You need to get past the typical CNN scare tactics headline.

I read the same article and I don't see the problem.  These companies
are supplying a benefit for their ex-employees.  They want to cut
costs by coordinating benefits with Medicare.  The employee still gets
the benefit (health care coverage) but instead of the company sponsored plan

being the primary payer, Medicare is.  If the employee qualifies for
Medicare why not use the benefits you have paid for over the years
(Medicare taxes) instead of sticking it to the company you have worked for?

If you worked for a company that provided this benefit, why wouldn't you
want to help them save some money?  It may make the difference between you
having that benefit or loosing it in the future!

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gates, Scott" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: OT: Feds approve benefit cuts for retirees


> http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/23/medicare.retirees.ap/index.html
> <http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/23/medicare.retirees.ap/index.html>
>
> Employers can cut retiree benefits as soon as they qualify for a federal
> benefit program that the feds are trying to cut.
>
> I thought of several nasty comments, but, most are below the decorum of
the
> ListServ.
>
> I'm just wondering how long it will be before employees in the U.S. are
> taken behind the parking garage and "retired with extreme prejudice".
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *