I just talked to a retired LLNS individual that their medical was now fully on them, no more allowance from LLNS. Can anyone provide more information?
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
Comments
According to the packet sent out there aren't any changes for Kaiser and there are changes for out of pocket maximums for pharmacy costs in the Anthem Blue Cross plans. All of those plans are for not eligible in Medicare.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Do some homework at http://www.factcheck.org/issue/obamacare/
October 20, 2014 at 10:23 PM
The most likely item of tax reform to pass Congress will be to count as taxable income the value of your employer-provided health insurance. See if you feel the same way then.
You raise a valid concern. I would hope, the retiree medical benefit would be grandfathered in because for
many of us it was a benefit of vested employment at UC/LLNL, at a time when other more lucrative career options outside of UC/LLNL were readily available.
What has been the collective employee response to the erosion of "substantially equivalent"? Listen for it...baa, baa, and baa.
Let the older staff and retirees scream about it but the younger staff and those who come to work for five years or so and then leave could care less about retirement medical. It's a drain on these labs and hurts the NNSA lab budgets. Get rid of it and make the retirees under the age of 65 pay for their own Obamacare plans if they want coverage.
Let the older staff and retirees scream about it but the younger staff and those who come to work for five years or so and then leave could care less about retirement medical. It's a drain on these labs and hurts the NNSA lab budgets. Get rid of it and make the retirees under the age of 65 pay for their own Obamacare plans if they want coverage..."
A colossal "bait and switch" proposal. I'm sure Lay, Skilling, and Madoff would be proud of it.
Keeping key personnel focussed on the mission, relatively free from distractions from finding and accessing medical help for themselves and family is the reason that employers provide a part of compensation as medical/dental/vision/insurance. Providing this, along with long-term financial security through defered compensation in the form of pension or contributions into defined contriubtion programs allows key employees to focus more onto the issues in the workplace and less on life/family distractions. It has been shown through long experience to best retain and deploy the critical human resources.
If a safe and effective arsenal is in the national interest and weapons experts are critical to that mission, then providing part of compensation in these forms is simply good practice.
You don't really know anything about the history of employer-provided benefits, do you? Hint: your Pollyanna scenario has nothing to do with history. Employer-sponsored health and other benefits were the only way to provide extra incentives to prospective employees during the wage-controlled environment of WWII.
I don't know what will be worse, losing our experienced "stewards" due to a perpetual state of flux in funding, job stability, work environment, and eroding benefits, OR
having a job shop staff with a rotating set of newbies, looking to ratchet up their salaries every few years with their 401k retirement in tow.
Whenever I hear the talk about comparing with industry, my first question is:
Which industry?
Maybe Renaissance Technology, where a huge portion of the workforce are physicists and the medical benefit paid by the employer is 2000$ a month?
Or maybe Goldman Sachs, where Ted Cruz gets his health insurance from through his wife?
So what industry standard are you referring to? Or are you seriously suggesting, that working at the labs is like working for Walmart? Is that your industry standard?