Many Retirees May Lose Benefit From Employers

[cal04]

Source: NYTimes

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.”

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent this year and have increased 78 percent since 2001, according to surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because of the rising cost of health care and the increased life expectancy of workers, the commission said, many employers refuse to provide retiree health benefits or even to negotiate on the issue.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/washington/27retire.html?hp

[brentspeak]

1. What the freak?????

What kind of B.S. end-around is this?

[gratuitous]

2. Gee, what a surprise

A lot of these benefits were negotiated in lieu of raises and current compensation by unions on behalf of their members, mostly because their employers were crying poor (but wouldn't open their books). Then, after a couple of decades of faithful and underpaid service, the EEOC decides that the employers can short-change their employees on the front end AND on the back end.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Absolutely correct and we need to send a message to thes a$$wipes

Make their life so miserable.

Eliminate all of their health coverage for life including medicare.

[mac2]

13. OK Congress and the President

isn't it about time to remove your book deals, speaking fees, federal pensions, raises, and health insurance...Secret Service? You profit big time off the public wallet. We can't afford them in a time of huge debt and the horror of the "brink civilization failure and death" at our door step.

We the tax payers are going to have to "save" money for ourselves. Every guy for themselves in times of debt, chaos, and war.

VP Cheney is the biggest "sucker oner" of all. He has his own medical staff and Blackhawk follow him around. He's more than met his limit of $3 million health insurance coverage. He has to go. He's a drain on our treasury. He has his own billions made from illegal wars.

[saskatoon]

66. speaking ofCheney

It's a wonder a contract hasn't been put out on him.

[TransitJohn]

7. Wouldn't this mean that

those contracts were voided? I'm sure it's complicated.

[BearSquirrel2]

15. It was a mistake ...

It was a mistake to accept deferred compensation. In truth, it was probably a way to go back to the membership with a deal when the union reps new they couldn't get any more from the suits.

In the future, I think we ultimately have to make limited liability payments to deferred payment pools that can be used for collateral by investors, but are up for grabs in the case of malfeasance. Don't think for a second that the plan wasn't ALWAYS to fold up the tent and take the money that had already been stashed away without paying deferred compensation.

[mcscajun]

4. Doesn't sound like a surprise to me. I'm an early retiree with health benefits now...

...but as soon as I'm Medicare-eligible (as it stands now) those benefits become secondary to Medicare (unless of course, my former employer eliminates them entirely); this was already known to me when I retired in 2003.

This new development might mean I stand a greater chance of that elimination happening down the road, but then, I've always known it was a crap-shoot; any private employer can change benefit conditions to suit them, not you.

Doesn't mean I like it; just means I understand it.

[mac2]

17. National Health Care

has to come to America. If they want us as workers and consumers, they must pay taxes to support it. No more Cayman Islands profit centers or tax breaks.

Americans are not slaves where they just discard us when done with us. We gave them their wealth, technology, and talent to become a success. No to only the elite taking all the money and benefits for themselves.

CEOs head of Americans corporations who have gone international (off-shored petents, markets, and our technology secrets) should be required to live there not here in America. We aren't going to protect and support them with our hard work and taxes.

OK unions how about a national strike if they do this to our retired and about to retire employees? They have violated their contract and our good faith as to our rights and benefits.

Didn't Congress vote on this a year or so ago? The President keeps trying to remove our benefits and pensions. Let's remove his since he has failed to represent our best interest.

[MaineDem]

28. Yes, it becomes secondary to Medicare but it's still there, no?

This sounds like all you'd have would be Medicare. That's what scares me.

I'm a pre-Medicare retiree with great medical benefits (for which I'm eternally grateful.) When I turn 65 I'll keep my company benefits as the supplement to Medicare. What I've seen of Medicare coverage, that secondary insurance is vital. I don't want to lose it.

[Thothmes]

29. No surprise to me

I retired from the U.S. Navy. Currently fully covered under the DOD CHAMPUS program. Hit 65 get shifted to Medicare with Champus being the secondary.

[RebelOne]

53. I'm 68 and working full-time.

I am covered by my employer's medical plan, which includes eye and dental care. I do not have Medicare because my health plan has all those benefits and Medicare does not. That's mainly why I continue to work for the full medical coverage.

[mac2]

61. That's the point

you might not have full medical coverage in the future. The courts say it's OK to deny them to any workers let alone just retired.

[stillcool]

5. Jeepers...

this can't mean what I think it does. People can not possibly have paid into, or gotten a health care package as part of their salary...only to have the employer opt out of their agreement..can it?

