I am not sure which is a waste of time here. Discussions amongst our group based on not really knowing what IBM is going to do. OR badgering IBM to give us retirees information so that we can plan appropriately. It would seem forcing IBM to respond to retirees is more productive than guessing at what might be.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:
I believe that IBM will provide no hint of what they may be planning to do until they announce it, so I think doing any of the things you suggest would just be a waste of time.
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., rspee7 <no_reply@> wrote:
So your issue is a concern/fear that ACA will impact you negatively. What have you done to confirm or elevate your concern/fear? Have you tried to call IBM ESC and ask them? Sent a email to IBM HR with your concern? It would be helpful to all of us retirees to know what IBM is officially saying or not saying about changes to our benefits based on ACA versus us guessing causing unneeded arguments among us IBM retirees.
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., edward_berkline <no_reply@> wrote:
You are mistaken that IBM would have to pay ANY fine if they dropped health insurance coverage for retirees. There is a fine *only* for not providing coverage for full-time employees.
It's amusing that you compare the price of insurance on the exchanges to what you are paying through IBM. You are one of the folks who is covered under the old plan and not the FHA, correct? That means you get a subsidy of around $7000 from IBM. No wonder the numbers aren't even close! You haven't been paying real world prices! And you want to blame the ACA for the difference in cost?
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:
There have been no posts on IBM pension issues for the longest time. If you have a pension issue that you would like to discuss, post something and we'll do our best to help you out.
I. BTW, am concerned that ACA may be an issue for IBM retirees. I fear that IBM may decide to drop the healthcare coverage that some of us have and just point us to the exchanges. Seems like it might be more cost effective for IBM to pay a smaller fine per retiree (about $2000 I read somewhere) rather than the roughly $7000 IBM currently contributes to coverage for each retiree that it still covers. This, I believe, is what started the whole ACA discussion. It morphed into something else. I've looked into ACA and the cost vs coverage that I would receive if I had to depend on the exchange for my coverage. What I've learned is based on information currently available for the California exchange. It's not a pretty picture for me.
