Supreme Court Allows Retiree Benefit Cuts

[Wednesdays]

Source: LA Times

Employers may coordinate with Medicare on healthcare provisions for seniors. An AARP legal challenge is turned away.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 25, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday gave employers a green light to reduce health benefits for millions of retirees who turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare. The justices turned away a legal challenge from AARP, the nation's leading senior citizens lobby, which had contended these lower benefits for older retirees violated the federal law against age discrimination.

The court's action upholds, in effect, a rule adopted last year by federal regulators that says the "coordination of retiree health benefits with Medicare" is exempt from the anti-age-bias law.

<snip>

Employers in California, large and small, say benefits for retirees already have become a casualty of soaring medical costs.

"In some cases, it's become a millstone around their necks," said Jack Kyser, chief economist of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. "Corporations aren't all heartless, but in many cases, you're competing with multinational corporations that don't have quite the obligations that domestic firms have."


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-scotus25mar25,1,5568623.story

---

Credit for finding this story goes to DemReadingDU, who first posted it in today's Stock Market Watch thread.

[DemReadingDU]

1. Thank you for this thread

Rec#1

[Wednesdays]

2. Thanks for the find

:hi:

[area51]

3. "multinational corporations"

Big business has no one to blame but itself. "Multinational corporations" may have fewer obligations b/c other govts. actually provide a decent social safety net in return for tax dollars, unlike this govt. If big biz doesn't like their obligations, then start using their $$$ to lobby the govt. for a better social safety net, including single-payer. No pity here for big business.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Expect to hear much more of this

"Corporations aren't all heartless, but in many cases, you're competing with multinational corporations that don't have quite the obligations that domestic firms have."
All those foreign firms coming here don"t have to play under same rules as American used to: Fair health, safety,pension, bias laws won't apply.
Case in point, the Thyssenkroup steel plant being built just north of Mobile Al
owned entirely by Germany, is under no legal obligation to obey any USA rules.

[NBachers]

6. Sounds like Colonization

We've come full circle, haven't we? While we've been out econo-colonizing the rest of the third world, the corporate planners have been working to reduce our population to third-world status. Now we become the colonized.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. Colonization.

:think:

[mainegreen]

10. That's completely not true. n/t

[davekriss]

20. The plant in Mobile Alabama...

...would be subject to the same federal and state regulations and laws as any other business operating in Alabama.

[dixiegrrrrl]

88. Yeah, that is why folks here are suing

Alabama Environmental Agency for letting mercury contaminated waste be trucked across 3 counties and dumped in a landfill illegally
and
for letting the Highway Dept. send mud into the drinking water of Mobile

and...
give me a break...
You think our Repub governor, Rove's buddy, who accomplished the political assassination of Seigleman, is gonna enforce any rules for a A German steel mill?
Holding my breath...
turning blue......
getting bluer...

aaccckkkkk

[OwnedByFerrets]

23. Just a shout out to a

fellow democrat from bama. Im in Mobile.....have to look kinda hard to find friendly faces.;-)

[YvonneCa]

36. I do...

...but that does not make it right.

[kimmylavin]

5. Jesus.

Corporations may not all be heartless, but I think the American ones are leading the way.
Thank goodness we have a Supreme Court that is truly interested in justice. :sarcasm:

[DCKit]

7. Who is AARP? It's not retired people, it's insurance and healthcare corporations.

Medicare doesn't pay as much to providers for procedures and the insurance companies are going to take a hit on on the bottom line when many people switch from full coverage to Medicare supplemental insurance.

Somehow, I think the Supremes might have got this one right, but I'm sure there's a big "Fuck You" in there somewhere for the people.

[MaineDem]

97. In this case, I'm totally behind AARP

I cancelled my membership when they supported the medicare changes but, in this case, they are so right.

Why should the benefits people worked all their careers for be changed just because one reaches 65? I think this is very very wrong. (I'm a retiree.)

[DCKit]

113. I totally agree. But there's an agenda everywhere you look.

And I don't trust ANY of the players.

[Ganja Ninja]

8. $30 billion for Bear Stearns and screw the elderly.

