Benefits are getting whacked everywhere. Are we on course to create the "new Poor" senior class? America as we knew it is gone, and everybody better save all they can, in order to pay their own way.
US Ruling Backs Benefit Cut at 65 in Retiree Plans
By Robert Pear
The New York Times
Thursday 27 December 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.
Dianna B. Johnston, a lawyer for the commission, said many employers and labor unions had told it that "if they had to provide identical benefits for retirees under 65 and over 65, they would just drop retiree health benefits altogether for both groups."
In a preamble to the new regulation, published Wednesday in the Federal Register, the commission said, "The final rule is not intended to encourage employers to eliminate any retiree health benefits they may currently provide."
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.
In its ruling, the appeals court said, "We recognize with some dismay that the proposed exemption may allow employers to reduce health benefits to retirees over the age of 65 while maintaining greater benefits for younger retirees." But the court said the commission had shown that the exemption was "a reasonable, necessary and proper exercise" of its authority.
Under the new rule, employers may, if they choose, provide retiree health benefits "only to those retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare." Likewise, the rule says, retiree health benefits can be "altered, reduced or eliminated" when a retiree becomes eligible for Medicare.
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.
Employers and some unions contend that retirees under 65 have a greater need for employer-sponsored health benefits because they are generally not Medicare-eligible. Large employers have often provided some health benefits to retirees 65 and older, to help cover costs not paid by Medicare. But employers have for years been trying to reduce retiree benefits or to shift more of the cost to retirees.
Lawyers for the commission said the new Medicare drug benefit, now nearing the end of its second year, had strengthened the case for the regulation because it guaranteed that retirees 65 and older would have access to drug coverage. Younger retirees have no such guarantee, so employers may want to provide drug coverage to them in particular, the lawyers said.
Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large employers, welcomed the rule.
"If employers could not coordinate with Medicare, they would be far less likely to provide health coverage" to retirees, Ms. Darling said. "They could not afford to."
A study by the Government Accountability Office in 2001 estimated that one-third of large employers and fewer than one-tenth of small employers offered health benefits to retirees. Ms. Darling said newer retirees often received not comprehensive coverage but instead a fixed amount of money, based on years of service, to help them with their medical costs.
James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, a lobby for large employers, said: "The new rule is a victory for common sense and for retirees. Retiree health coverage has been declining for many years. Without this rule, many more retirees, especially early retirees, could find themselves without employer-sponsored coverage."
Gerald M. Shea, assistant to the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., also saw merit in the new rule.
"Given the enormous cost pressures on employer-sponsored health benefits," Mr. Shea said, "we support the flexibility reflected in the rule as a way to maximize our ability to maintain comprehensive coverage for active and retired workers."
Schoolteachers, like many other public employees, often retire early and rely on employer-provided health benefits until they become eligible for Medicare. At a Congressional hearing in 2005, the National Education Association and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, who is now the House Republican leader, supported the proposed rule. The teachers union said it feared that employers would cut health benefits for early retirees if they had to provide identical benefits to those over 65 and those under.
Personally, I think this concept has great merit and should be immediately enforced on all government workers, and especially retired politicians, starting with former Presidents and on down to cooks and maids.
Your Social Security Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
Into the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
Would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month --
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal govern ment to "put
Away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them, Even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can
YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson
And remember world war one was the war to end all wars...
Please, use this site to help with the sale and information of insurance related things. Please leave this nonsense for the other websites you visit. I don't come here to b itch about the goppers or donkeys.. both parties I sure if you look should take equal responsibility in mucking up this country. So please, if not for me, do it for the children who visit this site... leave your politics at the door and help people make money or find out about crooked lead companies. Thanks..
Ok....i see where some of these points are being used in making annuity and life insurance sales, without mentioning political affiliation, so I fail to see where it doesn't relate to our forum. Perhaps it was posted in the wrong thread?
Personally, I think this concept has great merit and should be immediately enforced on all government workers, and especially retired politicians, starting with former Presidents and on down to cooks and maids.
Why delete the thread? Your first post is important and RELEVANT!!! So you got a bit bamboozled on the second post, which I BY THE WAY stated (only because I'd seen it before).
In the past I have referred to this concept (retiree benefits being discontinued) as The GM Decision. I can't recall how many years ago (but it is more than 10) that it went all the way to the US Supreme Court, and yes, retiree welfare benefits (health, dental, etc) can be eliminated. Why companies who are non-competitive don't make changes is beyond me.
Just go back to the post and since you posted you can edit it and delete the text and just put something like "nevermind". That way future readers will never know
The whole reason you see young immigrants that come to this country bringing their elderly parents with them is because immediately they (the elderly) receive $400.00 per month per person social security. So, a young single person, moves here to start a new life, gets an apartment and brings his parents so we can help pay their rent by the $800.00 they receive. The real kick in the teeth is if a husband and wife born and raised in this country and each works, lets say 30 years for a company upon retirement they cannot each collect their total social security they worked for and are entitled to, one of them must take a 20% cut, so naturally the one which would have received less should take the cut but, why? They both "earned" their benefit. Why should'nt they receive the entire amount?
------------------------------------
Our largest dreams seem impossible, then improbable and then inevitable.
"ok....i see where some of these points are being used in making annuity and life insurance sales, without mentioning political affiliation, so I fail to see where it doesn't relate to our forum. Perhaps it was posted in the wrong thread?"
If this is what you have to pull out to make a sale... maybe you should also use the 15 billion a month in deficeit spending for Iraq? Maybe people should buy because they can't count on all the gay gop senators to honestly reflect their wishes when they can't come out of the closet?
Not everybody here is a goper. Not everybody here walks behind a party line. Some of us here realize neither party is here for our benefit and wouldn't hesitate to villify us if it meant a vote. We're supported as long as our check clears and clears often.
If you honestly see where these things help, then point out what helps and leave the rest of the bs at the door. I get it, you don't like donkeys...
Cut Backs for retirees
Linear Mode
