Posted on 09/17/2013 5:53:43 AM PDT by ziravan
From a letter to employees titled "Important News About Pay and Benefits" dated 9/9/13.
The letter to employees starts, "This is one of the most difficult messages I have ever had to deliver to you."
Among other cuts, including pay and bonus freezes for 2014, Scott and White informed employees of the following,
"If you are not eligible to receive pre-65 retiree medical benefits from Scott and White by Dec, 31, 2013, you will not receive pre-65 retiree medical coverage if you retire from Scott and White."
The letter is signed, Bob (Pryor - Pres S&W).
This is all tied to saving social security by killing the elderly through death panels.
Big Gov and Big Business want it.
Little people matter not in such decisions.
We will get used to it.
Putting on my flame proof shirt and pants:
We are long past the time where business paying for someone’s health care was a dodge around wage controls.
If an employer is morally obligated to provide health care why are they not required to provide:
1) Food (you need it more than health care)
2) Transportation (you need it to get to work)
3) Housing (don’t want the workers living under a bridge)
4) Heat (don’t want them to freeze)
5) Electricity (modern society requires this)
6) Clothing (don’t want workers showing up naked unless they are poll dancers)
7) Legal services
8) Retirement (can’t depend on government)
9) Add anything else the nanny work place should give all the pussy workers.
OR!
Pay a good wage and let the person who earned the money decide what to do with it!
Remember that the AMA was *all in* on 0bieCare....
Texas Ping!
Another reason why establishment Pubbies aren’t eager to repeal it.
Some of their biggest contributors are salivating at the opportunity to dump retiree health care costs.
I agree with you in principle, but at issue is WHY S&W is dumping their future retirees from healthcare. It’s because they know the exchanges are coming.
At issue are the employees that have given years of their lives with the expectation of an offered benefit that are now being thrown to the curb. While you may be right that it shoudn’t be an employer’s reponsibility, they took on that responsibility a long time ago and now they’re using Obamacare to shirk it.
“At issue are the employees that have given years of their lives with the expectation of an offered benefit that are now being thrown to the curb.”
In a proper working and economic environment at the end of each week or two weeks when you get paid you are 100% even. Dollars given for time worked. No Santa Claus! No Easter Bunny! No Tooth Fairy.
The proof of my statement is in our current economic times where private employers stupidly caved and over promised a stupid package and the public sector just happily gave away the store so the ruling elite could count on the union vote.
If I go to the grocery store twice a week and buy a loaf of bread, how many loafs of bread must I buy before that store morally obligated to give me a free loaf (like a week of vacation). How many loafs must I buy to get 2,3,4 free loaves?
And finally how many loaves must I buy before the store is morally obligated to give me free bread for the rest of my life?
This makes no economic sense and expecting business to be our parents is beyond stupid.
I don’t see why you would be flamed.....truth is the worst thing that ever happened to affordable healthcare is insurance of any kind. If the people who are ripping off insurance co had to depend on the people to be able to afford their services their prices would be adjusted to what the average person could afford. Every bill I get from a hospital shows where they have adjusted the payment down after collecting from my insurance. If you tell them you have no insurance they lower the price. It’s all a big scam to rip off insurance co. who play their own role in this sham!!!
St Peter doncha take me cause I can’t go...I owe my soul to the gov’t store...
You are absolutely right ontap!
I might see value in catastrophic insurance for lets say bills over 10 ,15, or 20% of your yearly income but for the everyday medications, doctor visits letting market forces do their thing to keep costs down works in other areas of our lives.
We have all seen how subsidizing anything raises its total cost (product or service PLUS subsidy) because market forces are not there to push them down.
IMO, to stop my insurance now is breech of contract.
Your reply is what I kept asking myself. How can an agreement be made, and then the company decide to change it with out the consent of the other party? I am obviously no legal expert, but it seems like there would be a lot of class action lawsuits coming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.