Just another day in Dick Cheney's Amerika.

[mulsh]

9. MIL's retirement health care was elimiated last year.

Last year, a week before he died, my father was informed that his retirement health care benefits were going to be eliminated. Both of them were retired public school teachers in california's . I have heard other tales of retirement health care woe recently from private sector retirees.

[L0oniX]

11. Sounds like they want people over 65 to die quickly. Couldn't they just put them on LSD?

[Babel_17]

16. Sounds like "Wild in the Streets"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063808/

"Frost runs for the presidency. Winning in a landslide, he issues his first presidential edict: All oldsters are required to live in "retirement homes" where they are forced to ingest LSD, taking the 60s catch phrase "Never trust anyone over 30" to its most extreme consequences."

The bottom line here is that we've had a lack of proper planning in this country and as usual those who can pull the strings will be allowed to work the refs and also rewrite the rules.

[12string]

18. put them on LSD

I'm not yet 65 but I'm disabled and on medicare.I'll take some government supplied LSD gladly.Maybe then I can expand my mind enough to comprehend the fiasco that is Amerika.

[DemoTex]

27. Youth-in-Asia.

:scared:

[Javaman]

12. welcome to the new age of job slavery...

You will now be chained to your desks, because it's cheaper to keep you on the payroll and working than "freeloading" by, pffft!, retiring!!!

[lebkuchen]

93. Cheney would say that Bush carries the greater burden

for such a decision.

[AnneD]

13. I agree with them cutting health benefits for retirees....

The first cuts should be for government officials like SC Justices, Senators, and Congressmen. Everyone has to make sacrifices :sarcasm: (but do you really need that)

[Delphinus]

29. YES!

YES!!

AnneD you have a great plan!!! :yourock: Let's do it!

[windbreeze]

33. I couldn't agree more....

how about we take away all that secret service detail for those ex pres's and their families....AND make all gov't office holder retirees deal with medicare as their only insurance, once they hit 65...for ALL their medical/prescription needs...I think that's fitting....so do you think the SCOTUS...would see that as some sort of age discrimination??? What the hell's the difference??? Not only that...most of these people are privately wealthy and could afford to pay for their own insurance...they are not like the rest of us...who work for a company for 20/30/40 years just so we have some sort of coverage, we can afford, when we retire...wb

[Lugnut]

38. That would suit me just fine.

We are after all their employers.

[Debi]

41. What health care benefits do retired members of Congress receive?

I didn't know anything about this :shrug:

[magellan]

57. Here's some info I just found on that

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation. (Note: they have to pay into this themselves like the rest of us, but remember who's paying their salaries/pensions -- US.)

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

[Debi]

68. That explains their pensions

the poster said cut their health care benefits.

What health care benefits to retired members of Congress receive?

[AnneD]

74. Here's a few...

"With service of 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her final salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member's final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAs begin to kick in. For example, a Member of Congress who could collect $5 million or more, if he or she retires in his/her fifties, lives until his/her eighties, and elects to leave a part of the pension benefit to a spouse, who then live 10 or more years longer. This could include George Mitchell, especially after his post-Congressional government service. With Cost of Living Adjustments, total payments over a lifetime can reach these levels (though the more typical payout is likely to be between $1 million and $2 million).

In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector."

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=20

or hoz about this....


Answers to Questions About Congressional Pay & Perks

Questions about Congressional & Executive Pay/Perks

What Kind of Retirement Benefits do Members of Congress Receive?

Do Lawmakers Who Commit Crimes Still Receive Retirement Benefits?

Do Members of Congress get Automatic Pay Hikes?

Do Members of Congress Pay Social Security Taxes?
Do Members of Congress Pay Income Taxes?

How Do Congressman and Senators Pay for Office Expenses?

How Much Does a Member of Congress or the President Earn in a Year?

Learn More about "No Work, No Pay"

How Large is the President's Retirement Pension?

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=52


This is what the working gov stiffs get, and I don't begrudge them because not everyone gets a legislature's salary.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/index.asp

http://www.opm.gov/retire/html/calendar.asp


HAD ENOUGH YET????????

