Medicare Plan Quotes

Failure to plan ahead is a plan sure to FAIL!

On Rachel's show for November 7, 2012: We're not going to have a supreme court that will overturn Roe versus Wade. There will be no more Antonio Scalias and Samuel Aleatos added to this court. We're not going to repeal health reform. Nobody is going to kill medicare and make old people in this generation or any other generation fight it out on the open market to try to get health insurance. We are not going to do that. We are not going to give a 20% tax cut to millionaires and billionaires and expect programs like food stamps and kid's insurance to cover the cost of that tax cut. We'll not make you clear it with your boss if you want to get birth control under the insurance plan that you're on. We are not going to redefine rape. We are not going to amend the United States constitution to stop gay people from getting married. We are not going to double Guantanamo. We are not eliminating the Department of Energy or the Department of Education or Housing at the federal level. We are not going to spend $2 trillion on the military that the military does not want. We are not scaling back on student loans because the country's new plan is that you should borrow money from your parents. We are not vetoing the Dream Act. We are not self-deporting. We are not letting Detroit go bankrupt. We are not starting a trade war with China on Inauguration Day in January. We are not going to have, as a president, a man who once led a mob of friends to run down a scared, gay kid, to hold him down and forcibly cut his hair off with a pair of scissors while that kid cried and screamed for help and there was no apology, not ever. We are not going to have a Secretary of State John Bolton. We are not bringing Dick Cheney back. We are not going to have a foreign policy shop stocked with architects of the Iraq War. We are not going to do it. We had the chance to do that if we wanted to do that, as a country. and we said no, last night, loudly.

So let me get this straight – this is a long sentence. We are going to be gifted with a health care plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don’t, which reportedly covers 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman doesn’t understand it, passed by Congress, that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that is broke. So what the blank could possibly go wrong?

For [Stephen] Harper, a national daycare plan bordered on being a socialist scheme, a phrase he had once used to describe the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. For [Paul] Martin, whose plan would have transferred to the provinces $5 billion over five years, the national program was what Canadianism was all about. "Think about it this way," [Martin] said. "What if, decades ago, Tommy Douglas and my father and Lester Pearson had considered the idea of medicare and then said, 'Forget it! Let's just give people twenty-five dollars a week.' You want a fundamental difference between Mr. Harper and myself? Well, this is it.

Indeed, this massive and well-funded force is turning the party it has occupied toward ends that most Republican voters do not want, such as the privatization of Social Security, Medicare, and education.35

Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy.

Those who subscribe to the libertarian philosophy believe that the only legitimate role of government is to ensure the rule of law, guarantee social order, and provide for the national defense. That is why they have long been fervent opponents of Medicare, Medicaid for the poor, and, most recently, Obamacare. The House budget chairman, Paul Ryan, has explained that such public provision for popular needs not only violates the liberty of the taxpayers whose earnings are transferred to others, but also violates the recipients’ spiritual need to earn their own sustenance.

That’s because both the job title and the job itself have never existed before. We used the term ‘ground-breaking’ to describe this position because that is exactly what it is.” Leonard Scott leaned forward. “The current Administration is committed to solving the greatest problems of our time—climate change, sustainability, the deficit, the impending crisis stemming from shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare, healthcare, and the problems that our nation faces as a result of an aging population. We are implementing a plan that will address all of these issues and will revolutionize the way that this country looks at retirement. Rather than continuing on in a bankrupt, broken system that meets the needs of no one, we are going to introduce American seniors to a new way of life—a holistic community that will engage them like nothing ever has before.

Crane went on to join the Libertarian Party, which had been summoned into being in a Denver living room in December 1971. Its founders sought a world in which liberty was preserved by the total absence of government coercion in any form. That entailed the end of public education, Social Security, Medicare, the U.S. Postal Service, minimum wage laws, prohibitions against child labor, foreign aid, the Environmental Protection Agency, prosecution for drug use or voluntary prostitution—and, in time, the end of taxes and government regulations of any kind.46 And those were just the marquee targets.

So far we have focused on the economic agenda of the socialists, yet any conversation with them, or visit to a socialist conference, shows that the vision of these activists is not merely economic. They are equally energized, if not more so, by cultural issues. This is especially true of socialists on campus. They are not in the workforce, so economic issues are distant to them. They are young and healthy—what do they care about retirement plans or Medicare for All? But they do care about their moral self-image, and they also care about their race, their gender and their sex organs. These are the identity socialists.

