re: "may need some sort of reading glasses in 5-10 years"
People start needing reading glasses in their mid to late 40s since they become presbyopic, the eye gradually loses the ability to accommodate, to change focus to near, over time. If you hadn't had a cataract, you'd need reading correction within the next few years (many do by your age already). A monofocal IOL can't change focus at all for near, so if you had a monofocal set for distance in the left eye, and retained your natural lens in the other eye, then you would definitely still need reading glasses within a few years.
A multifocal IOL will provide better near vision in that eye, so there is some possibility you could do without reading glasses even when your other eye loses its near vision. Since that would only give you good near vision in one eye, its possible that you'd be more comfortable wearing glasses when doing extended reading to give both eyes good near vision, but at least it would let you do many tasks without readers. Its also possible that your other eye will develop a cataract as well within a few years and need surgery and you could also get a premium IOL for that eye to able to do without readers.
The vast majority of people with multifocal IOL are happy with the results, and a large majority never need reading glasses. Most people who are happy with the results of surgery never post, it is usually only the tiny minority with problems that post and so its easy to get a distorted view of the risks. A minuscule fraction of people are bothered enough by halos or other issues to get a lens exchange to a monofocal lens, so it is important to be aware of that possibility since someone winds up being the "statistic" with bad luck to need an exchange. However people who are comparatively young for cataract surgery may be living with the results for a few decades, so the issue is whether the possibility of doing without glasses all that time is worth a tiny risk of the need for a lens exchange.
Of course some folks wind up in between, not entirely happy but not unhappy enough to get a lens exchange. The newest low add multifocals have a lower risk of problematic halos than older ones. The study for the Tecnis +2.75D lens showed that fewer people had trouble with night driving with that lens than they did with a monofocal (since although the monofocal had lower risk of halos, the multifocal let them see the dashboard, navigation, and other things easier).
There is also the Crystalens, which is an accommodating lens (though some dispute that is how it works) which in theory can change focus a little bit and may provide better near than a monofocal, with a risk of halos closer to a monofocal. Unfortunately a higher percentage of people need readers with it than with a multifocal (I haven't seen a good figure offhand, but I've seen some docs guessing that perhaps half need readers), and small percentage don't see the lens accommodate at all (I've seen guesses at perhaps 10-15%) so it winds up being no better than a monofocal. There is some slight added risk of other complications compared to other lenses due to its ability to move in the eye (e.g. z-syndrome, which might be low risk in the newest generation of Crystalens). It may provide better intermediate than a high add bifocal IOL.
It also possible to try to avoid reading glasses by using monovision with monofocal IOLs, having one eye set to focus at distance well, and having an IOL in your other eye set to leave you nearsighted, focusing better closer in to be able to do some reading. Your brain will choose the best image to use for each distance. Since the brain is relying on only one eye, some people reading for a long time (or driving) will prefer to wear glasses to correct both eyes for near or far rather than relying just on 1. Others function well at all distances with monovision without ever bothering with glasses. Usually they use your non-dominant eye for the near eye, but studies suggest it doesn't matter that much, so you could consider having your first eye set for near vision to reduce the need for reading glassses in a few years, and then when your other eye needs surgery it can have an IOL set for distance.
One drawback with monovision is that it reduces stereopsis a bit, you sense of 3D vision and near depth perception, since your brain is relying more on just one eye. Most people adapt to that fine and don't notice it.
In my case I'd always worn contacts before I had a cataract appear at age 49, but I'd started to need reading glasses several years before that and so I had instead used contact lenses set for monovision. I liked that, and didn't really notice the loss of stereopsis. However I then got multifocal contacts, and noticed the near world seemed more subtly 3D than it had with monovision and I preferred that. If I'd never experienced both options, I suspect I'd have been happy with monovision since I wouldn't have known the difference. I did notice that low light vision was reduced with multifocal contacts, but I was happy with them so my first thought when I had a cataract was to get a multifocal.
I discovered though that at the time the bifocal IOLs available in the US had a high reading add, they tended to be best for far and close near, and not as good for intermediate distance (like for computers and social distance). Outside the US they have trifocals that provide better vision for all 3 ranges. I figured I'd be living with the results for perhaps a few decades so I wanted the best option possible, and 1 eye remained 20/20, so I tried to wait for the US to approve a better lens before getting surgery (since I only had a bad cataract in 1 eye, the other remained 20/20 correctible).
When the bad eye was causing too much trouble, I decided to travel outside the US to get a better lens. In the meantime a new type of lens had come out, the Symfony which also wasn't approved in the US (though it might be approved by the FDA within the next 6 months I've heard, though I don't know how accurate predictions of the FDA are). It isn't a multifocal or a monofocal or an accommodating lens. It is a new category of lens, an extended depth of focus lens which has a low risk of halos comparable to a monofocal, but provides better intermediate&near vision than a monofocal and fairly comparable contrast sensitivity to a monofocal (I definitely see better in dim light with the Symfony than I did with multifocal contacts, though perhaps not as well as with monovision contacts before my cataract). One study suggests it has the best vision of all the premium lenses from 46 centimeters outwards (it may just not provide as really good close near vision as some bifocals or trifocals). So I went to Europe 1.5 years ago and got the Symfony in both eyes (almost 20/15 at distance, and 20/25 at near). The Symfony is available now closer by in Canada&Mexico, though it wasn't at the time.
The US now has low add bifocals that do a better job of intermediate vision while still providing some near, which is likely what they are recommending for you. They also have a lower risk of halos than high add multifocals, and more people tend to be happy with the results.