[Debi]

83. I've been through them all

former members of the US Congress do not receive health care benefits.

Yes, they receive a pension, but not health care benefits.

No insurance, no life insurance, no free doctor visits, no free prescriptions

NO HEALTH CARE BENEFITS.

You want to cut their pensions, fine, but you can't cut a benefit they do not receive.

[AnneD]

87. I believe they are covered here...

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/index.asp

This section covers retirement healthcare if I am reading it right.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/eligibility/annuitants.asp

Believe me....they don't go without.

[Debi]

94. delete -

I don't need my personal information out on this board.

[magellan]

105. That's the same link I found

Seems to me they do get health care benefits paid for by us as we pay their salaries and pensions.

[LanternWaste]

101. Nice work if you can get it...

Nice work if you can get it...

Health, pension, vacations, etc. I can only imagine how nice it must be to have a good job...

[magellan]

104. It also explains their health care benefits

Go to the link, click on the link in the text.

[AnneD]

42. You screw with people enough....

they don't get mad, they get even. I think we are at the even point now.

[dysfunctional press]

44. and of course the people who would make that decision are congressmen...

so don't look for it anytime soon.

[SammyWinstonJack]

112. !!!

Take their health care benefits away from them until they agree to DO SOMETHING POSITIVE for the rest of us! Screw their retirement benefits. Stop them from freeloading off of the rest of us without any consequence of what it feels like to be uninsured or under insured! Rat bastards!

[Broadslidin]

14. Tis simply, shoveling the old 'drool cups' over to medicare for Rubber Stamping...!

Yes,
the nice person at the medicare :patriot: window
still has a workable rubber stamp.

[cadaverdog]

15. From the same people who gave us the Bush presidency

Unfortunately, this was first reported the day Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, and the story was buried in the back pages.

Here I thought I had my health care all set-up for my retirement. Now I'll be waiting for the other shoe to drop.
As has been noted before, most Americans are only one health disaster away from bankruptcy.
Disgusting.

[rateyes]

17. OK Dems in Congress....

it's time to legislate to overturn this ruling.

[antigop]

28. FYI -- HR 1322 would provide ERISA protection for retiree health benefits

http://nrln.org/Questions%20and%20Answers.htm

This bill has been around for quite a while. There is no Senate companion bill.

The problem is that retiree health benefits are not protected under ERISA as pensions are. HR 1322 would provide ERISA protection for retiree health benefits.

[dmosh42]

61. That bill has been sitting in committee since May with no vote...

Thanks to Pelosi & scumbags who we thought was on our side.

[antigop]

81. actually Tierney introduced it several years ago. It has gotten co-sponsors but

there has been no Senate bill.

It keeps getting re-introduced with each session of Congress.

[fascisthunter]

19. Case in Point of Right Wingers Screwing Average Americans

And talk about "judicial Activism" there's your abuse of the justice system for the already powerful. Disgusting....

[izquierdista]

21. Correction

"Corporations aren't all heartless..."

Yes, they all are. Not a single one breathes the air they pollute, drinks the water they pollute, or feels a rhythmic thump in their chest. They have no lungs, no kidneys, no heart, they are simply pieces of paper that allow the upper class to disavow any responsibility for their fellow man.

[rudy23]

32. Very well said.

"Not a single one breathes the air they pollute, drinks the water they pollute, or feels a rhythmic thump in their chest. They have no lungs, no kidneys, no heart, they are simply pieces of paper that allow the upper class to disavow any responsibility for their fellow man."

I hope you don't mind me using that at some point to strike down a freeper.

[xxqqqzme]

60. So true.

I wonder how those 'pieces of paper' can be granted the status of a person, because, unlike the person, they never die.

[KarenS]

108. yes, yes, indeed,,,,,

very well said !!

[darue]

22. these employers should never have agreed to pay helthcare costs for retirees

employment should have NOTHING to do with healthcare. it MUST be universal single payer.

[YvonneCa]

34. But they did...

...promise. Are you saying it's okay to go back on a promise?