[silverojo]

6. Way to go, corporations!

Crush those old people, but good! :sarcasm:

[dysfunctional press]

8. "may" lose? try WILL lose.

does anyone honestly think that ANY corproation is NOT going to cut benefits COMPLETELY. by law, they pretty much have to- in order to provide their shareholders with every possibly available penny.

and actually- it's a GOOD thing, in terms of getting us down the road to single-payer universal health care that much quicker.

[madrchsod]

9. they must stay up at nights

trying to come up with new ways to fuck over the american worker.

[ThomCat]

10. Yet again, companies are allowed to break their promises to

their retired employees. If poor people tried to break agreements like this they'd get hauled into court for breach of contract, and they'd lose. But because it's corporations violating agreements the government will bend over backwards to make it okay.
x(

[mac2]

14. Corporate Responsibilty Act?

Whose going to enforce it? Seems this is a big failure...even criminal neglect.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. This has been going on for years-- surprised nobody...

noticed it before. there was a bunch of us talking about it in the '70s long before it became so common.

And, while you're at it, you might notice what's been happening to pensions.

[mac2]

12. Yet the corporate CEOs and CFOs have enough benefits and bonus

to last them their whole life. They aren't even the owners but employees. Whose stealing from the workers? Is this the Corporate Responsibility Act?

[windbreeze]

16. This is a surprise???

I am older than my husband....while he worked...no problem...I had medicare AND his insurance, which he paid for, through his benefits package, iow, it was automatically taken out of his paycheck....When he retired, I became insured mainly by medicare...his insurance became secondary.....I more or less lost all prescription coverage, because they forced me onto D through medicare with a good sized deductable...he still has coverage, but it's not like it was...when he becomes 65....he will lose coverage to the same degree I already have, and have to go to medicare...the cost to keep his active, is prohibitive...almost $800 a mo...for the almost NO coverage I have...and the lessened coverage he has...and last year they raised the premium about $100...a month...IF they do the same next year...we may end up w/o coverage...fixed incomes do NOT allow for an extra hundred to be spend here or there on a monthly basis...Fixed income means exactly that..FIXED INCOME....so much for the golden years...anyway...I can't see why this "new" regulation seems to be such a "new" thing...apparently some companies have been doing this all along....wb...(I have to laugh every time I read on the payment slip, that we have the option of paying the premium for a year in advance...Uh Huh...yeah, I have an extra $10,000 just lying around every year, sure I do...)

[kineneb]

59. sad to say this- can you qualify for Medicaid?

if you have expensive medications, it is the only way to avoid going completely broke. It may mean living at poverty level, but it is the only way many of us can get medical coverage at all. We had to chose between having assets or having healthcare, and when a loved one has renal failure, there is no real choice.

Amerika- get sick, go broke.

[Blue Diadem]

65. My mid-70 yr old neighbor told me they pay over $900 a month

for he and his wife's secondary insurance that sounds very much like yours.

Even years ago, after my Dad died, I was told by hospital and nursing home admin. that my Mom and disabled sis were very lucky to have the company paid secondary insurance that my Dad's former employer used for their retiree's. My MIL has been gone 10 yrs now and she used to question me about their coverage because she and my FIL had to pay for theirs and the coverage wasn't anywhere near as good.

[rodeodance]

18. a new rule by the Commision.

[rodeodance]

19. hate to say this-but the people affected may now be more concerned about electing someone

who will work on health care!!

[IsItJustMe]

30. Sad, but true. My dad was a Rush Limpball kind of Republican until the company he use to work for

dismantled his medical benefits. I tried to tell him the chimp was a corporate whore. My dad is now singing a very different tune.

It's a damn shame that people just can't seem to see through the bull shit until it directly affects them.

[JDPriestly]

20. Isn't it odd how the courts enforce the cruel contracts that bind

working people to pay usurious interest rates on credit card debt but refuse to enforce the contracts between workers and their employers with regard to pensions?

Wonder why? LOL

[donheld]

21. This is so utterly maddening

:grr:

[anitar1]

22. The message is and has been,

just die and get out of our way. You are taking up too much space.

[dmosh42]

23. HR1322 would prevent losing benefits, but thanks to the party....

that used to stand by 'working' people, it hasn't been allowed to come to the floor for a vote since March. So who stands to gain from that? The corporations who control Congress!

[mtnester]

24. It was always clear as far as my coverage goes that I would be fully covered

when I retired with my OPERS health insurance as primary, and then when I was eligible for Medicare, I would have to enroll and my OPERS becomes secondary. Not a surprise for most public servants (except Congress critters, who have it for life at full benefit, I think)

[demgrrrll]

25. My husband works for a company that offers medical benefits for life,

you have to pay a premium but it is not that bad and he will get a pension. He has been with the company for 25 years and those people who have been with the company 25 + years are the last people who will get a pension. So Far. I hope this holds up because we are counting on the pension and benefits.