Betty, whom I recently discovered sorting through the contents of my suitcase, turns on the overhead light in my room, wrinkles her brow, and peers in like a camp counselor on an inspection tour, as if she suspects I might be entertaining someone who has paddled in from across the lake. She must keep an eye out. I am a schemer. There are things going on behind her back, plans afoot, she fears. She has no intention of cooperating with any of them. When the phone rings, she listens to every word, not sure if she can trust me with her independence. I don’t blame her. I am an unlikely guardian. A month ago I thought the Medicare doughnut hole was a breakfast special for seniors. I am a care inflictor. She’s

Liberals: Liberty-loving liberals founded our country and enshrined its freedoms. Dedicated, fair-minded liberals ended slavery and brought women the vote. Hardworking liberals fought the goon squads and won workers’ rights: the eight-hour day, the weekend, health plans, and pensions. Courageous liberals risked their lives to win civil rights. Caring liberals have made the vulnerable elderly secure with Social Security and healthy with Medicare. Forward-looking liberals have extended education to everyone. Liberals who love the land have been preserving our environment so you can enjoy it. Nobody loves liberty and life more than a liberal. When conservatives say you’re on your own, we liberals know we’re all in this together. “Liberal

But then something unexpected happened. Donald Trump, a real estate mogul and television celebrity who did not need the Koch donor network’s money to run, who seemed to have little grasp of the goals of this movement, entered the race. More than that, to get ahead, Trump was able to successfully mock the candidates they had already cowed as “puppets.” And he offered a different economic vision. He loved capitalism, to be sure, but he was not a libertarian by any stretch. Like Bill Clinton before him, he claimed to feel his audience’s pain. He promised to stanch it with curbs on the very agenda the party’s front-runners were promoting: no more free-trade deals that shuttered American factories, no cuts to Social Security or Medicare, and no more penny-pinching while the nation’s infrastructure crumbled. He went so far as to pledge to build a costly wall to stop immigrants from coming to take the jobs U.S. companies offered them because they could hire desperate, rightless workers for less. He said and did a lot more, too, much that was ugly and incendiary. And in November, he shocked the world by winning the Electoral College vote.

The government used to be able to coordinate complex solutions to problems like atomic weaponry and lunar exploration. But today, after 40 years of indefinite creep, the government mainly just provides insurance; our solutions to big problems are Medicare, Social Security, and a dizzying array of other transfer payment programs. It’s no surprise that entitlement spending has eclipsed discretionary spending every year since 1975. To increase discretionary spending we’d need definite plans to solve specific problems. But according to the indefinite logic of entitlement spending, we can make things better just by sending out more checks.

NOTE The following comparisons are based on delivering an industry standard of 90 grams of EDTA. EDTA ORAL PILLS & CAPSULES (NOT RECOMMENDED) Less expensive than IV, suppositories, or oral liquid but has a low absorption rate of 5% to 18%. Needs a much longer time measured in years to complete 90 grams delivered. This method is NOT covered by Medicare or private insurance plans.

EDTA SUPPOSITORIES (NOT RECOMMENDED) Suppositories can provide up to 95% absorption rate and are used 3 to 4 times a week via insertion into the anus. Suppositories are cost prohibitive and take more than six months to complete 90 grams of EDTA delivered. This method is NOT covered by Medicare or private insurance plans and it has the disadvantage of an unsavory delivery method.

Lange Insurance Consulting provides free health and Medicare insurance services. We work with all the major companies to offer the best prices available. We will help you find a plan that meets both your needs and your budget. We specialize in individual health and Medicare supplement plans. We also offer Medicare Advantage, Prescription Drug plans, short term health, dental and vision. As independent brokers we work for you, the customer.

As an Independent Medicare supplement agency, we search the entire market for the right Medicare supplement plan N to fit both your needs and budget. We do not work for an insurance company, we work for you.

The GOP is a threat to your freedom, health, wealth, and safety. If they gain control of the federal government they plan on passing a national abortion ban, gutting Medicare, destroying Obamacare, raising taxes on working families, and stealing a lifetime of YOUR Social Security money.

The government, or rather the taxpayers, further support religious child abuse by subsidizing Christian Science practitioners and their nursing homes with Medicare and tax exemptions—despite their complete failure to provide any medical care. Other tax support involves allowing federal employees, some state employees, and members of the armed forces to join health plans that include Christian Science nursing and practitioner care.

