Medicare Monitor
The Palm Beach Post's veteran Washington correspondent, Larry Lipman, tracks policy makers and interest groups who are shaping the future of the federal health insurance program for the elderly.Medicare Web Resources
Government
•Medicare
•Medicare Frequently Asked Questions
•Medicare Booklet
•Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
•Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
Organizations
•AARP
•America's Health Insurance Plans
•Brookings Institution
•Center for Medicare Advocacy
•Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
•Century Foundation
•Commonwealth Fund
•Families USA
•Florida 50+
•Heritage Foundation
•Kaiser Family Foundation
•Medicare Rights Center
•National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
•National Academy of Social Insurance
•National Center for Policy Analysis
Blogs
•AARP Issues Blog: Medicare
•Cato Institute Health Care Blog
•Entitled to Know National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
•The Health Care Blog
Medicare at a glance
Medicare is the federal health care system that covers about 36 million people age 65 and older, plus 7 million disabled. It has four parts:
Financed by a 2.9 percent payroll tax divided equally between employees and employers.
Financed by beneficiary premiums and federal general revenue. Current monthly premiums are $93.50. Starting this year, individuals whose taxable income is more than $80,000 will pay a higher premium.
Financed by Medicare and beneficiary premiums, which vary among plans.
The plans are private and financed by Medicare and beneficiary premiums, which vary among plans.
-- Larry Lipman
RSS feed
What's on this page →
The entry titled "Supreme Court rejects retirement benefits case," and any of the comments about it.
Categories
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F
Recent entries
Home > Medicare Monitor > Archives > 2008 > March > 24 > Entry
Supreme Court rejects retirement benefits case
In an action likely to have enormous impact as the Baby Boom generation retires, the U.S. Supreme Court today refused to consider whether it is unconstitutional for employers to reduce health care benefits for retired workers once they qualify for Medicare.
The court’s action let stand a ruling by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which said employers could treat retirees differently by age.
AARP had challenged the ruling, arguing that the commission’s rules violated laws against age discrimination. But the commission argued that the law included an exemption that allowed employers to structure their retirement benefits to take into account Medicare coverage of those 65 and older.
The EEOC rule, which took effect in December, was a response to a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2000 that said the age discrimination law required employers to spend the same amount on health insurance benefits for retirees eligible for Medicare as they did on younger retirees.
The commission’s ruling had the support of labor unions that predicted employers would reduce or eliminate retiree health benefits if the companies could not take Medicare into account when structuring benefits.
Comments