[mac2]

62. Mine too

but it might be removed. The CEOs and CFOs who don't own corporations get huge salaries and benefits are ruining it for the rest of their company. Where is that Corporate Responsibility Act Congress?

[GTurck]

26. We are two of those

who depend upon designated benefits health insurance.
How do we protest or better yet throw a tantrum? Damn this is so frustrating.

[ohio2007]

27. What happens when the employers close their doors and go out of buisness?

Just a matter of time when offshoring and foreign competition invokes the chapter 11 clause for buisness.

[mac2]

63. It happend to my father

just before he retired. The union lied about the profits of the company and the new French owners refused to pay the pensions, etc. He lost his pension and was put on a government program at a lot lower payout.

[MaineDem]

31. kick n/t

[0007]

32. Oh Gee, now that wouldn't be something new would it? The money G.E.

and the steel companies have robbed from their workers though out time would make a sick whore cry.

[DeepModem Mom]

33. U.S. Ruling Backs Benefit Cut at 65 in Retiree Plans: Can reduce or eliminate health benefits

Source: New York Times, page one, lead

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 27, 2007

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.”

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent this year and have increased 78 percent since 2001, according to surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because of the rising cost of health care and the increased life expectancy of workers, the commission said, many employers refuse to provide retiree health benefits or even to negotiate on the issue.

In general, the commission observed, employers are not required by federal law to provide health benefits to either active or retired workers....

***

AARP and other advocates for older Americans attacked the rule. “This rule gives employers free rein to use age as a basis for reducing or eliminating health care benefits for retirees 65 and older,” said Christopher G. Mackaronis, a lawyer for AARP, which represents millions of people age 50 or above and which had sued in an effort to block issuance of the final regulation. “Ten million people could be affected — adversely affected — by the rule.” The new policy creates an explicit exemption from age-discrimination laws for employers that scale back benefits of retirees 65 and over. Mr. Mackaronis asserted that the exemption was “in direct conflict” with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967....

***

Further, employers will be able to reduce or eliminate health benefits provided to the spouse or dependents of a retired worker 65 or over, regardless of whether benefits for the retiree are changed....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/washington/27retire.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

[dmosh42]

34. Support 'protectseniors.org' in their effort to pass HR1322....

which specifically deals with benefits earned by working Americans into retirement. This bill has been sponsored by John Tierney, Ma, and was introduced in March. Pelosi has let it sit in committee, as she has endorsed other legislation by the Bush Administration. WTF! Who's on our side?

[4dsc]

35. Looks like class warfare to me

another attack on the poor and middle class..

[dysfunctional press]

36. given a choice of reduce or eliminate...which do you think corporate america will choose?

the silver-lining being that this will probably help us speed up down the road to single-payer universal healthcare.

[mac2]

64. Or become Hatti

full of poverty and chaos.

[underpants]

37. Just last week didn't I hear that retirement plans can be arbitrarily switched to 401Ks?

Either way this is just ridiculous. What happened to contract law????

[YankeyMCC]

38. Once again Corporations push the cost of business

onto the taxpayers.

[rockybelt]

39. Yet another vote for compassionate conservatism nt

[gmoney]

40. Sheesh...

You'd think the PEOPLE would win ONE of these fights once in a while.

[Fovea]

43. But you'd be wrong right now

At this point in Murikin history, working class folks and middle class folks are told by the Upper Class Army, to stop talking class war, or the gravy train gets derailed.

And they will keep doing that as long as we are at each other for scraps.

Because really, compared to the modern world, there is no gravy train, just a paper rice bowl.

[many a good man]

41. What are promises worth?

Retirement health benefits are a part of the compensation package you agree to when you work for a corporation. How can employers unilaterally cut a benefit? Isn't that the same as violating a contract? Shouldn't the retirees be compensated in some for the company reneging on its contract?

[gmoney]

42. "It's not our fault you lived so long..."

"We figured the toxins in your workplace would have killed you off years ago..."

[Trillo]

44. Curious how this comes about while there's some serious campaigning for

Single-Payer Medicare for all. Call me a cynic, but it would sure be in historical pattern if those pushes end up fullfilled largely by private plan coverage with mandated purchase for younger people, then giving to the government ALL the oldest people generally in need of the most medical care.

Can euthanasia camps be part of the coming plan for the retired portion of the prole class? :tinfoilhat:

[many a good man]

46. Its time to end employer-based health insurance

I can't say that I can agree with you that there is a "serious" push for single payer Medicare for all. I guess its all relative.

The only way to build support for MediCare for All in the business community is to make it too expensive for them to offer as a benefit. This ruling lessens the pain for them so I see it as a defeat.

