Skip to comments.State retirees sue over health plan
Posted on 04/21/2012 4:22:35 PM PDT by mdittmar
A group of state retirees is suing the state employee health plan for breach of contract for changing or dropping the health care plans in which they were enrolled.
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake is the lead plaintiff in the suit, first in a group that includes retired teachers, school administrators, SBI agents, office clerks and others. The lawsuit, filed Friday in Gaston County, says the state breached contracts when it dropped or began charging premiums for health insurance plans in which state retirees were enrolled.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
times change, so should pensions, within reason.
Whew... That South Dakota is one crazy state.
Get in line behind every living veteran, all Medicare recipients and millions of other people, bud.
Blood from a stone.
Just wait until they find out about their pensions.
I thought that government workers worked for next to nothing 24/7 in return for job stability and retirement benefits?
The gravy train is ending.
I would suspect that there is language in their union contract, just like my company had, that allows the employer to start assessing premium costs for health care benefits to the members if circumstances require it......
I'll try and give you another example. My company's primary health insurance carrier was Blue Cross of Michigan. However, over the years, we also offered alternative HMO's for the employees who wished to not have to pay for office visits.
During the last year of the plant, the single HMO we offered, Health Alliance Plan, raised their premiums to the point that they actually exceeded the per employee cost that Blue Cross was costing us.
So, the company was forced to make a decision, which by the way was allowed for in the UAW contract. That decision was to make a choice to either start assessing a monthly cost sharing premium to the employees who were enrolled in the HMO or to discontinue the HMO completely.
The company chose to eliminate the HMO rather than force those employees into the cost sharing plan. The company Local UAW of course got up in arms and appealed to UAW Solidarity House and they in turn tried to sue the company for contract violation.
The UAW lost and the company continued to provide the traditional coverage under Blue Cross of Michigan.......
I suspect the government has their own basic health care provider but also allows its employees to choose amongst other alternative plans like my company. If that is the case then the employer certainly has the right to discontinue any of the alternative plans they choose just so long as they continue to provide the mandatory health care coverage.
1600px x 1200px, 225.53KB. That’s ridiculous.
No matter what they say about the housing bubble, the student loan bubble, and all the other bubbles, they are a DROP IN THE BUCKET compared to the PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PENSION AND BENEFITS BUBBLE!!
A state or local legislature is sovereign. It is not bound by the acts of a previous legislature. The rat legislature can sign a million contracts and the legislative body that follows can rescind every contract. All of them.
Any judge that tries to make a legislative contract omnipotent needs to be impeached, whipped and removed.
There ain’t no such thing as an omnipotent legislature.
” There aint no such thing as an omnipotent legislature.”
Obama, and his one man Executive Orders?
I hear your concern FRiend.
For Buckwheat to implement his rot-gut orders, he needs an army.
I don’t see even a squad of fat welfate mommas willing to step up, and save his traitorous afro-Ameran racist ass.
or at least it used to be.
If one of the parties is not bargaining in good faith, throw it out, I say.
sounds like manna for lawyers.
And when all of these public employee contract "negotiation" sessions are nothing more than giddy mutual back-scratching arrangements, what is produced is nothing like a "contract."
Why are they upset? They’ve got Obamacare now. It’s a panacea.
but its to the point now that PRESENT needed work will be disrupted,stopped, changed, diminished in many ways just because we have to keep feeding the retirees endless apetites...
seems the unions have the final say in these pension benefits and if they think laying off 1000 workers so they can keep up the fat to several dozen retirees, then so be it....
close parks...libraires...zoos...close schools for 5 months a year ( and pay for only 5 months), stop school sports and music, stop cleaning trails and highways....stop it all...
Good luck collecting one dime from BROKE taxpayers.
Gee... I wonder which state it is?
(Sorry, I’m a bit grumpy and excerpts that leave out crucial info are sorely lacking.)
I think that is 100% correct. Government union members who think their pensions and benefits are sacrosanct, are simply not facing reality.
My understanding is that the answer is 'YES'. I believe sergeantdave is correct. Union contracts are acts of the state legislature, and as such may be rescinded.