Dr. Alice calls this to our attention...and a comment from Rich DeColibus

From John Curry, November 19, 2011

Reader Alice Faryna is a retired MD. She knows what she speaks of. Please note what she says.

John

From Alice Faryna, November 19, 2011
Subject: Last STRS report

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry over this section:
Can't they see that if all retirees were on a Medicare like program it would solve a lot of problems? This infatuation with the marketplace is insane.
Alice

• The Health Care Stabilization Fund is only expected to remain solvent until 2024.

• Sixty-nine percent of benefit recipients enrolled in the STRS Ohio Health Care Program are also receiving Medicare benefits, while 31% are non-Medicare.

• Subsidies for non-Medicare retirees account for 62% of all subsidies.

With this in mind, staff proposed a vision for the future that would establish the Medicare program as the cornerstone for the STRS Ohio Health Care Program, to help the largest number of retirees for the longest period of time. This plan would increase out-of-pocket expenses to reduce premium increases and merges the Medical Mutual Plus and Basic plans into one plan by 2016. The most significant changes would affect the non-Medicare program. These changes would more closely align costs with the marketplace.

From Rich DeColibus, November 20, 2011
Subject: Re: Status and Future Outlook of STRS Health Care PLan

Doesn't STRS understand the only thing that permits retirement before age 65 is the ability of STRS to provide reasonably affordable health care? Of course pre-Medicare retirees account for a disproportionate share of health care costs, but that's why STRS exists: to make retirement before age 65 possible. STRS sometimes forgets it exists only to serve its retirement population, not as a corporate entity which exists for itself.

The essence of insurance is to spread the risk over a wide population, thus making premiums affordable. Increasing out-of-pocket costs reverses that idea, and makes it harder on impacted individuals; it is right-wing thinking along the lines of "Why should I have to pay higher premiums for those other sick people." The answer is "Because all of us sharing risks makes all of us safer."