Turning 65 and retiree health coverage being changed to Medicare Avantage plan

[teeej]

Originally Posted by mojo101

yes,state is not responsible for doing it for him.,state just sent him a 1099

If he was 1099'd and didn't pay Self Employment taxes, he'd have heard something from the IRS a long time ago.

[Rabrrita]

Originally Posted by Ariadne22

Yes, this Medicare eligibility IS being sprung in them after working their entire lives - and then retiring - never in a million years expecting they would EVER need it after a lifetime of promises otherwise. Why would they? Were they forewarned by employer they were vulnerable if the employer ever decided to back out of the deal?

But we don't really know what was promised. We don't know if they were forewarned and ignored it. And we have no idea if they were paying something towards their retiree health plan while retired.

Each year public sector employees hired before the April 1 1986 cut off would have been received in their annual retirement plan summary, a notice clearly stating they were not covered by traditional Medicare and that if their retirement health plan requires Medicare enrolment, they would be expected to catch up. That is required and that's part of all retirement plans for non Medicare covered public safety employees. If the retiree ignored that or didn't understand it, decided it wasn't important to learn what it meant, or simply conjured up their own understanding of it based on pixy dust thinking, isn't that their own problem?

Additionally, guaranteed lifetime health insurance doesn't always equal free. It doesn't equal same insurance forever. It doesn't equal same rules when Medicare eligible. It just means there will always be a health insurance plan they can participate in.

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by Rabrrita

But we don't really know what was promised. We don't know if they were forewarned and ignored it. And we have no idea if they were paying something towards their retiree health plan while retired.

Each year public sector employees hired before the April 1 1986 cut off would have been received in their annual retirement plan summary, a notice clearly stating they were not covered by traditional Medicare and that if their retirement health plan requires Medicare enrolment, they would be expected to catch up. That is required and that's part of all retirement plans for non Medicare covered public safety employees. If the retiree ignored that or didn't understand it, decided it wasn't important to learn what it meant, or simply conjured up their own understanding of it based on pixy dust thinking, isn't that their own problem?

Additionally, guaranteed lifetime health insurance doesn't always equal free. It doesn't equal same insurance forever. It doesn't equal same rules when Medicare eligible. It just means there will always be a health insurance plan they can participate in.

This was a union-negotiated benefit based on what OP has said - contractual for life. Cost may have been negotiable, but Medicare-based was probably never discussed as a possibility ever.

Or, possibly it had at some point in the union negotiations. Of course, then the employer would have had to contribute its share of the Medicare tax, as well. Which, the employer wouldn't want to do, for obvious reasons.

People may or may not read fine print of these 'required' notices. Most average people don't and if they do, don't always understand the ramifications. And, no, it's not their problem - it is the responsibility of the employer and/or union making the promises who is smarter than employee on the issue to BE SURE employee understands. Not everyone is a lawyer or benefits expert. Best case, the union may be partially responsible for not alerting its members to this Catch22 should employer ever renege.

Sorry, the employer is NOT off the hook on this one, no matter how it is rationalized.

Years back when I worked, my employer closed its defined benefit plan ten years short of my retirement, replacing it with a defined contribution plan. There was no grandfathering of the older worker, no extra money put into the DC account to compensate - as other employers had done. The result was my retirement benefit - even with the income stream from the DC contributions for my remaining years of work - was reduced 65%.

I, of course, immediately understood the ramifications of this change (PV v. FV), went to the TPTB, raised h*ll all over the place with management, surprised I wasn't fired. The employer believed people were too stupid to understand the impact of this DB plan closure, never once alerted or informed those affected of the negative impact on their retirement benefit. None of the employees I talked with who were directly affected had a clue on how detrimental this change was to the older worker - except me. In the end, I confined myself to dealing with management - who were angry and embarrassed that I had figured this out - but did nothing about it.

So, no, most people wouldn't understand.

[Jstarling]

Originally Posted by Lillie767

There is a lifetime guarantee.

However, all that is guaranteed is (1) access to a retiree health insurance plan and (2) a subsidy by the employer. And that's quite a lot.

That is more than almost all retirees receive unless you are a public service retiree or teacher. Most retirees do not receive any subsidy for their retiree medical insurance.

Most other people contributed a considerable amount throughout their working career for Medicare coverage.

I retired many years ago but the total contributions to Medicare for me exceed $100,000. I paid this throughout my working career. You will be paying a hurry-up premium.

You paid $100,000 into Medicare? I think you mean $100,000 into social security.