开云体育

If you really want to helpful to the rest of us post something simple and concise that informs us of something specific that might impact us IBM retirees. Or ask the group to collectively help with a specific issue relating to IBM pensions. I have been overwhelmed by the recent posting from some you regarding the Affordable Care Act.

I would like to challenge you members who have been posting to stop using:
- Labels such as Republicans versus Democrats
- Name calling
->conservatives, right wing
->liberals, socialists, communists, Obamacare, etc...
->racist
- Using slang
->recent example of this is someone used "his lettuce" which I think is referring to his saved assets or retirement income
- Using rumors or unproven generalizations about the US government's intentions with regard to laws that have been passed

Using the above mentioned in your posts forces us all to take one side or the other with no aid in helping an IBM retiree better understand or deal with a pension issue.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

Now I'me even more worried!!

As noted in my post, I understand that IBM contributes $7K yearly to my health care coverage. I don't find anything amusing about my costs potentially going up. And I'm not blaming ACA for a potential increase in my costs, I'm just pointing out that it will provide me with less coverage at an increased cost if I need to rely on it. And I don't want to pay real world prices... As those on the IBM pension board have often pointed out, I earned the health care coverage that I have.

--- 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.

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.

Yes, you should be worried about IBM taking away retiree health insurance. Sooner or later, the greed of the executives will overcome any reluctance they might have kill it.

Without the ACA, that would most likely leave you without any insurance at all. With the ACA, at least you will have an option, even if it does cost you more than the IBM plan.


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> 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."

Now I'me even more worried!!

As noted in my post, I understand that IBM contributes $7K yearly to my health care coverage. I don't find anything amusing about my costs potentially going up. And I'm not blaming ACA for a potential increase in my costs, I'm just pointing out that it will provide me with less coverage at an increased cost if I need to rely on it. And I don't want to pay real world prices... As those on the IBM pension board have often pointed out, I earned the health care coverage that I have.

--- 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.

"Without the ACA, that would most likely leave you without any insurance at all."

It would? Don't understand your basis for this conclusion.

"With the ACA, at least you will have an option, even if it does cost you more
than the IBM plan."

Not a very interesting option for me. I've investigated the details a bit. 99% of the preventative care covered doesn't benefit me. I have no children younger than 26. I don't have any pre-existing conditions. And so on.

Suppose the ACA health insurance exchanges did not exist and IBM discontinued retiree health insurance. Where would you get health insurance at a reasonable price as an individual?

And if you have a pre-existing condition, without the prohibitions against this in the ACA, you might not be able to find any health insurance at all.

A quick quote from Kaiser-Permanente shows a premium of $725 per month ($8,700 per year) for self-only coverage for a 60 year old.
A high deductible plan lowers that to as little as $317 per month with a $5000 deductible. Of course, these prices assume no pre-existing conditions.


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

"Without the ACA, that would most likely leave you without any insurance at all."

It would? Don't understand your basis for this conclusion.

"With the ACA, at least you will have an option, even if it does cost you more
than the IBM plan."

Not a very interesting option for me. I've investigated the details a bit. 99% of the preventative care covered doesn't benefit me. I have no children younger than 26. I don't have any pre-existing conditions. And so on.