maintaining critically important health

MAINTAINING CRITICALLY IMPORTANT HEALTH BENEFITS--BY ENDING THEM

December 27, 2007

U.S. Ruling Backs Benefit Cut at 65 in Retiree Plans

By ROBERT PEAR

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."

. . . 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."

--read entire article--

___________________________________________________________

Wow!

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."

Well, I ask you, what could possibly be more in the public interest

than cutting loose 10-15 million people from their health insurance

coverage? Nice work, Naomi.

Just like namesake Wyatt, Naomi Earp (chairman of the commission)

pretty much single-handedly shot health care out of the saddle and is

now blowing the smoke off the end of her six-shooter.

And I am in favor. Not because it is fair or even equitable to cut the

intra-venous life support of medical care to a bunch of old folks, but

because I believe it will hurry the decades-late decision to provide

single-payer national health care.

No one can afford where we have chosen to direct our health care

expense:

* not the uninsured

* not the company programs

And certainly not the tax payers who support the world's most costly,

least effective on a dollar-benefits ratio insurance system.

The only current winners are those who bring nothing to the table, yet

eat first and leave the public the crumbs; i.e. the insurance,

hospital, equipment rental and pharmaceutical industries.

_________________________________________________________________

* For more in-depth articles by Jim on Health Care, check out

Opinion-Columns.com