AARP 'Deeply Disappointed' by Supreme Court Decision on Retiree Health Care Benefits

[Earth Bound Misfit]

Source: Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON, March 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by AARP Legislative Policy Director David Certner on the Supreme Court decision today declining AARPs request to review a federal rule allowing employers to reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they reach 65 and become eligible for Medicare. Last December 26, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized and published the rule that AARP had challenged in lower federal courts.

AARP is deeply disappointed by the Courts decision today. The Courts action clears the way for employers to discriminate by reducing or terminating benefits for older retirees simply because theyve turned 65 years old.

This double standard, one tier of coverage for those under 65, and another lower tier for those 65 and over, is especially troubling because it comes from the EEOC, the federal government agency created to enforce anti-discrimination policies.

Beyond blatant age discrimination, the new policy is an ineffective Band-aid for the bigger issue facing American employers and workers: the skyrocketing cost of health care. By allowing employers to reduce or even eliminate health benefits for retirees when they reach age 65, this rule essentially shifts the costs of all retiree health care on to the backs of older retirees. The timing of this new rule couldnt be worse; due to rising costs and fixed incomes, many retirees are already foregoing needed services that have simply become unaffordable.

Instead of discriminatory rules that simply shift health care costs to older retirees, we need real solutions that control ongoing and dramatic increases in health care costs. Political, business, union and non-profit leaders, as well as individual citizens, all have roles to play in devising effective policies that will ensure that every American has access to affordable health care.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080324/pl_usnw/aarp__deeply_disappointed__by_supreme_court_decision_on_retiree_health_care_benefits

[NaturalHigh]

1. All Americans should be more than "deeply disappointed".

We should be outraged. The only people who will possibly benefit from this decision will be the executives who line their pockets at the expense of retirees' (reduced) benefits.

[monmouth]

2. If, God forbid, I should come down with a devastating illness I'm

literally going to pay my funeral expenses ahead of time and just enjoy the rest of my days. This is what it has come to. I go without a couple of things I always enjoyed (my season tickets to a local wonderful theatre, dining out, etc.) to pay for the most miserable coverage you can imagine. Well, I'm sure many of you can. We just had a 20% rent increase in my "Senior" housing, it was supposed to be 40% but we fought, wrote and traveled to Miami with our angst. This is disgusting..

[Cleita]

4. I'm with you.

If I get cancer or anything else deemed an end stage disease, I'm foregoing treatment in favor of hospice type care until the end comes. I won't be able to live the rest of my time with a roof over my head otherwise. If we have a depression and our lifelong savings for retirement becomes worthless, it will even be more important for those of us seniors who are not Warren Buffett or Ruppert Murdoch to make a graceful exit from this "vale of tears".

[elfin]

3. "Deeply disappointed" yet probably scrambling to make big bucks

in the new framework.

Quit them after their shameless push for the Big Pharm drug bill to cash in on "their" plan.

Nothing but greedy lobbyists after a promising beginning as good advocates for senior issues.

[AnnieBW]

5. How many of those retirees

voted for *?

[Rosemary2205]

6. I don't understand this at all.

So few companies even HAVE retirement income programs, let alone retirement health benefit programs. If the UAW is going to ask car makers to pay decent income and health benefits to workers starting work at age 18 and retire under "30 and out" (from age 48 to who knows age 90 plus) -- plus the spouses for as long as the spouse lives -- I see no problem with shifting those workers over to Medicare as the primary insurer and making the former insurance the supplemental.