[Rave]

By Robert Pear,the New York Times,Tampa Tribune.
WASHINGTON.....The Equal Employment Commission voted Thursday to allow employeers to reduce or eliminate company-paid health benefits for retirees when they become eligible for medicare at age 65.
The agency approved a final rule saying that such cuts do not violate the civil rights law banning age descrimination.The vote was 3-1,with Republicans favoring the rule and a Democrat opposing it.
AARP strenuously objected.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

You spend your entire working career, loyal to one employer, you're lucky enough to live long enough to retire, you think you will be protected for the remaining years of your life...then POW! You political party screws you, your employer screws you and, you get medicare! Great deal, it's like my insurence, covers nothing but costs more than any other plan! Great deal! With any luck, I'll just die early and uncle sam won't have to give me anything. Never mind that I've earned my benifits.

[Oxford]

Eliminating employer paid health coverage at age 65 should be of no surprise. That policy has been in effect for several years. My employer dropped health coverage on me at age 60, when I retired.

At the same time, by employer policy, my wife's employer kept paying her health coverage till age 65 at which time she was elgible for Medicare.

Paying benefits to a former employee are at the discretion of the employer, but...qualified retirement payments are a whole different thing.

old people don't become old all of a sudden..there's plenty of time to save up for it..most people don't save up for it..I know that when I'm old enough to retire Medicare and Social Security will be long gone..if I don't save up for it no one else is going to do it for me

[Oxford]

I agree with you Logansdad. As I see it, every working person, whether self-employed or for someone else, should pay himself first, invest to their maximum ability, keep a diversified portfolio of investments and roll over investments when they become due into the best opportunity available at that time.

Now to get back to the original thought in Rave's post, it is currently the law that an employee must be able to participate in and buy their group rate insurance for 18 months after termination. This law is referred to as COBRA. Of course, the former employee must pay the premiums, unless the employer chooses to allow the benefit of paying that amount at their expense. Some companies allow this perk.

In either case, at age 65 Medicare is currently available. If you participate in Medicare and also a private insurance, Medicare becomes the primary insurance. The private insurance(secondary insurance) should pay up to the limits of their coverage for the amount unpaid by medicare.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

But, i guess you guys are right. How foolish of me think an employer would be honest and live up to thier word, do the right thing by his/her emplyees. Whatever was I thinking?

[Oxford]

Rufus...I'm wondering if you believe that employers have been required, by law, to provide health insurance for their employees? They haven't.

If an employee is willing to work without health insurance paid by the employer, there's been no law which made that a requirement. However, if insurance was provided by the employer, regardless of whether you pay or the employer pays premiums, and you retire, the employer must allow you to participate in that group rate for eighteen additional months, according to COBRA law.

Is this clear as mud? :nod:

Workman's compensation insurance is a whole different ball game, though.:nod:

[oneastrix]

OX, I think what you are saying is similiar to what happened to my Mom-n-law after my Father-n-law passed on unexpectedly a few years ago. She was able to continue her medical insurance coverage thru his employer for a little while, but when time was up they dropped her.

[Oxford]

Yes, she would have been elgible for 18 months of participation in a pre-existing insurance group because of the COBRA law. At that time, if she was 65, she would, of course, been been elgible for medicare. :nod:

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Quote:      

Originally posted by Oxford Rufus...I'm wondering if you believe that employers have been required, by law, to provide health insurance for their employees? They haven't. If an employee is willing to work without health insurance paid by the employer, there's been no law which made that a requirement. However, if insurance was provided by the employer, regardless of whether you pay or the employer pays premiums, and you retire, the employer must allow you to participate in that group rate for eighteen additional months, according to COBRA law. Is this clear as mud? :nod: Workman's compensation insurance is a whole different ball game, though.:nod:

Somethings are like part od a retirement package, i see this as a legal way to get out of what was promised. Like I mentioned before, another thread...SS...that promise? For example, when I started "contributing" To it, the rulkes were such and such...then, when the gummint decides it's time, they change the rules.......well, if I'm "contributeing", then we have an arragement [read contract]. it should be illegal to change the rules without my permission/agreement. Offering people medi-care instead of good insurence is like taking thier money and giveing them an empty bag. And for the zillions of people like me, who will have nothing, it's a rather distastefull way to end our working career......with nothing. Most of us don't have all the benifits you, and the other detracters, do. When you were working, you could start at one company and retire... that day has been gone for 40 years. Everyday, we wonder do we have a job. Many of us don't know we don't have a job until; we come into work. They won't even save us a trip and call us to tell us we've been "out sourced". It's a sad commentary, for sure.

[Oxford]

Rufus, I agree with much of what you've written. It is a sad day now when a person doesn't have the job security that "used" to be available if/when you stayed with one employee for many years. Lots of people are forced to not be as loyal as they used to be because they've got to look out for their best interests, knowing that the company sometimes does things like outsourcing, as you mentioned, leaving you with no work or no job. This all depends upon the type of work in which you're trained in and/ or have experience. If you don't have much bargaining power, you're in really deep trouble for sure. That doesn't leave a person with many job opportunities except physical work.

Regardless of whether you are a union employee or non-union employee, it's gotten to the point that you'd better examine your total work conditions and benefits package, if one even exists, before you automatically stay with a company. This is especially important if you've got dependants who expect you to support them. A single person might be able to cope under tougher conditions but that shouldn't matter, regarding his fair treatment.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

I think you are missing the point on this.

At age 65 people are eligble for Medicare which is mandatory (automatic) coverage(can you opt out of Medicare?). Most insurance companies suspend individual policies at this age and have done so for atleast the last 5 years.

[Oxford]

Yes, a person turning 65 can opt out of Medicare. Simply don't sign up. There's a premium to pay each month for Medicare. If you don't sign up, you don't pay for it.

And, you can have Medicare and private insurance, too. Medicare will be the primary insurance coverage, and your private insurance in the secondary, paying up to the limits of your policy.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

But, Ox, you are right.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Yep You're right Ox. Aflac and other supplementals are available. Are their any major policy writersout there for those over 65?

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

BTW; does anyone know why Insurance rates are so high?

Consider how much cheaper your insurance would be if you didn't have to pay as much as 70% to the salesman EVERY MONTH.

A 300$ monthly premuim for health insurance for you and your two kids. 300 x 12 = $3600 a year. A standard residual is about 40%, which equals $1440 a year or $120.

$120 a month and you pay that every month for as long as you have the policy.

:nod: :nod:

[Oxford]

Part of your answer is because stockholders demand that their shares remain profitable, without even caring or thinking about who they affect, or at what expense the subscribers pay.

Another part of the answer is because of lawsuits which ultimately are settled against them.

And above all, in my biased opinion, it's because of lawyers who promote lawsuits and exorbitant settlements.:nod:

[oneastrix]

Everytime I get a raise my insurance (medical) goes up about the same amount.

[Rave]

Always remember the code of the west,do it unto others before some others do it unto you.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer,always have,always will.
One of the po' folks.:nod:

[Lord Shrike]

Tort reform would go along way in stopping the spike in health insurance rates.