Tom Curtis to Damon Asbury re: Impact of SB 190, grandfathering of retirees
From: Tom Curtis
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006
Subject: 012306 Curtis To Asbury, Re Impact of SB 190, Grandfathering of Retirees
Hello Damon,
Just a reminder that you said you would send me the "full" report on the impact of SB 190, so at your earliest convenience, would you please have that sent out to me.
This past Friday you and I discussed the need for grandfathering for retirees who retired prior to January 2004, when the subsidies were removed for all spouses and dependent children.
I felt as though the discussion on grandfathering by the board on Friday spent more time discussing the revisiting of the changes made for "rehires." It is my opinion that the consideration for grandfathering "retirees" holds precedent over the issue with "rehires." I would hope that any further discussion would first center on "retirees," concerning this issue of grandfathering.
The "rehires" are certainly not having financial problems, as are those of us that have had our subsidies removed and then experienced our pension amount being greatly reduced by the increased cost of HC benefits.
As I indicated to you during our discussion, the number of retirees in need of spousal and dependent child HC subsidies is relatively low, approximately 30% or lower, compared to the entire pool of retirees, which would be in the range of 105,000 members.
Further, the number needing considerations that are in the age range of say 50-64 would again reduce that number substantially. These are the members who have suffered the greatest drain on their pension fund amount per month and/or year. They are the most in need of some consideration here, but are receiving little to none from my viewpoint. This group of retirees are the ones that are not able to un-retire and continue on to obtain the 35-year enhancement incentive. Many have had to go back to work in another industry in order to obtain affordable health care benefits from another employer. These are the ones told by STRS counselors at retirement interviews that the HC benefit was the greatest part of their pension benefit, as they would receive very affordable HC for them and their spouse for the rest of their lives. Damon, I realize you are aware of all of this, but appear to have so little concern for such and always seem to have some unacceptable answer or roadblock concerning this issue.
Obviously, my statement concerning what STRS counselors told retirees at retirement interviews has never been accepted by you, but I would have no trouble finding hundreds of retirees to validate this, if this is truly an issue. It just may well be someday, because I will never back off on this issue and it may end up in court, provided there is no statue of limitations involved. Please do not attempt to continue to negate such a statement, as I find it insulting for you to do such.
This is an area I find most difficult in discussing issues with you Damon. You make statements as to what your feeling or belief of some issue is, but when your statement is shown to be false, you do little to nothing about it, unless pushed and pushed and pushed. That is why you are often accused of offering little more then smoke screens to the retirees and others. All you usually offer is negative comments to our concerns. After 3 long years of this kind of treatment, you must certainly understand why we retirees keep coming to the STRS with our negative feelings. PLEASE tell me, just what have you done for us lately? We already know what you have done for the employees.
Please do not duck this last question, as you often do. Please answer it. This type of communication with you just continues along the same line. We ask you specific questions and you rarely answer them with actual answer to that question. Quite often you do not answer them at all.
It would be absolutely delightful to just once hear you say, I think you are right about that and I will spearhead you efforts on this issue. This is very difficult to understand, especially when you profess to be in support of the membership. Others and I find your consideration for employees to far overshadow your concerns for retirees. Everything we ask about, we are told is too expensive, yet millions are spent on the employees without as much as a blink of the eye. That is very disheartening and thoroughly angers us. Why do you continue to fail to recognize this?
Once a retiree and his/her spouse reach the age of 65 and are eligible for Medicare, the cost of their HC drops significantly. Obviously, those that do not qualify for Medicare have a greater cost, but does that not still become less when they turn 65?
In conclusion, would you please in a timely manner, determine the number of retirees effected by the loss of spousal and dependent children subsidies? Then break that number down into those needing just spousal and those needing both spousal and child subsidy. In addition, break down the numbers according to those between the ages of 50-64 and those 65 and above. Also, determine the number of those over 65 that do qualify for Medicare and those that do not. In the end, please determine the cost for each group and the total cost to the system for the grandfathering of all.
This information should be able to be determined in-house and there should not be a need of another consultant study. This information would also be very helpful for the board, while discussing this issue further, during the retreat on February 1, 2 & 3.
Thank you for your consideration of this request,
Tom Curtis
CORE Advisory Committee Member
From Molly, January 23, 2006
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006
Subject: 012306 Curtis To Asbury, Re Impact of SB 190, Grandfathering of Retirees
Hello Damon,
Just a reminder that you said you would send me the "full" report on the impact of SB 190, so at your earliest convenience, would you please have that sent out to me.
