- Are LANL retirees being forced onto Obamacare?
"In Human Resources, an approved move to retiree health care exchanges that could yield savings has not been implemented."
The above is from page 23 of the annual performance evaluation report. What does it mean?
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Are LANL retirees being forced onto Obamacare?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
"Are LANL retirees being forced onto Obamacare?"
Obviously not. Yet.
You don't even know what that means, there some 52 different plans for Los Alamos County on the Affortable Care Act (aka Obamacare) website. All private insurance companies.
January 22, 2015 at 7:04 PM
So what? Everyone I know who lost their private insurance plans (all are self-employed or otherwise without employer-provided insurance) have had to take Obamacare plans that provide coverage they don't want or need at an average premium increase of about 85% per month, with increased copays and deductibles, and without access to out-of-network doctors, which they had before. No happy faces there!
Interesting because I see quite the opposite. Most I know who are self-employed and had been paying extremely high monthly premiums have turned to Obamacare and are grateful to have it as an option. Especially those under 30 still trying to find steady employment, although in one case the person is over 50. Lower premiums based on their income, which previously wasn't the case.
LLNL ONLY CONTENT
A question. At LLNL, retirees are forced into Medicare at age 65. So if neredowells at NNSA are pushing for dumping retirees into the ghetto of Obamacare exchanges, it would be from early retirement age until 60, correct?
The California medical exchange expansion, especially for very low income has been excellent. It is real blessing for many who had no health care who now can get free, pretty good care.
But it is not equivalent retiring families, like mine, now receive as the customary retiree medical benefit, which continues current employee medical benefits to early retirees for a few years until eligible for medicare.
This is a long established, customary LLNL practice, a well earned deferred compensation, in the form of temporary customary retiree medical benefits after a lifetime of dedicated service.
It is evident that self-employed persons or those who have no employer-provided health insurance, are discriminated against based on income by Obamacare. Those with lower incomes get subsidies from the government while those with higher incomes pay higher premiums and get worse coverage than before Obamacare. Just another socialist scheme to redictribute wealth.
I'm guessing if you were to ask those with lower income if they would prefer to make more money but pay higher premiums they would jump at the chance.
If those with lower income would "prefer" to make more money, why didn't they get a better education, develop more skills, and find better jobs? I'm guessing if you were to ask them, they'd be offended at the idea that they have been in charge of their own lives from the beginning.
"I'm guessing if you were to ask those with lower income if they would prefer to make more money but pay higher premiums they would jump at the chance."
Then why don't they? Why doesn't the average lower income person get a job that pays a higher salary? What is preventing them from doing so? What are they doing to enhance their earnings or earning potential? The jobs must be out there. The president says that the economy and job market are great, all because of him.
More so, since you believe the average lower income person would jump at the chance to make more money, why don't they moonlight with easy-to-get part-time jobs? So instead of working 40 hours a week, they can work 60 hours a week and have a higher income. As an added incentive, the additional 20 hours of work will be taxed at a higher rate due to a progressive tax system. And if they're lucky, their health-care premiums will significantly rise due to the higher incomes that you believe they so desperately want.
But we don't see this happening in large numbers. Those with lower incomes are not jumping at the chance to make more money.
What you're really saying is that those with lower incomes will jump at the chance to make more money if no additional effort or sacrifice is required on their part. Well duh. Who doesn't want free money that is obtained through the hard work of others?
Not going to get into a political debate with you, but I will say that you know nothing about the people in my life who have benefited from Obamacare. They don't fit into your category at all, they are hard working people with college degrees who would love to have your money issues.
Obamacare, like everything else this administration does, is intended to help the underachievers in our society. The simple truth is you get more of what you enable. Sad.
The number of millionaires (and even multi-millionaires) who are now partially or fully subsidized by Obamacare is not trivial. These are people, such as early retirees, who no longer work but are able to live off comparatively high savings.
An example blog post from such an individual is here (http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/20year.html). Most of the article deals with financial issues, but read what he has to say about Obamacare near the end. He is a person who retired early 20 years ago at the age of 38. He lives a pretty good life and travels extensively. He is a millionaire and his health insurance is now heavily subsidized by Obamacare.
His liberal arrogance is particularly telling. He essentially writes that other people need to pay their fair share of taxes in order to support people like him who choose not to work.
Obamacare is another example of the rich getting richer.
Obamacare is another example of the rich getting richer.
January 23, 2015 at 7:00 PM
Wrong. Obamacare is an example of stealing from the rich to subsidize the underachievers (i.e., the "poor").
"Wrong. Obamacare is an example of stealing from the rich to subsidize the underachievers (i.e., the "poor").
January 23, 2015 at 8:32 PM"
Utterly wrong, Obamacare is designed to steal from the poor and make them poorer, so they will never get out lower class. The lower class will expand to serve the upper 2 percent, which really is just the 0.001 percent and their immediate slaves. Obama was the best friend the Republicans rich ever wanted. The rich are getting richer by every measure available. They want to merge with machines and reduce the world population to a few million of the immortals, maybe they will keep a couple of million of the healthy poor people on earth to watch fight with each other for entertainment. Better learn your MMA skills so that they might keep you around for sport.
January 23, 2015 at 7:00 PM
Your claim, backed up by a totally bogus blog post, is ridiculous. Please explain how "multimillionaires" are "subsidized" by Obamacare, and please cite your reputable sources (not blog posts).
" subsidize the underachievers (i.e., the "poor")."
You do know that LLNS and LANS management consider you to be an underachiever or as you say the poor. The labs offer a huge bounty of money to made for those who have what it takes to grab it. The ones that played it right got millions of dollars in just a few years. You did not take the offer, you did not have what it takes, you said you "cared". Well that is on you and you have no right to judge those that made out well in the change of the lab contracts. You are an underachiever and deserve what you get, ha, ha, ha.
January 23, 2015 at 9:24 PM
HAHAHAHHA!! Off your meds, huh? "Merge with the machines"?!?!? Yeah, keep smokin' that stuff. You'll have a great future. Or not. I want you to show your MMA skills!
You do know that LLNS and LANS management consider you to be an underachiever or as you say the poor.
January 23, 2015 at 9:30 PM
Who cares what they think? I'm a retired Los Alamos millionaire. ha, ha, ha yourself.
Only 28% of large firms with 200 or more workers offered retiree health insurance in 2013, down from 66% in 1988, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of employers.
Anyone who believes that if they remain loyal to their corporate management they will eventually be rewarded with all the retirement benefits they were promised is a fool. Just read the news.
The path in corporate America is to reduce and cancel all the promises made to loyal workers. Executives in America are well compensated if they kick their former employees into the gutter once they retire. There are no consequences for doing it.
Anyone who believes that if they remain loyal to their corporate management they will eventually be rewarded with all the retirement benefits they were promised is a fool.
January 26, 2015 at 9:05 PM
So what do you propose? If you decide not to remain loyal things will be better? On what evidence? Does "not remaining loyal" mean leaving for a better job? If so, then go for it! If it means bitching and complaining at every chance, mostly anonymously as on this blog, what are you gaining? Your end outcome will not be positive. But go for it if you are committed (and committing your family) to a horrible future.
Post a Comment