People employ what economists call “rational ignorance.” That is, we all spend our time learning about things we can actually do something about, not political issues that we can’t really affect. That’s why most of us can’t name our representative in Congress. And why most of us have no clue about how much of the federal budget goes to Medicare, foreign aid, or any other program. As an Alabama businessman told a Washington Post pollster, “Politics doesn’t interest me. I don’t follow it. … Always had to make a living.” Ellen Goodman, a sensitive, good-government liberal columnist, complained about a friend who had spent months researching new cars, and of her own efforts study the sugar, fiber, fat, and price of various cereals. “Would my car-buying friend use the hours he spent comparing fuel-injection systems to compare national health plans?” Goodman asked. “Maybe not. Will the moments I spend studying cereals be devoted to studying the greenhouse effect on grain? Maybe not.” Certainly not —and why should they? Goodman and her friend will get the cars and the cereal they want, but what good would it do to study national health plans? After a great deal of research on medicine, economics, and bureaucracy, her friend may decide which health-care plan he prefers. He then turns to studying the presidential candidates, only to discover that they offer only vague indications of which health-care plan they would implement. But after diligent investigation, our well-informed voter chooses a candidate. Unfortunately, the voter doesn’t like that candidate’s stand on anything else — the package-deal problem — but he decides to vote on the issue of health care. He has a one-in-a-hundred-million chance of influencing the outcome of the presidential election, after which, if his candidate is successful, he faces a Congress with different ideas, and in any case, it turns out the candidate was dissembling in the first place. Instinctively realizing all this, most voters don’t spend much time studying public policy. Give that same man three health insurance plans that he can choose from, though, and chances are that he will spend time studying them. Finally, as noted above, the candidates are likely to be kidding themselves or the voters anyway. One could argue that in most of the presidential elections since 1968, the American people have tried to vote for smaller government, but in that time the federal budget has risen from $178 billion to $4 trillion. George Bush made one promise that every voter noticed in the 1988 campaign: “Read my lips, no new taxes.” Then he raised them. If we are the government, why do we get so many policies we don’t want?

People employ what economists call “rational ignorance.” That is, we all spend our time learning about things we can actually do something about, not political issues that we can’t really affect. That’s why most of us can’t name our representative in Congress. And why most of us have no clue about how much of the federal budget goes to Medicare, foreign aid, or any other program. As an Alabama businessman told a Washington Post pollster, “Politics doesn’t interest me. I don’t follow it. … Always had to make a living.” Ellen Goodman, a sensitive, good-government liberal columnist, complained about a friend who had spent months researching new cars, and of her own efforts study the sugar, fiber, fat, and price of various cereals. “Would my car-buying friend use the hours he spent comparing fuel-injection systems to compare national health plans?” Goodman asked. “Maybe not. Will the moments I spend studying cereals be devoted to studying the greenhouse effect on grain? Maybe not.” Certainly not —and why should they? Goodman and her friend will get the cars and the cereal they want, but what good would it do to study national health plans? After a great deal of research on medicine, economics, and bureaucracy, her friend may decide which health-care plan he prefers. He then turns to studying the presidential candidates, only to discover that they offer only vague indications of which health-care plan they would implement. But after diligent investigation, our well-informed voter chooses a candidate. Unfortunately, the voter doesn’t like that candidate’s stand on anything else — the package-deal problem — but he decides to vote on the issue of health care. He has a one-in-a-hundred-million chance of influencing the outcome of the presidential election, after which, if his candidate is successful, he faces a Congress with different ideas, and in any case, it turns out the candidate was dissembling in the first place. Instinctively realizing all this, most voters don’t spend much time studying public policy. Give that same man three health insurance plans that he can choose from, though, and chances are that he will spend time studying them. Finally, as noted above, the candidates are likely to be kidding themselves or the voters anyway. One could argue that in most of the presidential elections since 1968, the American people have tried to vote for smaller government, but in that time the federal budget has risen from $178 billion to $4 trillion.

