65+ folks could be dropped from retiree health plans under current law.

[madfloridian]

This administration managed to "sneak" into the new Medicare drug benefits something shocking. We knew it was coming, just did not know it was passed in June.
Even if you are much younger, it could involve your parents. Their retiree insurance could drop them, and force them into a Medicare program without adequate coverage.

http://www.aarp.org/tools/partner?url=http://capwiz.com/aarp/issues/alert/?alertid=2968501

SNIP....."The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – the Federal agency charged with protecting the rights of older workers – has proposed a new rule that would allow employers who offer retiree health to eliminate that benefit for older retirees. The new rule would make it legal for an employer to reduce or deny retiree health benefits if a retiree is eligible for Medicare or other public health plan, even if the employer’s retiree health benefit is substantially better.

This rule has been proposed for public comment. AARP urges you to contact the EEOC in opposition to this rule, which gives employers a green light to discriminate again the oldest of their retirees....."

More at the website. A policy advisor for AARP just happened on this change accidentally. It had been put in without debate on the Senate floor.

Even if this does not interest you per se, could you pass the word to others that it might effect? I have called about this to my legislators, but they are so dense. The media has not covered it at all. This could be very devastating to many elderly who are suddenly dropped and forced to change, after being promised this insurance.

Thanks.

[Frances]

1. It's already happening

My husband was promised medical benefits when he retired from Unisys some years ago. Unisys backed out and the retirees took the company to court. Even though Unisys had made these promises in writing, the retirees lost because somewhere in tiny print there were words to the effect that Unisys could modify the plan. Now my husband is on Medicare and pays for his own supplementary insurance.

I think Bush and his administration are doing their best to attack the middle class in every way.

I also think Bush may be successful. It is entirely possible that soon our country will look like Mexico and Brazil and Argentina and the old South. There will be a few rich people and many poor people.

[madfloridian]

2. We pay for our own under the group plan for retirement.

It costs a lot, yet they could drop anyone they choose. All our teachers' group did was to say we could carry the insurance with us, as many teachers retire long before 65.

We pay for it through the nose, though it will go down at 65 and become a supplement.

There are ways here to fight it, or try.

That is sad it is happening already. I am not surprised at anything this bunch would do.

This board could generate a lot of interest in this if we could quit bashing long enough, don't you think?

[alfredo]

3. Turning the US into a banana republic

is the goal. The Reaganites saw enough of the central American dictatorships to see the benefits for the ruling class. Reaganomics is based on a simple observation. there is finite money in the world, the more in the hands of the poor and middle class, the less in the hands of the gentry. Reaganomics is the cure for this.

Benefits rob the rich of their God given right to as much money as they desire.

[Starpass]

4. Saw full discussion on this on C-Span--most companies heading this

way. The fight is whether they have to continue to honor those now on and just cut off future retirees or not. Also, head of a drug company a couple years ago said that in 10 years companies will no longer offer medical insurance to their employees and all the big corporate boys in the audience nodded in agreement. People better wake up that this stuff if ALL of our fights. They want the young against the old, etc. BUT we are all going down. The young better wake up.

[Yupster]

5. Can I ask?

Why is health insurance tied to employment anyway?

That has never made much sense to me. We all change jobs and work, and then not work, and then work again. It seems crazy to tie a permanent need to a temporary job.

[madfloridian]

8. If that is your view, then fine.

Many elderly will be left without affordable coverage they were promised. If this is your view, then I would not want to be your parents.

Yes, many many companies have done this through the years. My husband also has group insurance kept after retirement.

It is a good thing, and the elderly deserve more respect than to have it cancelled on them.

On Edit: Did not mean that to sound harsh or ugly, just realistic. Many just do not know this is going on. And when they find out, it is too late to fight it or argue.

I probably over-reacted to your statement because I really have a thing about people not realizing how valuable Medicare is to them where their parents are concerned.

Without Medicare, they would be paying for their parents care most likely. I remember my granddad's illnesses, and the cost to my parents. There was no Medicare then. I remember their having to care for him and pay for all costs involved. He just managed to get a little Social Security, and that did not help much.

I guess I forget how much these two programs meant to one or two generations, and I realize how little the younger people understand the implications of living without them.

[Yupster]

10. Medicare is government

as I think all health insurance/protection should be.

I don't get why we tie health insurance to businesses, who may get in financial trouble, go out of business, lay you off etc.

Health care is a permanent need of us all. Why is it tied to your job? That's what I don't get.

I'm sure the businesses would love to detach it too. I'm sure it's nothing but a headache to them.

[madfloridian]

13. I just don't get where you are on this. Trying to understand.

In the last few decades most businesses have offered health insurance. Now they don't, guess why.

The government does not want to be in the business. Something must be done, but this Bush bunch won't.

Yes, health care has been tied to jobs for many years. If I have been promised health care when I retire, I should get it. It is wrong to change the rules on retired people.

Would it be better for government to do it? Not unless they do better than they are doing now on Medicare. Ideally, yes, if we have a responsible government, which we don't.

[FlaGranny]

6. All the policies I've ever had from an employer

have stated that they "expire" at age 65. I didn't realize that some companies were still providing insurance after 65. I know that my father-in-law worked for a company where he was covered by a Medigap policy after he was eligible for Medicare. Is that what they mean?

Edit: My mother and father also were covered by medigap type insurance (my father worked in civil service), so they had one of the government plans, quite good compared to most.

[madfloridian]

7. WE pay for it. It is just group insurance we can keep.

When our teachers retire, they can continue to pay for group insurance. The school board does not do it for us, just provides it.

It is full insurance paid by us at group rates until we hit 65. Then it becomes a medicare supplement at lower rates.

Yes, the people who are already on insurance provided and promised by companies should NOT be kicked off.

That is just a sample of what our country is becoming.

[madfloridian]

9. A last kick hoping some more will send faxes at the link.

:kick:

[leftchick]

11. I sent my fax!

Thanks!

[madfloridian]

12. And thank you a lot.

The AARP is not very good at taking stands for the people. I try to think good thoughts about them, but even this should have been publicized more. They are not activist for us.