And I am FOR universal single payer. :)

[darue]

46. promise or was there a contract? funny how these corporate types like voiding SOME contracts

I'd think there had to have been a contract involved somehow.

[EarlG]

24. Sounds like the perfect explanation of why trickle-down economics is utter BS

Under the theory of trickle-down economics, the bigger the profits, the more wealth will "trickle down" to the workers. Except in order to make those larger profits, they have to cut people's benefits.

What a joke.

[Lasher]

39. The examples are legion

Supply side economics has never been anything more than an attempt to find moral justification in taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

[liam_laddie]

43. Ray-gun economics

is just 'nother word for fooking GREED! It's inverse to reality. It's trickle-UP...

[Chovexani]

52. Trickle down really means

The rich pissing on the poor.

[Vinca]

25. How is that fair if you have a younger employee getting $10,000

worth of insurance benefits, but the older employee is cut loose to pay his own, inadequate, Medicare costs? Seems to me the older employer is getting the royal shaft.

[antigop]

30. um, yep. They are. But the "thinking" is.. "we HAVE to do this to remain competitive"

"At least they have Medicare."

:evilfrown:

[Vinca]

35. I wonder if any older person has tried suing using the notion that

the younger person is receiving $10,000 more in compensation for the same work so it's blatant age discrimination? That's different from the employers can negotiate with Medicare suit.

[antigop]

48. but the 'older person' is retired -- he/she isn't employed.

NOTE: I am not an attorney, just giving my opinion.

[Vinca]

72. I must have misread it. I thought it was people still working past

the age when Medicare kicks in. I know insurance policies automatically give you the boot at 65 whether you're working or not.

[Nickster]

37. and then the government sinks medicare, then all those "slackers" are left to fend for themselves.

See how easy it is to be a Neocon?

[antigop]

45. yes, I think that is the plan. The government will "sink Medicare" because of the

huge debt. We just can't afford to pay those Medicare trust fund bonds when they come due, now, can we? Sorry, Charlie...

[windbreeze]

26. They are already doing this...

and I don't live in California either...when my husband retired, Medicare became my primary (not by choice) his retiree insurance took the back seat, when he reaches 65, the same thing will happen to him...he will be forced to sign up for Medicare and Part D.... When I was forced to sign up for D, I was told point blank that if I chose not to, I wouldn't have any prescription coverage at all...some choice right?....this retiree insurance/medicare...costs us over $700 a month, (not counting co pays and prescriptions) the cost to us, is just about 3/4 of the entire pension check he receives for working for that company almost 30 years...uh huh...Seems to me, they already work together....even with this insurance coverage...one medical emergency could wipe us out financially just from co pays and prescriptions....wb

[fmlymninral]

63. retirement and health care costs

call your local insurance agent. many times there are plans that will work with medicare and cost much less the what your payments are for your retiree benefits from the company. Next door neighbor just save $6,000 per year on their insurance costs and got better coverage. no copays no deductibles.

[antigop]

31. "Supreme Court, Inc."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html

The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests.

The Supreme Court NOW is pro-business.

[Supersedeas]

40. the Roberts court is making its mark

[madrchsod]

65. the most dangerous man in america

even sammy alito thinks roberts is to conservate...now we see why the extreme right christian zealots installed him.

[Ikonoklast]

49. It is now your duty as an American to die before costing too much

The contract that business and the government had with working people is now broken.

Since you are no longer a productive member of society, and have been foolish enough not to have saved the requisite ten million dollars in order to retire without costing the health insurance industry, federal government, or the pension fund of your previous employer one penny, you must cease to exist.

We owe you nothing for the years of service and contribution to the pension plan or social security, in which we stole your life and health in exchange for a paycheck and promises of health care in your old age we never intended to fulfill.

Sucker.

[specimenfred1984]

50. It's much more important to smear someone, Let's Move On

Haven't you heard, this sites new name is SmearUnderground.

[Dr Fate]

51. Remember the DLC/DEM coward (non)-battle cry: "Keep your powder dry...for the next fight!"

That was the mantra we heard over and over when we BEGGED the DEMS to filibuster or at least work harder in exposing these jerks: "Keep your powder dry...we must save our energy for the fights that lay ahead...the media will say we are being mean to the crying lady..." or some other form of the all too usual hand-wringing nonsense.