[pleah]

45. A blatant attempt to slowly kill off the elderly.

[Faygo Kid]

47. Plus Bush wants to slash or end Medicare, creating the perfect situation for the GOP

An American people dependent on the charitable instincts of the top 1/2 of 1 percent. Destroy the Social Safety net? It's one of his priorities, and he is running out of time to accomplish it (we hope).

[Turbineguy]

49. Todays news from Pakistan

may give him an opening to finish destroying America.

[Bozita]

57. This story went from big to ignored at a few minutes past 8am ET

[Turbineguy]

48. My Union is saved!

After mismanaging their plan for years they can now dump those fucking retirees!

[Oreegone]

50. Happy New Year !!

Wonderful, Just a little nothing from your government who already has slashed what Medicare covers. Do you know how many people are 65 and older and working? With only Medicare you are sooooo screwed if you have a serious health issue. Many doctors already don't see Medicare patients because the payments are so low and the paperwork is so ardous. The list of what is not covered goes on and on. I have a 80 year old friend who has a degenrative disease that the most recommended therapy is physical therapy, it has been months, still no approval. You would think they would want her to be able to stay in her home, no they in fact want her home.

They really want to destroy America as we know it. :evilgrin: If there is a devil, he is laughing now.

[Trillo]

51. At least in the "Patent Medicine" era,

your friend could have purchased highly effective narcotic pain killers over-the-counter, thereby easing her perceived pain somewhat. They were reportedly ubiquitous and cheap.

Nowadays, even the doctors are scared silly of prescribing those, and I doubt if they're cheap given that The Corporatist likes to use the so-claimed "free" market to control us through various hierarchical mechanisms.

[RebelOne]

52. I hope this doesn't happen because I am 68 and working full-time

with medical benefits that include eye care and dental. Medicare does not provide these. That is one of the reasons I am continuing to work past retirement because of the medical coverage.

[Summer93]

54. EEOC

From the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission they bring us the opposite. This is blatant prejudice to people of a particular age. I thought that was against the law.

Oh, I forgot we are no longer a country of laws. Our country has been minimized to a corpratocracy. A place where corporations get the best bang for the buck, a place where the motto is profit before people.

The new policy creates an explicit exemption from age-discrimination laws for employers that scale back benefits of retirees 65 and over. Mr. Mackaronis asserted that the exemption was “in direct conflict” with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967....

This puts another nail in the coffin of employment. It appears that working for a corporation is the wrong road these days. When they make their own laws can we the people be smart enough to change our ways.

[happyslug]

55. Here is the actual rule issued by the EEOC

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-24867.htm

[Traditional Liberal]

56. Socialized medicine

How utterly transparent.

dumbass won't expand s Chip because corporate chieftains like to line their pockets with overpriced insurance for kids.

But people who have given their entire lives to the US get shoved on to the public dole because business needs to expense an annual sales meeting to Hawaii.

barf

[tabasco]

58. Welcome to republican America!

Thanks republican voters!

[mac2]

60. Health Insurance for the wealthy only ruling

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/healthcare/index.html?WT.mc_id=PO-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M001-ROS-1107-L3&WT.mc_ev=click&mkt=PO-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M001-ROS-1107-L3

How the candidates stand on health insurance and care.

Retired and early retired are in big trouble. The President wants to remove all Social Security and pensions in the future this is just the first step.

Yes the Congress ruled otherwise but the President goes to his "puppet court" to get it eventually.

Why aren't the AARP and senior groups yelling bloody murder all over the place? AARP and senior groups seem to be silent about it. They are after all lobbyists there for their own job which they don't do very well. Are they looking for higher pay (public funded) lobby jobs with the Neo Cons?

Let's remove Congress and the President's health insurance and pension benefits. Especially the VP who is costing us a fortune.

Impeach the so and sos.

[Oreegone]

67. The AARP has objected and sued this is about that lawsuit

But AARP and other advocates for older Americans attacked the rule. “This rule gives employers free rein to use age as a basis for reducing or eliminating health care benefits for retirees 65 and older,” said Christopher G. Mackaronis, a lawyer for AARP, which represents millions of people age 50 or above and which had sued in an effort to block issuance of the final regulation. “Ten million people could be affected — adversely affected — by the rule.”

The new policy creates an explicit exemption from age-discrimination laws for employers that scale back benefits of retirees 65 and over. Mr. Mackaronis asserted that the exemption was “in direct conflict” with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

The commission, by contrast, said that under that law, it could establish “such reasonable exemptions” as it might find “necessary and proper in the public interest.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, upheld this claim in June, in the case filed by AARP, which has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.