Will ObamaCare Bail Out the Cities?
Detroit is facing bankruptcy, and Chicago wants to cut retiree benefit costs. Both are turning to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul in what could become a road map for cash-strapped cities.
The municipalities plan to end or limit health coverage for retirees under 65 who don’t yet qualify for Medicare, with the expectation they can get insurance in the exchanges opening Jan. 1 under President Barack Obama’s health-care law.
With U.S. cities facing rising benefit costs and billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, more municipalities will consider moving retirees off city rolls and into the exchanges, even if they continue to subsidize the coverage, said Neil Bomberg, a program director at the National League of Cities in Washington.
“Cities and towns will be looking at ways to reduce those costs, and the exchanges may provide a very viable mechanism,” Bomberg said in an interview. (Bloomberg)
“The municipalities plan to end or limit health coverage for retirees under 65 who don’t yet qualify for Medicare, with the expectation they can get insurance in the exchanges opening Jan. 1 under President Barack Obama’s health-care law.”
Good way to encourage saving costs at the expense of the elderly. Nice.
“Cities and towns will be looking at ways to reduce those costs, and the exchanges may provide a very viable mechanism,” Bomberg said in an interview.
A very viable mechanism, but at the expense of what? Have they not thought about that?
Do any of them think about consequences anymore?
Great idea for cash-strapped cities to lower the cost of exorbitant retiree pay by foisting part of the cost on U.S. taxpayers. After all, it’s not like money doesn’t grow on trees
“The city would pay from $100 to $250 a month to help with medical costs or premiums under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”
That plus subsidies from the federal government could make it cheap healthcare.
Looks who doesn’t like ACA now:
“Unions oppose simply shifting retirees into exchanges because insurance will cost more and provide worse coverage.”
“Detroit is facing bankruptcy, and Chicago wants to cut retiree benefit costs.”
– and yet all of us are stuck footing the bill for their policies.
Important point. We’ll keep rewarding their behavior by bailing them out.
“Cities and towns will be looking at ways to reduce those costs, and the exchanges may provide a very viable mechanism,”
-If they didn’t spend irresponsibly, then I wouldn’t have such a big issue with it!
Just hit up Uncle Obama if you need a little more cash. He seems to know where the money tree is hidden.
There is more to this issue that is raised by Dr Goodman’s brief post. ( a little too brief in this instance.)
The cities that deepest in the red cover their retirees even after age 65. Medicare is glad to be a secondary payer, but the costs are enormous.
And deeply stupid. The UAW did the same thing for years, I do not know if this has changed. An employer pays Medicare taxes for 40 years for an employee, and then covers him privately even when he/she could go on Medicare?
That is crazy. But some unions insisted on it and some idiot cities agreed.
As for the retirees under age 65:
compared to most Americans, these individuals are privileged in terms of getting a guaranteed pension. If they have to use the ACA, not many tears are being shed.