Dry powder indeed.

Apparently dry powder and the crying lady was more important than seniors.

[tom_paine]

53. Of course it did. It's neither supreme nor a court anymore, though.

It is strictly apolitical operation, hevaily tinged with widnow-dressing and bullshit about obeying the law, precedent, stare decsis, etc.

But in reality, it is a reflection of Imperial Will. Not 100% yet. As I said the window-dressing is quite heavy here and our entire nation still has part of one foot in the freedom of our past and one foot in the New Totalitarian future. Schizophrenic.

But, like the rest of it, what that really means is that the free part is dying and the totalitarian taken over. The "supreme" "court" like any other of our national institutions now run by the equivalent of Mafia criminals (but less violent, and we can be greatful for that), still sometimes produces "old style" relatively honest "Rule of Law" decisions so that if you focus on just those few, denial is easy and it's business as usual.

Anyway, this is NOT one of those times. Just another part of the Big Giveaway that the looting of the Old United States of America has been, a bonanza of wealth and loot that dwarfs the whole of Europe at Hitler's feet.

That is how wealth has multiplied, and that is why it is now being taken back by our rulers to create literal gods on Earth, now that technology has progressed so far.

So you had to figure the Rule of Law wasn't going to play much of a role here. "Go ahead, friends! Loot! Steal! Redirect pension and 401k funds! Whatever you wish to help those old bastards shuffle off the mortal coil a they stopped prouding loot!"

This was a slam-dunk. Yet another reason why the Democrats fear to bring anything to the Bushie Court for fear that it would legitimize ANY Bushie criminal malfeasance to protect Loyal Bushies. And once that it's done, it is legalized forever.

(not that I agree with such a strategy, it is one of surrender and retreat and ground lost than can never be regained)

[LSK]

54. "competing with multinational corporations that don't have quite the obligations that domestic firms

Maybe because those other countries have UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!?!?!?!?!?

[aggiesal]

55. Didn't AARP endorse GW?

GW owns the SCOTUS.
Why would you expect anything other then a fascist decision from
a fascist administration?

I feel sorry for all the seniors who this affects, except those
that voted for the chimp in charge. They're getting what they asked for.

[rinsd]

56. Time for single payer.

[lovuian]

58. Another reason why we need Universal Healthcare

and I bet many Retirees voted Republican too

[windbreeze]

82. I guarantee you

that neither this retiree, NOR her husband, voted Republican...but it makes no difference...when you go to the Dr./Hosp or anywhere when you need medical care, they only ask for your insurance card...not what your political persuasion is...wb

[totodeinhere]

59. Need we say more about why the Dems need to win in November?

We can't have McCain moving the court even more to the right if Stevens retires.

[madrchsod]

62. HUGE talking point for every democrat running

for office this year..you know that decision can be overturned...

[Trillo]

64. Isn't this the same as Lying?

Whether it's a court decision, or from the board room, if a business promises a particular benefit, then 15-45 years later decides it won't, or even can't, keep that promise, then how is this any different from LYING?

If someone on DU makes the statement that all businesspeople are LIARS, they're attacked as making an overly general statement full of hyperbole. Yet, didn't a decision such as this make these businesses precisely that to their former employees now turned retirees?

A problem is that any future benefit a business promises to any worker becomes reminiscent of the cartoon character who says,

"I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today."

Why don't businesses just get honesty, and tell their workers there are no benefits paid in the future, you get everything you earn at the end of each workday. No further strings attached. I rather guess it's too easy for workers to get sucked into the apparent, but false, honor of business, perhaps in the Vegas-like hope that they too will become pseudo insiders held to a special standard.

It's become impossible to discern the LIAR businesses from the honest ones. Are there any honest ones?

Yes, businesses really do earn it the harder way, they steal it by lying.

[aggiesal]

67. I thought it was, ,...

"I'll gladly pay you the second Tuesday of next week"

Point taken though. Because the second Tuesday doesn't exist,
neither will these promised benefits.

