It's not about talking points. It's about the facts on the ground. When you have to go to your doctor and your doctor is telling you what won't be covered that's the bottom line. When you get to the pharmacy and something covered a previous day and suddenly not today all because of this that's the bottom line. Not some talking point they put on paper for lazy reading. Go actually see.

It's one thing if they did this for people who were actively working. While I think that would still be wrong contractually, at least your working still and could save for the changes and/or make changes with more runway in front of you before landing. But to do that after someone already put in the 20-30 years and now on a fix budget. And decisions were made based on said contractual agreement. I mean come on.

1. You gloss over the pre authorizations as thou the rejections to those are a free bag of chips. Aetna does not factor cost to patient when that happens. Medications that are also included and up for rejection are also not factored. All of these represent added cost that wasn't there previously to a group no longer working and on fixed budgets. Furthermore all of those cost fall on a group that you contractually made assurance to previous which in part was why the judge threw this out the last time.

If everything was going to be better and cheaper for the people then the city would not of needed to charge people either to keep there existing plan. But before debating me how about calling your own doctor as we have and asking them. After all it's there care and prescriptions they write that has to get covered. Then come back and respond. Don't even mean that in a negative way but perhaps your doctor telling you the answer would convince you faster then I ever can.

Except your missing the part that 1) many of those ppl went into the career knowing that would be the future so the job chosen paid more thru the length of it so they could afford that cost at the end.

In this situation city workers took the job with a contractual promise that the health care was free which was why they were ok with taken less money for the duration of there career. You can't compare the example you gave. They literally waited till these ppl done worked there 20 30 years to then tear up contracts made to them. What job you rushing into when you over 50 to now supplement these changes.

2. The ppl that are paying what you talk about still end up with more control over there Healthcare decisions. In this plan you talking about pre authorizations for many aspects of Healthcare with a heavy incentive for the city to say no.

So now you get surprised with suddenly have to pay after you already old and retired and you get stuck getting lesser care with no other true options. The money you would of had you took less off because you were contractually told something completely different.