2010 Medicare Drug Plans Need Careful Study

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I just talked to a Medicare consultant at medicare.gov and was told I would be charged 1% for each year past my original enrollment period of "65". My grace period was 63 days after "65" to enroll. If my pancreas stopped producing insulin in 20 years and I needed insulin to stay alive, that would be a penalty of 20% added to a drug plan premium at that time. If that premium was $85.00, I would have to pay an extra $17.00 to that premium each month for the rest of my life. She did not mention an average of ALL premiums in my area.
I don't understand the reason for the penalty. Why do I "HAVE TO" sign up now? Why can't I wait until I need it? If I get cancer in 20 years and need chemotherapy, why do I need to pay those premiums now? It has to be all about money and how much the insurance and drug companies can make! I think it's extortion and criminal. Our government is not reputable.
The senate and the house only care about themselves; not the American people who voted for them. They have their own Healthcare Plan and Million Dollar Retirement Plan which leaves all of us in the dust. Not right and not fair; absolutely immoral. They vote whatever they want for themselves without our approval or knowledge. I hope all incumbants get replaced at the polls by clean, fresh Americans who want to represent the people for the people! Imagine that happening!

Sandra Engle of TX 3:19PM December 12, 2009

I am very concerned about what is happening to seniors in regard to Medicare Part D -- and that this issue is rarely, if ever, discussed
I live in Arizona and turned 71 this year. I have paid for insurance my entire life without a lapse. At 65 I entered medicare and signed up for a supplemental policy. I read the literature sent to me about Part D. Although it was confusing, my understanding was that if I did not sign up for part D I "might" (the literature says "you may") pay a penalty of 1% for every month I failed to choose a policy. This seemed fair enough to me. The original premiums were relatively low and 1% seemed plausible. At that time I was using, and continued to use, Janet Napolitano's Arizona Coppercard for my medications. I was perfectly satisfied with that plan and saw no need for a different plan. This year I decided to choose a low cost policy and pay my penalty for delay.
I am shocked and angry at what I have discovered.
To wit:
1) There is no "might" pay a penalty involved; unless you are judged by medicare to be impoverished or to lack "creditable coverage", a confusing issue, ( I thought I had that with my medical insurance card) there is no choice except to pay a penalty.
2) The penalty is NOT 1% of whichever plan I choose -- it is 1% of the average of all plans COMBINED --a detail not clear to me in the original literature. Most of the plans are considerably more expensive than the plan I found affordable and the premiums have increased dramatically every passing year since inception thereby increasing the penalty every year. The net result of this arithmetic is that my penalty is more per month than the premium for my plan.
3) The cost of this penalty (punishment) is RESET every year to be in line with the continually rising costs of the premiums.
4) Who would ever have imagined that the penalty extracted goes on every single month FOR THE REST OF ONE'S LIFE? It is unconscionable to expect seniors to pay a penalty ever-increasing and never ending and unspecified into an unknown future!
This is not a "penalty". This is extortion by the drug and insurance companies and enabled by our elected officials.
What normal, sane person would have ever imagined being caught in such a blatantly unfair scheme?
Is this issue being raised in the healthcare debate on the floor of either the house or senate? Is it being discussed in committee? If so, where and when? If not, why not?
Jean Shepherd
Tucson, AZ

Jean Shepherd of AZ 4:49PM December 04, 2009