[antigop]

77. doesn't matter what was "promised" -- what matters is what is "legal" n/t

[katty]

66. more of this to come

[Bonhomme Richard]

69. I think this says it all.

"you're competing with multinational corporations that don't have quite the obligations that domestic firms have."
Of course not. Other countries have a national health care system.
If the corporations in this country spent a fraction of the time they spend trying to cut benefits to employees and focused on a national health care system we would have it by now.
Go figure.

[lonestarnot]

78. Zactly!

[Prophet 451]

70. *sigh* Figures

Chimp's two SCOTUS appointments were specifically chosen for their canine obedience to the neocon viewpoint, justice be damned so this is hardly a surprise.

[Omaha Steve]

71. Chisholm lawsuit addresses health insurance guarantee (contractual obligations in union contract)

A union contract at time of retirement is binding with few exceptions like a company going out of business. This decision was in in Mn State court. Most states uphold this type of rule.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x8791

[antigop]

79. that's why on the stockmarket thread, I mentioned employees need a contract n/t

[DURHAM D]

73. OK - I am lost here after reading all of the comments.

I don't understand what the problem is. At 65 everyone goes into the universal health care plan known as medicare. The monthly cost is around $100. That seems like very cheap medical coverage to me. If you are drawing social security it is deducted from your monthly check. If you are still working I think you pay it quarterly. This issue here may be the supplemental parts of medicare - the add ons. Plan B and Plan D, etc.

Example - My brother retired early and his company paid full medical on him (and his wife) until he reached 65. When he made the mandatory switch to medicare his company paid his monthly payment of $93 a month (instead of the several hundred they were paying to a private insurance company) and continued to pay for his wife's medical insurance. Now she is turning 65 so the company will pick up her bill of $93 a month and drop her private medical insurance. His company also pays the supplementals. The company is now saving $600-$700 a month on my brother's insurance alone and his benefits (and health care) have not changed.

His company is not obligated to keep paying for his (and his wife's) medical insurance. They do it anyway. If a company can reduce the cost of retirees private medical coverage while not reducing the benefits to retirees what am I missing? Seems like a company will have more money to spend on benefits of those still employed.

I must be missing something.

[antigop]

80. in your example, the company doesn't have to pay the $93 per month or the supplemental

The company can cut them loose at age 65 and they are own their own to pay for Medicare and any supplemental coverage.

Read the statement by AARP in the article:
>>
The court's action "clears the way for employers to discriminate by reducing or terminating benefits for older retirees simply because they've turned 65 years old," AARP said in a statement.
>>

<edit to add>But the company can still provide health benefits for early retirees who are not yet Medicare eligible. This ruling allows the companies to yank health benefits once the retirees turn 65. The retiree is then on his/her own to pay for Medicare and supplemental coverage.


I'm not an attorney. jmo

[DURHAM D]

84. True - they are not obligated but they keep paying.

Seems rational that companies are more likely to keep paying for their retirees if they can reduce their overall costs.

[antigop]

85. I disagree-- companies don't want to pay for their retirees AT ALL

But they need cover to jettison the retiree health plans.

So--cut the coverage for those age 65.

Follow it by cutting ALL retiree coverage.

imo

[DURHAM D]

86. That is not what I got from this decision.

I agree, however, that companies have some bottom line issues that could cause them to get uglier and uglier.

[antigop]

89. yes, that's the point --- I think it will get "uglier and uglier".

However, look at it this way....all of those people who *THOUGHT* they had insurance may end up without any. How many of these people are today against universal healthcare because *THEY* have insurance?

I honestly think that more people need to lose their insurance before there will be enough public outcry for universal healthcare.

I don't wish to be mean or hope that people lose their insurance. I'm just stating what I think has to happen before we get a real push for universal healthcare. (The people I know who have retiree insurance --including family members -- don't want universal healthcare. ...Until THEIR coverage gets yanked.)

[DURHAM D]

91. They have univeral health care (medicare) - what is your point?

Everyone's "private" insurance gets yanked at 65.

