Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

CA is broke, ad nauseum

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Nomen Nescio - 08 May 2007 17:10 GMT
Retiree health cost disclosed -- California taxpayers
must come up with $47.9 billion over the next three
decades to cover medical care for thousands of current
and future retired state employees, Controller John
Chiang announced Monday.

If the state starts setting aside $2.6 billion a year in an
investment trust, however, taxpayers could cut their
contribution to $31.3 billion and meet all benefit payments
to retirees, Chiang said. Gilbert Chan in the Sacramento Bee -- 5/8/07

==

I have a simple solution:  End retiree benefits by making retirees
pay the full cost for healthcare.  Very few companies offer free
healthcare for retirees.  

Why should Kaleefornyah?
Jeff - 08 May 2007 17:30 GMT
> Retiree health cost disclosed -- California taxpayers
> must come up with $47.9 billion over the next three
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Why should Kaleefornyah?

Because that is part of the compensation that public employees work for.
It's part of the deal.

This is about coming through with the promises made.

Jeff
Billzz - 08 May 2007 18:50 GMT
>> Retiree health cost disclosed -- California taxpayers
>> must come up with $47.9 billion over the next three
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Jeff

I am retired military, and we were promised "free health care for life."
That quote can be found in any number of army, navy air force, etc.
publications.  After I retired the decision was made to end health care in
military hospitals for retired (with some exceptions) and we would get
CHAMPUS, then TRICARE (I spare you the details) which involved paying a
"fair share" (like what part of "free" did the government not understand?)
A law suit was filed by a former air force fighter pilot, holder of the
Medal of Honor, and lawyer, Bud Day.  The judge ruled that the government
could do anything that it wanted, and even though it was plain as to what
the government said, they changed their mind, and being sovereign, could do
that.
Jeff - 08 May 2007 18:59 GMT
>>> Retiree health cost disclosed -- California taxpayers
>>> must come up with $47.9 billion over the next three
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> the government said, they changed their mind, and being sovereign, could
> do that.

So you got screwed by the government, so everyone else should get screwed,
too?

How about working with your representatives and senators to get the issue
resolved? Now that there are so many injured people coming back from the
war, perhaps you can help make a difference.

You earned your benefits and should get them.

So did a lot of people who work for cities, states and even the federal
governments.

Jeff
catfish - 08 May 2007 19:36 GMT
Two words - "socialized medicine."
We should just admit that this neo-con bullshit about "privatizing"
everything is an utter failure.

Catfish, who has retirement benefits.
Billzz - 08 May 2007 21:36 GMT
>>>> Retiree health cost disclosed -- California taxpayers
>>>> must come up with $47.9 billion over the next three
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> Jeff

Hmm.  I described a situation, free from personal feelings, and you ascribed
a position to me which I did not profess.

I can (and have) done a lot of things.  Being part of the class-action
lawsuit was one.  And you can do a lot of things.  But in the final analysis
if the state of California wants to do what the federal government did, then
it can, and a judge will rule in their favor.  Of course the largest
employer in the state of California is the state, and what with all the
public employee unions (read voters) they might get some redress.  Unlike
the federal government, where the military is not the biggest voting bloc,
the state of California might (maybe) continue as it is doing.  But
demographics indicate otherwise.  The short version is that are fewer people
paying for, and more people getting, health care.  Things will have to
change.
Jeff - 09 May 2007 01:55 GMT
>>>>> Retiree health cost disclosed -- California taxpayers
>>>>> must come up with $47.9 billion over the next three
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> Hmm.  I described a situation, free from personal feelings, and you
> ascribed a position to me which I did not profess.

Sorry to tell you this, but the government promised you something and did
come through. You got screwed.

> I can (and have) done a lot of things.  Being part of the class-action
> lawsuit was one.  And you can do a lot of things.  But in the final
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> are fewer people paying for, and more people getting, health care.  Things
> will have to change.

That true for a lot of things.

Another thing people can do is try to find out if their states or local
governments are properly funding their pensions. In a lot of places, the
pensions are not properly funded.

Jeff
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.