EEOC and potential SEP's?

[g1bass]

What, you might ask, is the rationale for allowing businesses to rid themselves of the burden of their loyal former employees at that particular age? The answer is that at 65, retirees become eligible for Medicare and the EEOC seems to think the benefits provided under that federal program, which, by the way, is in much more dire financial distress than Social Security, should be sufficient for anyone.

The new policy, set forth in an EEOC ruling on Wednesday, allows employers to establish two classes of retirees, with more comprehensive benefits for those who have retired before age 65 and more limited benefits, or none at all, for those who are 65 or older.

While good, conscientious employers will likely continue to offer supplemental health care for retirees older than 65, more than 10 million retirees who rely on employer-sponsored health plans as a primary source of coverage or as a supplement to Medicare have cause for concern."This rule gives employers free rein to use age as a basis for reducing or eliminating health care benefits for retires 65 and older," said Christopher G. Mackaronis, a lawyer for AARP, which had fought against the not-unexpected ruling. "Ten million people could be affected - adversely affected - by the rule."

Just something to think about between football games. Go Gators!

 

[Winter_123]

Just something to think about between football games. Go Gators!

The landscape has already changed but this will accelerate it. It used to be that if a retiree had a group health plan you would expect to leave it alone because you could not improve upon it with medicare and medicare supplements as a replacement. However, lots of these group plans are just shells now. The group plan degenerated to telling the retiree that they needed to sign up for medicare and they would supplement, then they cut back on the supplement and might have some cheesy dental or vision plan or discount drug program mixed in with it to justify the amount the employee is still contributing. When you step back to see what it would cost for the employee to just go with medicare, and a med supp, or a med advantage, and part d it makes you wonder where the "benefit" is in "group benefit." Of course this does not apply to those scenarios where the group benefit is still strong and can't be beat but those days are coming to an end.

Winter

 

[Mr. Bill]

As to the first post, it's an opinion, with a basis in fact. Most major corporations I'm aware of will require an employee to obtain Medicare coverage at age 65, and will have their group coverage as the supplemental for the employee. That seems like smart health care management for the group plan.

Once retired, same approach. Agree with Winter, each retiree has to consider their own situation. There are still MANY 65+ retirees with dependent children, who would prefer to stay at group rates rather than drop their employer coverage and go individual for the dependents.
Why someone would twist this into a haves vs. have nots I'm not quite certain.

 

[J.R.]

Once retired, same approach. Agree with Winter, each retiree has to consider their own situation. There are still MANY 65+ retirees with dependent children, who would prefer to stay at group rates rather than drop their employer coverage and go individual for the dependents.
Why someone would twist this into a haves vs. have nots I'm not quite certain.

Where do you find information that people 65+ or older "with" dependents need group coverage and how is that even possible for a health insurance plan? Perhaps group works differently than individual pertaining to who is considered a dependent.

Unless I'm mistaken, most policies exclude coverage for people up to age 21, with some plans going up to 25 if the child is financially dependent upon the parent. I have a hard time seeing how somebody 65+ would have dependents, unless of course their children are drug addicts, incarcerated or dead. Even if that is the case, I'd love to see the numbers on that if it's available....

 

[Mr. Bill]

You're kidding, right?

Do you realize HOW MANY 40+ males are still having kids? Just think, any many 45+ who is dating a woman 40- (and there are plenty of them, just take a look at any dating site, the men are looking for 18+) and you are looking at a man who is going to have kids. And be 65+ with dependents under age 25.

 

[J.R.]

You're kidding, right?

Do you realize HOW MANY 40+ males are still having kids? Just think, any many 45+ who is dating a woman 40- (and there are plenty of them, just take a look at any dating site, the men are looking for 18+) and you are looking at a man who is going to have kids. And be 65+ with dependents under age 25.

No, I'm not kidding because I haven't seen the stats on the subject and I don't consider dating sites as an indication that their are many people 40+ who are having kids. I do know a few people, but that is just personal and not universal. You did bring up an interesting point.

 

[JMO Fan]

Most plans cover dependents if they're college students up to 25. When I turn 65, our two youngest will be 22 & 23, probably in graduate school. It doesn't seem that unusual to father children at 42-43.

 

[Mr. Bill]

Tom Cruise, Eddie Murphy, mmm I forget how old Brad Pitt is. They all come to mind as men in their 40's with babies....which means, when they're 65.......

 

[J.R.]

Most plans cover dependents if they're college students up to 25. When I turn 65, our two youngest will be 22 & 23, probably in graduate school. It doesn't seem that unusual to father children at 42-43.

I do agree with you that it doesn't seem unusual for couples to have kids later on in life due to remarrying, life events, etc. I'm just curious to see if the somebody founds stats on the number of people who would be affected by the original post vs. a blanket statement based on personal experience.

 

[Mr. Bill]

Perhaps the Kaiser Foundation has such a study...