Over 65? Did you hear about this ...?

[mickeyd]

This does not directly affect me yet, but if 10,000,000 folks are to be caught in this, you may be one of them.

Now, more than 10 million post-65 retirees will no longer be protected by age-discrimination laws. Those who lose coverage will be responsible for replacing any benefits dropped by their former employers that may not be covered by Medicare. This means that many retirees and even current workers may have to rethink their financial preparedness in the face of reduced or vanished health coverage.

A Pain for Retirees - Financial Planning

 

[travelover]

My former employer dropped health care for retirees over 65. They also lose the dental coverage that younger retirees currently have.

 

[OAG]

I believe this has been pushed from both directions over the last several years (MC not wanting to pay when your have employer insurance and the Employer not wanting to pay when the employee has MC coverage). Just a first step towards cutting costs involved with "older" folks - Baby Boomers will start "hitting" MC in force in about 35 months. And for all the Military Retired types (which I am) paying about $460 a year for Medical Care (per couple) prior to age 65, get ready for about a 500% increase in cost at 65.

 

[Caroline]

And for all the Military Retired types (which I am) paying about $460 a year for Medical Care (per couple) prior to age 65, get ready for about a 500% increase in cost at 65.

Yikes!

I read the article but am not clear on how this works, exactly. Can anyone say more? Specifically, how will it affect folks like my parents -- military retirees currently in their late 70s / early 80s?

 

[OAG]

Yikes!

I read the article but am not clear on how this works, exactly. Can anyone say more? Specifically, how will it affect folks like my parents -- military retirees currently in their late 70s / early 80s?

Caroline: $460 TRICARE for 2 but, at age 65 we pay MEDICARE (about $95 a month each or $2,520 a year for 2). For your parents they are used to it by now so there will not be any "big" increases for them - just the routine annual increases - which, at times can be high but not unbearable (IMO) yet.

I did not mean to be an alarmist about it, it still beats having to go get a MC supplemental policy.

 

[haha]

I did not mean to be an alarmist about it, it still beats having to go get a MC supplemental policy.

For the over 65 military retiree, is Tricare the primary and Medicare the secondary insurer, or the other way around?

Ha

 

[OAG]

For the over 65 military retiree, is Tricare the primary and Medicare the secondary insurer, or the other way around?

Ha

Generally, TRICARE for Life is secondary payer to MEDICARE if the services are covered by both Medicare and TRICARE. It can get confusing if the services ARE NOT covered by BOTH of them. There is a 116 page booklet dated September 2007 that covers it all. The BOOK is CMS Publication No. 10050-21 and it is tailored for specific regions of the US. Tried to post a link to the booklet but it would not work - if you google the publication (CMS Pub 10050-21) you should find a link to the pdf version of it.

 

[chinaco]

Just another indication that health care reform is needed.


In the end, we pay through some sort of tax or cost shifting. But each entity (gov or biz) is trying their best to shift the burden to a different organization.

 

[Texas Proud]

So let me put down what I read.....

You work for a company... and they have said "we will offer you lifetime health insurance just like we offer to our current workers"...

but, they have the right to change or eliminate this offer...

SO, they come out and say "we will offer a package to the retired folk that is less than our current employees, but we will still cover you at some level"... which the article seems to be saying is the age discrimination....

But, if the company could not do this legally, then what would you hear? "We will drop any coverage on the retired folk starting with people who retire after 5 years" (or whatever grandfather clause they do)...

This seems to me to be a good thing... that allowing them to offer SOMETHING is better than making them choose all or nothing.... because we all know that most will choose nothing....

Did I read this wrong?

 

[UncleHoney]

This topic was kicked around back in December too.

http://www.early-retirement.org/for...-retiree-health-benefits-yesterday-32110.html

 

[haha]

But, if the company could not do this legally, then what would you hear? "We will drop any coverage on the retired folk starting with people who retire after 5 years" (or whatever grandfather clause they do)...

This seems to me to be a good thing... that allowing them to offer SOMETHING is better than making them choose all or nothing.... because we all know that most will choose nothing....

Not only would chose nothing, but should choose nothing. Which company has a better future- GM, or Toyota?

Ha