Phlebotomy. Even the word sounds archaic—and that’s nothing compared to the slow, expensive, and inefficient reality of drawing blood and having it tested. As a college sophomore, Elizabeth Holmes envisioned a way to reinvent old-fashioned phlebotomy and, in the process, usher in an era of comprehensive superfast diagnosis and preventive medicine. That was a decade ago. Holmes, now 30, dropped out of Stanford and founded a company called Theranos with her tuition money. Last fall it finally introduced its radical blood-testing service in a Walgreens pharmacy near the company headquarters in Palo Alto, California. (The plan is to roll out testing centers nationwide.) Instead of vials of blood—one for every test needed—Theranos requires only a pinprick and a drop of blood. With that they can perform hundreds of tests, from standard cholesterol checks to sophisticated genetic analyses. The results are faster, more accurate, and far cheaper than conventional methods. The implications are mind-blowing. With inexpensive and easy access to the information running through their veins, people will have an unprecedented window on their own health. And a new generation of diagnostic tests could allow them to head off serious afflictions from cancer to diabetes to heart disease. None of this would work if Theranos hadn’t figured out how to make testing transparent and inexpensive. The company plans to charge less than 50 percent of the standard Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. And unlike the rest of the testing industry, Theranos lists its prices on its website: blood typing, $2.05; cholesterol, $2.99; iron, $4.45. If all tests in the US were performed at those kinds of prices, the company says, it could save Medicare $98 billion and Medicaid $104 billion over the next decade.

Senator Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance,” Chelsea said of Sanders’s Medicare-for-all health care plan. “I don’t want to empower Republican governors to take away Medicaid, to take away health insurance for low-income and middle-income working Americans. And I think very much that’s what Senator Sanders’ plan would do.

It’s also true that today’s state of affairs is far, far better than it was before passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003, which created Medicare’s Part D drug plans. Prior to that law, many seniors could not afford drugs and either skimped on prescriptions or simply went without medications.

Now, Part D plans often market themselves based on their annual out-of-pocket limits on your drug expenses. Ceilings differ by plan and can be a major factor in choosing a plan in the first place. But these ceilings do not protect you from those 5 percent charges.

The insurers who run Part D plans don’t like high drug prices, either. Even though their cost exposure is only 15 percent—remember, you pay 5 percent at most and Uncle Sam pays 80 percent—they would like it to be 15 percent of the smallest number possible. And it’s not Big Pharma that takes the calls and emails from unhappy Part D customers.

Express Scripts, based in St. Louis, is the nation’s largest independent PBM, and fills prescriptions for more than 85 million health plan customers in and out of Medicare. Express Scripts knows what drugs these people are being prescribed and, over time, knows which drugs they take and which they don’t. It has assembled individual profiles of each of these 85 million consumers, and tracks 400 variables that not only reveal what people have done with their prescription meds but also, the company believes, predict what people will and won’t do, and their future health outcomes.

Beyond these supports, which are comparable to the subsidies provided to Original Medicare users, Medicare began several years ago to pay bonuses to MA plans with high-quality ratings of 4 or 5 stars. These ratings will be explained in a bit. The takeaway here is that MA plans with high ratings are receiving several billion dollars each year in additional payments from Washington.

There are lots of ways that MA plans make money, but none is more important than their ability to build efficient provider networks. These networks certainly may promote your health, and there is impressive evidence that coordinated care provided in a network can be good for you. But it is unquestionably good for the health of the plans’ bottom lines.

Annual out-of-pocket maximums. One of the strongest selling points of MA plans is that they put a cap on your maximum annual health expenses. The ceiling, as noted earlier, was set at $6,700 several years ago by CMS. Most plans set lower ceilings.

Original Medicare is a fee-for-service program that allows people to choose whatever caregivers they wish (provided the caregiver accepts Medicare, which not all caregivers do). However, even if MA plans can be cheaper and cover more health needs than Original Medicare, there is no free lunch here, meaning there can be some big downsides to MA plans.

Part D plans are voluntary per Medicare rules, which strikes me as a really bad idea. Who except the 1 percenters can afford to pay for their own meds? Yet while Medicare is telling people they are not legally required to have Part D plans, it will sock them with potentially enormous penalties should they fail to enroll in the plans when they first take Medicare.

Once you have an idea about the type of MA plan you want, it’s time to check out the CMS “star” ratings that measure the quality of MA plans. Plans receive from 1 to 5 stars, with some half stars in between. These ratings are being cleverly used by CMS. First, they give quick and easily understood guidance to consumers. Beyond this, however, they also represent powerful carrots and sticks for insurers.

MA quality ratings are based on a large set of medical care indicators, measuring such things as whether patients in the plan are using Medicare wellness tests and staying healthy, how well the plans help manage patients with ongoing or chronic health issues, how patients feel about the care they’ve received, and how Medicare assesses plan performance. These variables are contested by many professional groups and practitioners. That’s hardly a surprise. But in the interest of being consumer friendly myself, let me give you a few tips:

The Libertarian Party platform on which Koch ran in 1980 was unambiguous. It included the following: • We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs. • We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services. . . . • We favor the repeal of the . . . Social Security system. . . . • We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes. • We support the eventual repeal of all taxation. • As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately. • We support repeal of all . . . minimum wage laws. . . . • Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. . . . • We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. . . . • We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system. . . . • We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. . . . • We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and “aid to the poor” programs.44 The list went on from there, including ending government oversight of abusive banking practices by ending all usury laws; privatizing our airports, the FAA, Amtrak, and all of our rivers; and shutting down the Post Office.

