Town Square

Post a New Topic

EEOC Ruling Backs Post-Age-65 Benefit Cuts

Original post made by Mike, College Terrace, on Dec 26, 2007

Web Link

Another unbelievably selfish move that will hurt retirees. There is absolutely NO innovation in health care.

Another BIG win for the insurance companies, where $.58 of every dollar goes to administrative costs and profit.

Our public employees - including teachers and municipal workers - should demand guarantees that they will not lose post-65-years health benefits.

As well, private company employees should begin to unionize more aggressively, to stop this insult.

Comments (18)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lois
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 27, 2007 at 9:17 am

This would be OK if Medicare actually covered a retirees medical expenses, but it doesn't. Everyone needs a supplemental from somewhere to cover the gap. Hopefully this will come from the company from which you retired.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 27, 2007 at 10:18 am

A quote from the article:
"In general, the commission observed, employers are not required by federal law to provide health benefits to either active or retired workers."
This is as it should be, and it should apply to state law as well. Our health care system would be much better off without employers being the middlemen between us and our health care.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Universal Health Care
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 27, 2007 at 10:28 am

I hope you'll remember that (god forbid) your (or someones close to you) tiny post-retirement dole is wiped out for several months by an unexpected illness. Reality has a way of blowing back.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 27, 2007 at 10:35 am

I'm sure you would say the same if employers had been providing shoes and then stopped.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Universal Health Care
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 27, 2007 at 10:40 am

One can walk without shoes, but try doing that with diabetic nueropathy that goes untreated because of one's lack of insurance. Then, think about what it will cost you, in the long run, when that same person is admitted to emergency care.

For an Ayn Rand follower, your arguments sure seem ill-written, plodding, and without forethought.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 27, 2007 at 11:58 am

Few don't have shoes.
Why assume that one would not take some personal responsibility and get insurance if it was not supplied by his employer?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Universal Health Care
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 27, 2007 at 12:01 pm

some people can't afford it - like 10's of millions of working people


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 27, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I don't believe it's nearly that many who can't afford it. In order to do business, if the insurance companies dealt with individuals instead of employers, they would come up with a scale of products to meet individual needs. These would include relatively inexpensive policies that would cover only catastrophic expenses.
But, it isn't right to FORCE 100's of millions into a state system in order to give handouts to even a few million. If your altruistic-collectivist ideology requires you to force others to provide, then support the needy directly without foisting a socialistic insurance system on all of us. (Your use of the term "working people" dates you as an old Marxist.)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joe
a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2007 at 5:48 am

R Wray, you are an example of self-centered totally unaware higher income people.

I had life long medical benefits as part of my employment for thirty years it the same employer. Then it was bought by another company, and my retiree benefits go to about nothing. All I need, living on a modest fixed income is to come up with thousands of dollars a year in premiums and find an insurance company (fat chance) that will take me with several existing medical conditions. Or, I can try to survive on Medicare which most doctors in my area don't take, and which doesn't cover some of the treatment I need.

But, hey, you have a ton of money, so these over the side of the boat contracts are no skin off your nose.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 28, 2007 at 9:36 am

joe, if you had been using the money your employer spent on your insurance to buy your insurance directly from the insurance company, you might not have this problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Universal Health Care
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 28, 2007 at 10:54 am

but then his employr would hve been paying, anyway - duh!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 28, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Sure, the employer pays. He either pays the insurance company for joe or he pays joe and joe buys his own insurance. Why should joe rely on his employer as middleman? For instance, I buy my own auto insurance. (I choose what kind of insurance I want, and I believe it has a non-cancellation clause.) I am free to change jobs without it affecting my auto insurance. I'm making the case that medical insurance should be the same.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Universal Health Care
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 28, 2007 at 3:31 pm

"Why should joe rely on his employer as middleman?"

Because there's power in leveraging thousands of buyers with a provider.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 29, 2007 at 9:09 am

Selection, quality and price are not necessarily better at the company store.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Universal Health Care
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 29, 2007 at 3:52 pm

That's exactly right, and your point?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 30, 2007 at 1:11 am

What part of personal responsibility don't you understand?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Universal Health Care
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 30, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Again, your point?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 31, 2007 at 4:51 pm

The point is to live a life of happiness.
Happy New Year.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Company partners with Coupa Cafe to launch mobile payment app
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 1,582 views

All Parking Permits Should Have a Fee
By Steve Levy | 17 comments | 1,184 views

For the Love of Pie
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,182 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,117 views

Labor vs Marathons
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 561 views