More on Retiree Medical from an anonymous contributor:
At the transition, LLNS said that retirees that took the Lump Sum Cashout from UCRP would be eligible for access only coverage, which meant that they would get the same rates as employees ( or other retirees), but would have to pay the full amount. Is this still true? Does anyone who reads this blog know of anyone who has tried this? Is this affected by the new retiree benefits plan? What are the rates? I know, lots of questions. Any info would be appreciated.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Attrition poll
Percentages of people leaving:
19 < 6 months
9 > 6 < 1y
17 > 1y < 2 y
11 > 2y < 5y
20 > 5y < 10y
22 > 10y
Assuming, this is anywhere near accurate, 45% of people will leave in 2 years or less. Can someone in LLNS tell us how they plan to replace them? or is that what the bureaucrats call "managed attrition"?
19 < 6 months
9 > 6 < 1y
17 > 1y < 2 y
11 > 2y < 5y
20 > 5y < 10y
22 > 10y
Assuming, this is anywhere near accurate, 45% of people will leave in 2 years or less. Can someone in LLNS tell us how they plan to replace them? or is that what the bureaucrats call "managed attrition"?
Friday, November 28, 2008
401b plan?
Bruzer said:
Just Received in the mail a booklet informing us we are moving to a new and improved retirement 401b plan with VanGuard. Does anyone have any thoughts or concerns regarding this one
My first impression is whats in it for them?
Just Received in the mail a booklet informing us we are moving to a new and improved retirement 401b plan with VanGuard. Does anyone have any thoughts or concerns regarding this one
My first impression is whats in it for them?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Health Care Dates Extended, but not for all?
Contributed anonymously:
Health Care Dates Extended, but not for all?
Meds to cost at least 3 times as much!
I'm hearing that the extension of the deadlines for health care is only for those who are Medicare qualified- which I think means 65 or older. Does anyone know if true?
Also what will the various plans cost us?
Looks like Kaiser has gone from a 90 day supply of meds to a 30 day supply, for the same price. Such a deal!
Not what the 11/20/08 article in the Independent says:
-----------------------------------
Period Extended for Lab Retirees to Sign Up for Health Care
By Independent News
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory retirees are concerned that they may not be able to sign up for health care benefits by the deadline. Because of that concern, the Lab is extending the open enrollment period.
Currently, the retirees are being asked to sign up for the benefits by Nov. 27. The problem is that many people cannot get through to Extend Health, the company hired to take on the task. Waits of up to two to three hours on the telephone have been reported, with no one ever answering.
Jeff Garberson, a member of the retirees organization, said people are upset and scared. "Someone has to step in."
Lynda Seaver, from the Lab's public affairs department, said, "There has been some difficulty in signing up. It is taking longer than originally anticipated. The problem is the massive number of retirees." She added that 30 percent have been enrolled, so the system is working.
Seaver added, "We know that people are concerned. We are trying to do what we can to improve the situation."
In order to make sure, all those who want to sign up are able to do so, Seaver said the open enrollment deadline is being extended to mid-December. People will still receive their health care I.D. cards in time with the later deadline. In addition, people can call in to set up exclusive personal appointments.
There is also concern that benefits are being changed.
Seaver said nothing is really changed. Rather than being a group insurance, as in the past, it is now individual insurance.
Under the new system, each person will have $2400 placed into a health care reimbursement account. The cost of care and premiums will be withdrawn each month. "There will be no change in the quality of care," said Seaver.
She also said that it is estimated there would be no out of pocket expenses that retirees would have to pay.
However, one retiree pointed out that the money is not sufficient to cover Medicare Part B. People could end up $200 in the hole at the end of the year.
Part B of Medicare is intended to fill some of the gaps in medical insurance coverage left under Part A. After the beneficiary meets the annual deductible, Part B will pay 80% of the "reasonable charge" for covered services, the reimbursement rate determined by Medicare; the beneficiary is responsible for the remaining 20% as "co-insurance."
Seaver said that under most scenarios involving Part B, retirees would have no out of pocket expenses. If the most expensive plan were selected, there would be a small amount. She said the $200 a year mentioned was in the ballpark.
Seaver explained that what retirees are not factoring in is that some of the services are now paid for that retirees had to pay under UC. She added the cost of health care is going up everywhere. "We are providing the same dollars for health care. There is just a different way of delivering it."
Health Care Dates Extended, but not for all?
Meds to cost at least 3 times as much!
I'm hearing that the extension of the deadlines for health care is only for those who are Medicare qualified- which I think means 65 or older. Does anyone know if true?
Also what will the various plans cost us?
Looks like Kaiser has gone from a 90 day supply of meds to a 30 day supply, for the same price. Such a deal!
Not what the 11/20/08 article in the Independent says:
-----------------------------------
Period Extended for Lab Retirees to Sign Up for Health Care
By Independent News
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory retirees are concerned that they may not be able to sign up for health care benefits by the deadline. Because of that concern, the Lab is extending the open enrollment period.