I spend some time talking to a guy who has a remarkably calm voice, considering he’s only a few feet away from the line of police shields. “I hope that today is kind of the ... the catalyst for the Trump supporters and the populist right to, to realize that the populist left, the Antifa and the BLM movement, we all have a very common enemy, and that’s the establishment politicians,” he says. Ah! How often did I dream that dream in my idealistic youth? Then he calls out the government for “giving us back six hundred dollars after they close all of our businesses and stuff.” He argues for a “peaceful divorce” between the states, in which the federal government still handles dealing with foreign countries and a few other important matters, but individual states were free to have vastly different laws that fit their own culture. So, Texas could have unrestricted gun access and California could have Medicare For All, they just couldn’t force other states to do things they didn’t want to do. Which, for the record, is pretty much the way America used to work, during the 70 years between the ratification of the Constitution and the outbreak of the Civil War. This guy has actual plans! He’s thought of solutions beyond signaling how angry he is and hoping everything takes care of itself after that! I don’t agree with all his ideas, but at least he has them. “But what I’m saying is,” he goes on, “All the people here today, and all the people who have been protesting throughout the year, for the BLM and Antifa and the populist left, all want the same thing.” He eyes the line of black body armor with a troubled look on his face and walks off. NOTE: Let’s just cut through the noise and dwell on that for a minute. Breathe. Stop and Think. What did he just say? Just when I think these people are all nuts, I meet that one. Who the hell was that guy? Why can’t there be more like him?

the lab’s essential public health functions could be compromised during the move and if the lab had fewer employees. The lab, now at a former Devon Energy Corp. field office building next to a cow pasture in Stillwater, has struggled to keep its top director and other key employees. Delays to get test results for basic public health surveillance for salmonella outbreaks and sexually transmitted infections have shaken the confidence of lab partners and local public health officials. As a new coronavirus emerges going into winter, the lab ranks last in the nation for COVID-19 variant testing. Many employees, who found out about the lab’s move from an October 2020 press conference, didn’t want to relocate to Stillwater. Those who did make the move in the first few months of 2021 found expensive lab equipment in their new workplace but not enough electrical outlets for them. The lab’s internet connection was slower than expected and not part of the ultra-fast fiber network used across town by Oklahoma State University. A fridge containing reagents, among the basic supplies for any lab, had to be thrown out after a power outage. Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finalized a correction plan after federal inspectors, prompted by an anonymous complaint, showed up unannounced at the lab in late September. “Although some aspects of the original report were not as favorable as we would have liked, the path of correction is clear and more than attainable,” Secretary of Health and Mental Health Kevin Corbett said Tuesday in a statement about the inspection. “We are well on our way to fully implementing our plan. (The Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services) has confirmed we’ve met the requirements of being in compliance. We are looking forward to their follow-up visit.” In an earlier statement, the health department said the Stillwater lab now “has sufficient power outlets to perform testing with the new equipment, and has fiber connection that exceeds what is necessary to properly run genetic sequencing and other lab functions.” The department denied the lab had to throw out the reagents after a power outage.

Blaming Goldwater’s retreat on his effort to win over the majority of voters (and recoiling, too, from the senator’s military adventurism), Crane went on to join the Libertarian Party, which had been summoned into being in a Denver living room in December 1971. Its founders sought a world in which liberty was preserved by the total absence of government coercion in any form. That entailed the end of public education, Social Security, Medicare, the U.S. Postal Service, minimum wage laws, prohibitions against child labor, foreign aid, the Environmental Protection Agency, prosecution for drug use or voluntary prostitution—and, in time, the end of taxes and government regulations of any kind.46 And those were just the marquee targets. Crane was as insistent as Rothbard and Koch about the need for a libertarian revolution against the statist world system of the twentieth century. “The Establishment” had to be overthrown—its conservative wing along with its liberal wing. Both suffered “intellectual bankruptcy,” the conservatives for their “militarism” and the liberals for their “false goals of equality.” The future belonged to the only “truly radical vision”: “repudiating state power” altogether.47 Once Crane agreed to lead the training institute, all that was lacking was a name, which Rothbard eventually supplied: it would be called the Cato Institute. The name was a wink to insiders: while seeming to gesture toward the Cato’s Letters of the American Revolution, thus performing an appealing patriotism, it also alluded to Cato the Elder, the Roman leader famed for his declaration that “Carthage must be destroyed!” For this new Cato’s mission was also one of demolition: it sought nothing less than the annihilation of statism in America.48