[antigop]

92. Just what you said in your example -- some companies still pay for Medicare and supplemental

coverage

And if companies yank ALL retiree coverage (even for those under age 65), those pre-65 retirees will be crying for universal healthcare.

[DURHAM D]

96. Well thank god you finally clarified the under 65 part.

I agree - if they yank it early more people will be for universal health care for everyone.

One of the things I have always disliked about the WWII generation is that they have had their universal health care for 30 years but they always vote against such proposals for others. They didn't pay much into the program (it started in l966 or l967) before they retired. My Dad paid into it for 16 years and has received the benefits for 25 years. My Mother didn't really pay into it at all but has been receiving the benefits for 20 years. However, they have always been for universal health care. My Dad calculates the benefits received from medicare (and SS) and announces at Christmas dinner their lifetime running total they have received in benefits and services over and above what they paid in. Then they toast and thank their children and their grandchildren for supporting them and all the other old people over the years - followed by a comment that it isn't fair.

[MaineDem]

98. No that's not true

My company has, up to now at least, continued with the Medicare part B after 65. I have no idea what they will do. I know there are union contracts involved. It also pisses me off so much that when I retired I was promised something that now may be withdrawn. That's not fair.

[antigop]

107. I would check with your union to see what is in the contract.

You may have retiree health benefits in your contract.

I am not a lawyer, but I would suggest you find out what exactly is in your contract.

jmo

[windbreeze]

95. it seems the thing you are missing, is that

not all the companies handle retiree insurance benefits in like manner..

It seems that Medicare and our retiree benefits spend most of their time fighting over who ISN'T GOING TO PAY..the company he worked for, DOES NOT pay his co. insurance or Medicare premiums...we do, out of our pocket...(and I guarantee you...Medicare, does NOT compare with regular medical insurance, no matter what you have heard)we had good dental and eye insurance while he worked, but now as a retiree, we pay large co pays for dental(plus an extra monthly premium) and have no eye care insurance at all, and I have no dental/eye coverage through medicare either)...and we pay over $700 a month...when he reaches 65..he will be forced to go to Medicare too, BUT WE WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY the premiums out of our pocket for BOTH Medicare and our retiree benefits..Don't misunderstand me, I am glad we have med ins...BUT...WE PAY for it...nobody else does...wb

OH, and yes, Medicare has those advantage programs(hmo programs, through private insurance carriers)...but tell me...how secure would you be with the knowledge that those programs cost the gov't about $600 per person...even though each person only pays the regular medicare premium($93 per month)....How long can a gov't that's broke, and attempting to privatize Medicare, continue spending over $500 extra per month/per person???? I avoided signing up for the advantage programs, because I figure the people who do, could end up with NO Medicare at all eventually...Hell, we all could...$500 per month, per person...is quite a loss to take...how long can they keep it up??? (another brilliant idea, privatize Medicare)

[DURHAM D]

99. This ruling seems to only apply to retirees over 65. eom

[Bleacher Creature]

75. Thanks Ralph. n/t

[lonestarnot]

76. SCOTUS now just facist lapdogs for corps.

[lebkuchen]

90. The Bushies are pushing the US toward revolution

which could be a good thing.

[Megahurtz]

100. OMG.

America down the drain. Again and again and again.

[indepat]

102. The felonious five committing a heinous felony upon countless millions

:mad:

[bronxiteforever]

103. And to sweeten the deal Happy Henry Paulson wants to sink Medicare

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. No, corporations are indeed "all heartless".

They are amoral organizations. They are there to maximize profit - were it otherwise, they would be defrauding their investors.

Corporate morality must be imposed externally, either through regulations or through marketplace punishment.

[and-justice-for-all]

109. Obviously their goal is to kill as many people as they can..

by any means necessary.

"Oh, your poor? SO!!" Dickhead Chaney.

[midnight]

110. More fear......

Employers in California, large and small, say benefits for retirees already have become a casualty of soaring medical costs. Now that we have no one letting the corporations know that it will not be business as usual. I'm no financial specialist, but isn't this retirement fund invested, and therefore already there, and not a burden on the company.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

111. K&R