium and the insurance company then makes a substantial profit to boot.
I spend about $300/mo for A+B+G+D.
I guess I don't understand what you're trying to explain. There is no "$0.00 illusion". For the situation I've laid out, there's literally no $174/month or $300/month spent.
>"Then you'll pay your Part B premium ($174.70/mo) out of your Social Security benefit." <
... that $174.70 is 100% reimbursed by the company -- but only if the ex-employee enrolls in the company's approved Medicare Advantage plan from UHC. If instead they go your route by rejecting Medicare Advantage, the company reimburses 0% of that $174.70 Part B premium. The math for out-of-pocket premiums payments is literally:
$0/year < $3600/year
> I have no preauthorizations, no copays, no coinsurance.
Yes I understand, and that "no red tape bureaucracy" ability you enjoy costs you ~$3600/year more than some seniors have the ability to pay if they're restricted by what their ex-employer will reimburse. It's still a tradeoff.
- CalChris 3y agoWhat you're talking about is something like a company retiree with an additional union retirement benefit. That's different from me. In that case, they are signing over their Medicare benefit and their union/company negotiated over their retirement health benefit. That is a different case. In my case, I had a choice between Traditional Medicare (A+B+G+D) or Medicare Advantage (C). Kaiser, for example, wouldn't have been $0/mo. I chose Traditional Medicare which for me is currently about $300/mo but I can go to UCSF or Mayo or anywhere that takes Medicare. I'm very happy with Traditional Medicare but I understand that there are retirees who've had their Medicare+company retirement benefits negotiated away. Their situation is ok but I prefer mine.