This past Friday you and I discussed the need for grandfathering for retirees who retired prior to January 2004, when the subsidies were removed for all spouses and dependent children.
I felt as though the discussion on grandfathering by the board on Friday spent more time discussing the revisiting of the changes made for "rehires." It is my opinion that the consideration for grandfathering "retirees" holds precedent over the issue with "rehires." I would hope that any further discussion would first center on "retirees," concerning this issue of grandfathering.
The "rehires" are certainly not having financial problems, as are those of us that have had our subsidies removed and then experienced our pension amount being greatly reduced by the increased cost of HC benefits.
As I indicated to you during our discussion, the number of retirees in need of spousal and dependent child HC subsidies is relatively low, approximately 30% or lower, compared to the entire pool of retirees, which would be in the range of 105,000 members.
Further, the number needing considerations that are in the age range of say 50-64 would again reduce that number substantially. These are the members who have suffered the greatest drain on their pension fund amount per month and/or year. They are the most in need of some consideration here, but are receiving little to none from my viewpoint. This group of retirees are the ones that are not able to un-retire and continue on to obtain the 35-year enhancement incentive. Many have had to go back to work in another industry in order to obtain affordable health care benefits from another employer. These are the ones told by STRS counselors at retirement interviews that the HC benefit was the greatest part of their pension benefit, as they would receive very affordable HC for them and their spouse for the rest of their lives. Damon, I realize you are aware of all of this, but appear to have so little concern for such and always seem to have some unacceptable answer or roadblock concerning this issue.
Obviously, my statement concerning what STRS counselors told retirees at retirement interviews has never been accepted by you, but I would have no trouble finding hundreds of retirees to validate this, if this is truly an issue. It just may well be someday, because I will never back off on this issue and it may end up in court, provided there is no statue of limitations involved. Please do not attempt to continue to negate such a statement, as I find it insulting for you to do such.
This is an area I find most difficult in discussing issues with you Damon. You make statements as to what your feeling or belief of some issue is, but when your statement is shown to be false, you do little to nothing about it, unless pushed and pushed and pushed. That is why you are often accused of offering little more then smoke screens to the retirees and others. All you usually offer is negative comments to our concerns. After 3 long years of this kind of treatment, you must certainly understand why we retirees keep coming to the STRS with our negative feelings. PLEASE tell me, just what have you done for us lately? We already know what you have done for the employees.
Please do not duck this last question, as you often do. Please answer it. This type of communication with you just continues along the same line. We ask you specific questions and you rarely answer them with actual answer to that question. Quite often you do not answer them at all.
It would be absolutely delightful to just once hear you say, I think you are right about that and I will spearhead you efforts on this issue. This is very difficult to understand, especially when you profess to be in support of the membership. Others and I find your consideration for employees to far overshadow your concerns for retirees. Everything we ask about, we are told is too expensive, yet millions are spent on the employees without as much as a blink of the eye. That is very disheartening and thoroughly angers us. Why do you continue to fail to recognize this?
Once a retiree and his/her spouse reach the age of 65 and are eligible for Medicare, the cost of their HC drops significantly. Obviously, those that do not qualify for Medicare have a greater cost, but does that not still become less when they turn 65?
In conclusion, would you please in a timely manner, determine the number of retirees effected by the loss of spousal and dependent children subsidies? Then break that number down into those needing just spousal and those needing both spousal and child subsidy. In addition, break down the numbers according to those between the ages of 50-64 and those 65 and above. Also, determine the number of those over 65 that do qualify for Medicare and those that do not. In the end, please determine the cost for each group and the total cost to the system for the grandfathering of all.
This information should be able to be determined in-house and there should not be a need of another consultant study. This information would also be very helpful for the board, while discussing this issue further, during the retreat on February 1, 2 & 3.
Thank you for your consideration of this request,
Tom Curtis
CORE Advisory Committee Member
From Molly, January 23, 2006
PLEASE SEND ME A FULL COPY OF SB 190 STUDY Molly Janczyk
Also: This is the most important issue. Grandfathering for retirees who lost spousal benefits. It is beyond ability to afford unless one is able to work to pay for it for all under the age of 65.
posted by Kathie Bracy at 1:57 PM
<< Home