Healthcare Court Reverses Itself And Upholds Discrimination Against Medicare Retirees Main Menu
| Home |
| Search |
| Legislation |
| COLA |
| Healthcare |
| Retirement Benefits |
| Investments |
| Social Security |
| Politics |
| Retirement Systems |
| Member Stories |
| Links for Retirees |
| Court Reverses Itself And Upholds Discrimination Against Medicare Retirees |
|
|
|
|
JANUARY 2006
- Appeal Pending - For more than five years, we've been reporting on the controversy
surrounding efforts, being generated primarily from the business
community, for a federal law allowing discrimination against Medicare
retirees. This discrimination would take the form of providing them
with health insurance inferior to the coverage for retirees who are not
yet eligible for Medicare (i.e. under age 65).
Members can be assured state law prohibits such discrimination against state and local retirees, who are enrolled in Medicare. These basic safeguards would not be lost because of a federal law that allows just the opposite. "While we have these protections, we can't be complacent and must guard against any move to possibly undermine them," cautions Insurance Coordinator Cheryl Stillman. "It's for that reason, we've kept a close eye on this controversy." "Since the very first court ruling against discrimination, back in 2000, I've been watching this issue and discussing it and the implications with Association attorney Bill Rehrey," says Tom Kelley, who is an elected member of the Plymouth Retirement Board, "Like other communities, we here in Plymouth have worked hard over the years to obtain our health benefits and don't wish to see them taken away by anyone including the federal government." Ups and Downs Over the course of this year (2005) alone, we've witnessed a number of developments - both ups and downs. First, the federal district court stopped the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) from implementing a rule that would have allowed employers to discriminate against their Medicare retirees and provide them with inferior health insurance (May Voice). Shortly after the court's ruling, the Congress stepped in and held hearings on the controversy. Congressional leaders threatened to take action, in favor of discrimination, if no appeal was taken by the EEOC, which it eventually did. (September Voice). Most significantly, the court decided to take another look at its original opinion, which blocked the implementation of the EEOC rule allowing discrimination. After reconsidering that opinion, the court reversed itself and found that the EEOC could implement such a rule. While the district court ruled in favor of the EEOC, it granted the request by the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) to at least prevent the EEOC rule from becoming final pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It's noteworthy that the current Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, sits on that appeals court. "Discrimination against retirees in their health care benefits can't be tolerated and must be challenged. It's unfortunate that the court has ruled in favor of discriminating against fellow retirees, from private industry here," comments Stillman. "But as far as this controversy goes, this isn't the first setback that we've seen over these many years. With the appeal, the fight hasn't ended yet." |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|