Currently, the retirees are being asked to sign up for the benefits by Nov. 27. The problem is that many people cannot get through to Extend Health, the company hired to take on the task. Waits of up to two to three hours on the telephone have been reported, with no one ever answering.
Jeff Garberson, a member of the retirees organization, said people are upset and scared. "Someone has to step in."
Lynda Seaver, from the Lab's public affairs department, said, "There has been some difficulty in signing up. It is taking longer than originally anticipated. The problem is the massive number of retirees." She added that 30 percent have been enrolled, so the system is working.
Seaver added, "We know that people are concerned. We are trying to do what we can to improve the situation."
In order to make sure, all those who want to sign up are able to do so, Seaver said the open enrollment deadline is being extended to mid-December. People will still receive their health care I.D. cards in time with the later deadline. In addition, people can call in to set up exclusive personal appointments.
There is also concern that benefits are being changed.
Seaver said nothing is really changed. Rather than being a group insurance, as in the past, it is now individual insurance.
Under the new system, each person will have $2400 placed into a health care reimbursement account. The cost of care and premiums will be withdrawn each month. "There will be no change in the quality of care," said Seaver.
She also said that it is estimated there would be no out of pocket expenses that retirees would have to pay.
However, one retiree pointed out that the money is not sufficient to cover Medicare Part B. People could end up $200 in the hole at the end of the year.
Part B of Medicare is intended to fill some of the gaps in medical insurance coverage left under Part A. After the beneficiary meets the annual deductible, Part B will pay 80% of the "reasonable charge" for covered services, the reimbursement rate determined by Medicare; the beneficiary is responsible for the remaining 20% as "co-insurance."
Seaver said that under most scenarios involving Part B, retirees would have no out of pocket expenses. If the most expensive plan were selected, there would be a small amount. She said the $200 a year mentioned was in the ballpark.
Seaver explained that what retirees are not factoring in is that some of the services are now paid for that retirees had to pay under UC. She added the cost of health care is going up everywhere. "We are providing the same dollars for health care. There is just a different way of delivering it."
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
DOE nuc safety questionned!
Published by Frank Young in the LANL BLOG:
By ROGER SNODGRASS, The Los Alamos Monitor
In a lengthy report released Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office questioned the effectiveness of the Department of Energy’s nuclear safety program for 205 high-hazard facilities, including the 19 facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
In an unusual sign of contention, officials of the Department of Energy responded with 20 pages of formal comments on why they found GAO’s draft report to be “fundamentally flawed” and disagreed with many of its conclusions, prompting GAO to add several more pages of responses to DOE’s detailed comments.
Reps. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, who requested the report issued a joint statement saying, “the report confirmed their concerns about how safety has taken a backseat at DOE because the offices responsible for safety also face competing concerns in the area of productivity.”
The report focuses on the effects of DOE’s decision in 2006 to combine what were separate offices for safety and health and for safety and security performance assurance into a single Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), with a few left-over functions distributed to other offices.
While on one level a typical act of bureaucratic consolidation, the decision was interpreted by critics as a political decision at the time that sacrificed health and safety in favor of productivity, while proponents argued that it would result in less wasteful paperwork and a more effective system of national security.
GAO’s conclusion, in brief, “is that DOE has structured its independent oversight office, HSS in a way that falls short of meeting our key elements of effective oversight of nuclear safety.”
Specifically, the GAO found that the combined office lacks independence, technical expertise and the ability to perform reviews, while not doing enough to require that findings be addressed, enforced and subject to public access.
In its detailed response, DOE rejected those conclusions, charging that GAO had evaluated HSS in isolation rather than in the context of the overall DOE governance model.
And, among other flaws, that GAO was imposing its own preconceived opinion of the functions of that office, rather than having an open-minded acceptance of the possible validity of other approaches than its own.
The structural change at DOE was fiercely opposed by worker safety proponents and public interest groups in Washington as soon as DOE announced its intention in May 2006.
One campaign organized by the Government Accountability Project at the time included letters from former Environmental Safety and Health Assistant Secretaries, professional and labor organizations, and a joint letter signed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire.
DOE also anticipated and confronted objections from the beginning, declaring that the intent of the restructuring was “not to dismantle safety.”
In releasing the report, Congressmen Dingell and Stupak said they were encouraged by the report to consider finding an external regulator for the department, if it continues to fail to take appropriate measures.
By ROGER SNODGRASS, The Los Alamos Monitor
In a lengthy report released Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office questioned the effectiveness of the Department of Energy’s nuclear safety program for 205 high-hazard facilities, including the 19 facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
In an unusual sign of contention, officials of the Department of Energy responded with 20 pages of formal comments on why they found GAO’s draft report to be “fundamentally flawed” and disagreed with many of its conclusions, prompting GAO to add several more pages of responses to DOE’s detailed comments.
