WASHINGTON — The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Wednesday that employers could reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.
The policy, set forth in a new regulation, allows employers to establish two classes of retirees, with more comprehensive benefits for those under 65 and more limited benefits — or none at all — for those older.
More than 10 million retirees rely on employer-sponsored health plans as a primary source of coverage or as a supplement to Medicare, and Naomi C. Earp, the commission’s chairwoman, said, “This rule will help employers continue to voluntarily provide and maintain these critically important health benefits.”
The whole story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/washington/27retire.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Well us old farts have kept the Republicans in power for all these decades, so why should we surprised when the agency created to protect us against age discrimination should screw us.
And should we be surprised that they actually tell us that this is GOOD FOR US?
Merry Christmas to those corporations (read GM, GE, Ford, etc.) who just got a big present from the Republicans! For those who are paying for it, well Bah Humbug to you cheapskate senile 65 year old shits! Buy Afleck!
VOTE REPUBLICAN, AND DIE YOUNG!
More at: http://www.despair.com/
3 comments:
Dear God, CNN, NBC, CBS all get the story WRONG. They are saying that it is only the amount covered by Medicare doesn't have to be covered by the corporations. Bullshit. The policy and court ruling states plainly that no health insurance has to be paid to retirees over age 65. The garbage that this make the payment of the auxiliary insurance by the "corporations" more probable is total bullshit. Why would they do that? This ruling simply transfers the cost of health care more to the U.S. Government and to the retired individuals. It will mean higher profits for everybody, except the taxpayer and the retiree. Ford, GM, etc. can now get rid of a chunk of their "Legacy" cost and the Pharmaceutical Companies will not have to negotiate with the retirees corporations for low cost drugs but can sell at full price to Medicare.
My father's health care coverage is dictated by the contract under which he retired in 1988. Does this, then, nullify that contract? If so, isn't this, in essence, a taking under the takings clause of the United States Constitution? I do know the school district Dad worked in screwed over a few other retirees who went under the old contract, buying out their health coverage for something like 30 cents on the dollar - a check now rather than a bunch of bigger checks later. Dad fought hard against what he kept calling their horse-assing around with his contract, and the retirees who took the money can no longer run because they're too old and sick and only have Medicare.
This is the kind of thing that makes me proud to be an American.
Not.
Your father's contract should still be valid, I would think, in that he is already retired,and is over 65 already, plus it is currently in force. But for those who have not yet retired, the companies etc. can change the retirement plans and make this cut.
It may even affect those who retired after the date the case was originally adjudicated, and/or those who are retired but have not yet reached 65 and thus triggered that part of their retirement plan.
In the main that means the "baby boomers" and the WWII babies (i.e.anyone after 1941).
It may backfire on the Republicans in that it provides a concrete example that they do support business over people in retirement and health care conflicts. Also it will up the Federal cost of the medicare drug supplement a great deal and may force the drug cost down in that program. Even so the individual retirees outlined above will see a net loss to their bottom line. It may change some voting patterns. But probably not.
Me, I probably will get caught in it.
Post a Comment