Thanks in part to Trump's plan, many huge multi-national corporations pay zero dollars in federal taxes. Americans pay more for their Amazon prime subscription and Amazon pays in federal taxes. If you think that is right, vote for Trump. If you think corporations should pay their fair share, vote for a Democrat. Trump promised to protect Medicare, but he wants to pay for his corporate tax cut with hundreds of billions of dollars in custom Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Medicare supplement plans, just like Medicare Parts A & B, are good anywhere in the 50 US states and possessions. The plans I recommend also have a $50,000 lifetime benefit for emergency treatment in foreign countries.

Yes, PPO plans often offer some of these benefits as well, but HMOs expand the benefits with money that would normally be used for larger networks.

Table 5.2 Retiring before 70 Means Much Lower Benefits “Net” Replacement Rate for Medium Worker by Retirement Age, 1980–2030 Note: Year is date retiree reaches age 65. Replacement rate is net of Part B and D premiums, as well as taxation of benefits. Part B SMI deduction for 2030 assumes SMI continues to cover 26 percent of plan costs and uses Trustees’ Report enrollment and cost growth assumptions. The assumptions are that the beneficiary has enough other income to have benefits taxed (about $10,000 in 2030) and that the tax rate is 12.5 percent. Sources: Authors’ calculations based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2013); and Social Security Administration (2013b).

What Happens After You Get Your Partner Visa in Australia? Receiving your Partner Visa in Australia is an exciting and life-changing milestone. It means that you can finally live, work, and study in Australia with your Australian partner, whether you're together onshore or you're transitioning to a permanent visa after your temporary one. However, the process doesn't stop once you receive your visa approval. There are several important things to consider once you're granted a Partner Visa, from understanding your visa conditions to planning for the future. In this blog, we will outline what happens after you get your Partner Visa, including your rights, responsibilities, and what you can expect next in your journey towards permanent residency. 1. Your Visa Status and Conditions Once you receive your Partner Visa, it’s important to understand your visa status. Depending on whether you're applying from inside or outside Australia, your visa status may differ slightly, but generally, the visa will be granted in two stages: Temporary Visa (Subclass 820/309): This is the first stage. You are granted a temporary visa to live with your partner while waiting for your permanent visa application to be processed. Permanent Visa (Subclass 801/100): This is the second stage, typically granted after a waiting period (usually 2-3 years from the initial application). The permanent visa allows you to stay in Australia indefinitely. In the case of an onshore application, once your temporary visa is granted (Subclass 820 or Subclass 309), you can live, work, and study in Australia while your permanent visa (Subclass 801 or Subclass 100) is processed. It’s important to be aware that you may need to demonstrate that your relationship is still ongoing and genuine before being granted the permanent visa. If you are granted a temporary visa (Subclass 820/309), you may need to wait for up to 2 years to be considered for the permanent visa. 2. The Right to Live, Work, and Study in Australia One of the most significant benefits of a Partner Visa is the ability to live and work in Australia. Once your temporary visa is granted, you can: Live in Australia with your partner and enjoy the experience of building a life together in a new country. Work in Australia without any restrictions, allowing you to earn a living and contribute to the economy. Study at Australian institutions without needing to apply for a separate student visa. While waiting for the permanent visa, you can also access the Medicare system (Australia’s public health system), which provides affordable healthcare. 3. Your Partner’s Role as a Sponsor After receiving your visa, your Australian partner is responsible for ensuring that the relationship remains genuine and ongoing. The Department of Home Affairs may request periodic updates about your relationship, so it’s important to maintain transparency and keep them informed if any significant changes occur, such as a separation. As a visa holder, you are required to follow certain conditions, including: Staying in a genuine relationship with your sponsor throughout the duration of the visa. Not breaching any laws or engaging in behaviors that could affect the validity of your visa. Failure to comply with visa conditions could result in visa cancellation or refusal of your permanent visa. 4. Applying for Permanent Residency For those who receive the temporary Partner Visa (Subclass 820 or 309), the next step is to apply for the permanent Partner Visa (Subclass 801 or 100). After about 2 years, you’ll be assessed for permanent residency. During this time, you need to prove that your relationship is still genuine and ongoing.