Another attack piece on Public Employees

[n2doc]

Residents face $20b retiree health tab
Study finds most cities, towns don’t put enough aside

By Sean P. Murphy
Globe Staff / February 16, 2011

Massachusetts residents face potentially devastating tax increases in the coming years to pay health insurance benefits for retired police, firefighters, and other municipal employees, according to a new study that finds the 50 largest cities and towns alone face a retiree health care bill of $20 billion over the next 30 years.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation study found that virtually no municipality is putting aside nearly enough money to pay the ballooning cost of health insurance promised to their retired employees, as well as those who will retire. If the biggest cities and towns wanted to set aside enough money in trust funds to cover future insurance costs, they would have to double their annual spending on health care, to about $1.5 billion.

“It’s the equivalent of a gigantic credit card debt which grows and grows the longer it is ignored,’’ said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded nonprofit research organization.

The Taxpayers Foundation yesterday released its first-of-its-kind report, which measures the size of the unfunded liability cities and towns face over the next 30 years for retiree health care benefits. The foundation based its findings on actuarial studies for each city and town looking at the long-term costs of paying health insurance benefits.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/02/16/residents_face_20b_retiree_health_tab/?p1=News_links

Instead of blaming the employees, perhaps fixing the problem at the source- rising health care costs- might be a solution? Yet this is never discussed.

Eventually the only folks with healthcare will be the CEO's. Everyone else will get a sham coverage, designed to provide no benefits but milk as much $$$ as possible in premiums. Oh wait, we're almost there now!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. The numbers do not lie...there is a not a public retirement system that appears actuarially sound

And that should be a big deal. However, it is not justification for violating contracts and prior agreements.

[n2doc]

2. But the only "solution" given is to cut benefits

There never is any attempt to look at ways to cut the rise in costs.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Nor to review why it was not funded properly in the past and to start doing it now

I have no doubt that cuts will be made, but that still does not make it right