If it’s successful in this year’s election, Retiree Advocate has its sights set on a bigger target: the overall UFT elections next year, when the long-serving president, Michael Mulgrew, and the other leadership members will be up for reelection. “If we won this election, it would give a shot in the arm to the opposition and make people look at next year’s general election as winnable,” said Scott, the Retiree Advocate spokesperson.... NY Focus
Retiree Advocate members rally in New York City on February 16. | Norm Scott
This is an excellent article in NY Focus by Sam Mellins, one of the best local reporters. I spoke to him for almost a half hour and he asked all the right and probing questions, sometimes twice.
Retired Teachers Seek Union Shakeup to Dodge Medicare Advantage
In the New York City teachers union, anger over a plan to
privatize retiree health care could send a longshot campaign over the
edge.
https://nysfocus.com/2024/02/26/medicare-advantage-uft-retiree-advocate
“The opposition is across factions and caucuses.”
5 comments:
I’m pretty surprised (annoyed?) that leadership like Bennett is saying that the RA plan for the campaign is about “preserving our Medicare.” Nobody is losing Medicare. How many times to we have to repeat that. Wrong messaging, and if they keep being fuzzy in their own minds about this very important issue, how do they expect people to come round to their way of thinking? What retirees want is to have the City keep paying for the out-of-pocket costs that Senior Care is now picking up. That’s a big difference. And by the way, if “medical” costs are covered contractually through NYC legislation, why has that definition always been restricted to outpatient and inpatient services? What about drugs, which the welfare funds pay for to some degree but we’re still paying riders and copays for out of pocket. What’s more medically related than the drugs keeping some of us alive. People could be asking the City to cover ALL medical costs that Medicare doesn’t cover, which would logically have to include all the leftover costs of the meds they’ve been prescribed.
I think we’ve had this discussion before. I think it’s semantics. Mulgrew wants to turn that 20% into 100%. We would not have traditional Medicare which is what we want to keep for the 80%.
I see this as semantics. Bennett says to preserve our Medicare meaning as it exists. No I don't only want to have them keep paying the 20% - I want to have Medicare pay my doctors directly, not as Mulgrew wants have them pay Aetna first which will take its cut before they pay my doctor. We have had this discussion before. We are opposed not only for our own personal self interest but in the interest in preserving the current medicare system and stopping the general movement - so far 50% - into MedAdv which will ultimately undermine Medicare as it is - which is what both parties -- seeking the contributions from healthcare industry which wants to get a piece of the pie seem to want to do.
The commenter is right that we should be as nuanced and accurate as we can when we describe what is being threatened by the city's plan to make Aetna Medicare Advantage the only health plan offered to its Medicare eligible retirees. Traditional Medicare Parts A and B, supplemental (Medigap) insurance, and Part D drug plans, will still be an option for retirees who can afford them. Retirees who choose to go that route - or who are forced by medical necessity to go that route - will relinquish their rights to NYC's medical benefits, which consist of full Medicare Part A & B cost reimbursements, a fully subsidized supplemental (Medigap) plan up to the price benchmark established in city law, and for some city retirees, the subsidies they get for their Welfare Fund drug plans. That works out to about $5000 per year, per person.
That's a mouthful to say every time one opens one’s mouth. But one thing for sure: For all of us municipal retirees, it would mean the end of Medicare as we now know it. It would mean the end of Medicare as we understood it to be - a fully subsidized benefit that is part of our compensation for a career in city service. So, when that is reduced to "Save our Medicare" in a sound bite, or a quote in a news article, or bold print in a leaflet, it may not be as nuanced as we'd like, but it is still accurate. And when 250,000 NYC retirees are shunted into a privatized Medicare Advantage plan, when municipality after municipality, state after state, rids themselves of their responsibilities to their retired workers, when that adds up to over 50% of American retirees now being enrolled in private Medicare dis-Advantage plans, that is absolutely a threat to Medicare. So yes: Save our Medicare!
I have been making the longer, nuanced argument in every opinion piece I write and in every piece of retiree Advocate literature that I contribute to. Please read my open letter to City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams in The Chief. Please listen to the testimony I gave at the City Council hearing last year. Come to RTC meetings and listen to the questions I've asked Michael Mulgrew. Retiree Advocate's position is that we, as a union, should be fighting to improve our health benefits, not diminish them to save costs for the city. We should be working, as a union, to expand Medicare benefits; to include hearing, and vision, and dental. We should be working, as a union, to bring viable, universal health coverage to the table. So yes: Save - and improve - our Medicare!
Bennett Fischer
Retiree Advocate/UFT
So glad Bennett is using the more nuanced version when he can. Very knowledgeable, happy to support him.
Totally disagree on the accuracy -- his words -- of “Save our Medicare.” In fact, that statement is totally inaccurate.
Accurate statements would include:
“Save our Medicare supplements”
“Save our Medicare choices”
“Don’t force us into Medicare Advantage”
“Medicare Advantage is Medicare Disadvantage”
Post a Comment