Reps. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, who requested the report issued a joint statement saying, “the report confirmed their concerns about how safety has taken a backseat at DOE because the offices responsible for safety also face competing concerns in the area of productivity.”
The report focuses on the effects of DOE’s decision in 2006 to combine what were separate offices for safety and health and for safety and security performance assurance into a single Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), with a few left-over functions distributed to other offices.
While on one level a typical act of bureaucratic consolidation, the decision was interpreted by critics as a political decision at the time that sacrificed health and safety in favor of productivity, while proponents argued that it would result in less wasteful paperwork and a more effective system of national security.
GAO’s conclusion, in brief, “is that DOE has structured its independent oversight office, HSS in a way that falls short of meeting our key elements of effective oversight of nuclear safety.”
Specifically, the GAO found that the combined office lacks independence, technical expertise and the ability to perform reviews, while not doing enough to require that findings be addressed, enforced and subject to public access.
In its detailed response, DOE rejected those conclusions, charging that GAO had evaluated HSS in isolation rather than in the context of the overall DOE governance model.
And, among other flaws, that GAO was imposing its own preconceived opinion of the functions of that office, rather than having an open-minded acceptance of the possible validity of other approaches than its own.
The structural change at DOE was fiercely opposed by worker safety proponents and public interest groups in Washington as soon as DOE announced its intention in May 2006.
One campaign organized by the Government Accountability Project at the time included letters from former Environmental Safety and Health Assistant Secretaries, professional and labor organizations, and a joint letter signed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire.
DOE also anticipated and confronted objections from the beginning, declaring that the intent of the restructuring was “not to dismantle safety.”
In releasing the report, Congressmen Dingell and Stupak said they were encouraged by the report to consider finding an external regulator for the department, if it continues to fail to take appropriate measures.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Congressman Cardoza shares Valley frustration with Treasury Secretary Paulson
Congressman Cardoza shares Valley frustration with Treasury Secretary Paulson
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Dennis Cardoza delivered a frustrated and angry message to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Monday on behalf of the residents of the Central Valley.
“In the most direct way possible I told Secretary Paulson that his efforts to date are completely unacceptable,” Cardoza said. “He keeps telling us they averted a financial crisis. I told him that in my district, we are in a recession. And to those who have lost their homes, we are in a depression. More needs to be done now. The country cannot wait for President Obama.”
The congressman added that, “I wanted to deliver the message to him that I knew everyone in my district wanted to send -- act now.”
The Congressman made the comments during tense closed-door talks he participated in when Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke met with the House speaker, majority leader and a handful other top Congressional leaders Monday.
Congressman Cardoza further added that he is becoming increasingly skeptical of the piecemeal approach to handling the financial crisis shown by the Treasury.
“It is understood that we are treading in uncharted waters,” Cardoza said. “However, I and my constituents are totally disgusted by the lack of action. Clearly the Administration does not understand the gravity of the situation on Main Street.”
In October, Congressman Cardoza reluctantly supported the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act only after guarantees were included in the legislation that taxpayers would be protected and the foreclosure crisis would be averted.
Earlier this month, Congressman Cardoza wrote to Secretary Paulson expressing his extreme dissatisfaction that the Treasury had abandoned plans to purchase faulty mortgage backed securities as had originally been negotiated between Paulson and Congress.
“It is time that they get off the dime and did something for the hard-working Americans who pay their salary,” Cardoza said.
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Dennis Cardoza delivered a frustrated and angry message to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Monday on behalf of the residents of the Central Valley.
“In the most direct way possible I told Secretary Paulson that his efforts to date are completely unacceptable,” Cardoza said. “He keeps telling us they averted a financial crisis. I told him that in my district, we are in a recession. And to those who have lost their homes, we are in a depression. More needs to be done now. The country cannot wait for President Obama.”
The congressman added that, “I wanted to deliver the message to him that I knew everyone in my district wanted to send -- act now.”
The Congressman made the comments during tense closed-door talks he participated in when Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke met with the House speaker, majority leader and a handful other top Congressional leaders Monday.
Congressman Cardoza further added that he is becoming increasingly skeptical of the piecemeal approach to handling the financial crisis shown by the Treasury.
“It is understood that we are treading in uncharted waters,” Cardoza said. “However, I and my constituents are totally disgusted by the lack of action. Clearly the Administration does not understand the gravity of the situation on Main Street.”
In October, Congressman Cardoza reluctantly supported the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act only after guarantees were included in the legislation that taxpayers would be protected and the foreclosure crisis would be averted.
Earlier this month, Congressman Cardoza wrote to Secretary Paulson expressing his extreme dissatisfaction that the Treasury had abandoned plans to purchase faulty mortgage backed securities as had originally been negotiated between Paulson and Congress.
“It is time that they get off the dime and did something for the hard-working Americans who pay their salary,” Cardoza said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)