Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a campaign and Statehouse roundup
Next Post: AFSCME: “No longer much reason to believe that this contract can be settled at the bargaining table”
Posted in:
* Blackberry users click here…
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 9:21 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a campaign and Statehouse roundup
Next Post: AFSCME: “No longer much reason to believe that this contract can be settled at the bargaining table”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Can anyone explain how requiring a retiree who is medicare elgible for medicare to pay the entire preminim for health insurance is not a law impairing the obligation of a contract when employment contracts and state statute gave a 5% creadit for each year worked up to 20 years and then premium free abd therefore in violation of the constitution? I am a retired attorney and I don’t see it.
Comment by retired and fed up Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 10:04 am
I got mecicare in one time too many. By the way I retired with 30 years and made my pension payments for all of those years with the promise I would not have to pay a health insurance premium after 20 years although I still have significant deductibles and copays and then the state does not pay for about one year causing providers to want payment up front.
Comment by retired and fed up Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 10:07 am
Just remember if the state rebates you any money, it’s considered earned income in the fed’s eyes, subject to fed income tax.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 10:17 am
Unfortunately, heath care is not a constitutionally protected benefit. Once you reach 65, why should the State (taxpayers) be forced to continue to pay for additional care not covered by the Feds? This make perfect sense to me. If you want State (taxpayer) coverage on top of what you’re already eligible for at 65 years you should for pay for it.
Comment by Nickypiii Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 10:17 am
The health care premium is a oontractual obligation which may not be impaired by passage of a future law acording to constitution law. This is separate from the pension obligation provision, but still in the constitution. Why should younger retiress have their higher premiums paid and old ones don’t? Issues of age discrimination and equal protection may also apply.
Comment by retired and fed up Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 10:41 am
Thet’s contractual not oontractual.
Comment by retired and fed up Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 10:59 am
I believe the constitution protects “pension benefits.” A strong arguement can be made (in court, if necessary) that the paid health care for life benefit is a pension benefit and therefore protected constitutionally and contractually.
Comment by Illiniforlife Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 11:40 am
NOPE
Comment by Nickypiii Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:33 pm
What do you not understand about the constitutional provision that no law shall be passed which impairs a contractual obligation? You work for me and for each year you do I will pay 5% of your health imsurance premium upon retirement is a contract.
Comment by retired and fed up Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:44 pm
The House was in session for 18 minutes?…? Wow, no wonder they get so much done.
Comment by Rufus Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:01 pm
- Rufus - Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:01 pm:
“The House was in session for 18 minutes?…? Wow, no wonder they get so much done.”
They did get something done! Per diems!
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 4:41 pm