Speak Up: Readers continue to respond on state retiree benefit panel

The Retiree Healthcare Benefits Advisory Subcommittee, tasked with providing recommendations on proposals for retired state workers’ coverage, met Aug. 24 and considered several motions opposed by committee members who are part of the governor’s administration.

A motion to remove Medicare Advantage from consideration was presented by committee vice chair Rep. Paul Baumbach, D-Newark, and opposed by Department of Finance Secretary Rick Geisenberger, who noted that the subcommittee’s job is to evaluate retiree health care options in a fiscally sustainable way. Claire DeMatteis, committee co-chair and secretary of the Delaware Department of Human Resources, said the motion altered the committee’s authority that is limited by state law. The motion that Medicare Advantage be taken off the table was approved. Another motion was passed recommending the state follow its previous format of a three-year contract with two optional one-year extensions.

The subcommittee meets again Sept. 28, and its report is due to Gov. John Carney and the legislature by Oct. 1.

How much say should state workers have over what the state offers them in retirement benefits? What is currently missing from the equation that should be considered?

• Retirees and current employees are entitled to the benefits promised when their tenure with the state began. Medicare Advantage should never have been considered and should be removed from current and future consideration, as it would harm retirees. — Jill Lew
• I worked 31 years, risking my life for the citizens of Delaware as a law enforcement officer. To have the state attempt to, and almost succeed in, deceiving me and everyone else in our golden years is treacherous and dishonorable behavior on the part of elected officials who were put in office because they promised to take care of the marginalized. There is no one more marginalized in this country than the elderly. There are laws in our own state about stealing/abusing the elderly. Any elected official who engages in the endangerment of the elderly should be charged like anyone else would be when they endanger the welfare of the elderly population. It’s time for the majority party to step up and do what they keep promising but fall short of on a constant basis where the elderly are concerned. — Steel Ovaries
• I was promised one thing during my 33 years of service, and then, two years after my retirement, there is an effort by the state to change the rules. In a situation like that, I should have a “lot of say.” Nothing should be changed without my “permission.” — Stuart Binder-Macleod
• How in the world did anyone think that the state of Delaware could renege on their part of this? My husband served in education 30 years and now has Parkinson’s and deserves neurology care where he chooses to have it! He retired with the promise of a plan that covers most of what Medicare Advantage does not! He should not be denied treatment with his many specialists and should be able to choose to go to treatment outside the local area for this specialized condition. You owe your retirees the promise you made when they retired. The bells and whistles of Medicare Advantage plans amount to nothing! My husband and I have many specialists, and only one was on the list of approved doctors! What a trick you are trying to pull on us! My husband could have gone across state lines to earn a higher salary but remained with the state due to the excellent benefits at retirement. How dare you change this! — Linda Hershberger Neel
• Many of the areas covered by these health care benefits are highly competitive, and it can be very difficult to hire good people to fill positions. People do look at the benefits offered, and if we offer worse benefits, it can mean we have a much harder time filling the vacancies. This is very true for the University of Delaware. In the business school, it is very difficult to find good new faculty, since very few people want to get their Ph.D. Every year, we have a hard time hiring, and we almost always offer the lowest salary, and many believe they have to send their kids to private school, also. Thus, these add up to having much less money for everything else. If we also offer worse benefits, we are just about guaranteed to be unable to hire good new faculty. Employees cannot determine what benefits they should receive, but they can take a job in places that offer much better benefits. They also can take a job knowing that they will receive good health care benefits when they retire, but if the administration gets their way, it appears they would be taking away something that was promised employees when they were hired. This is completely unreasonable and sends a very bad message to potential new employees. — John Antil
• Retirees are entitled to the Medicare benefits they were promised. Medicare Advantage programs are clearly inferior to traditional Medicare and are particularly inferior for retired state employees who spend part or most of the year out of state. Thus, I believe that at least current retirees should be allowed to continue the benefits they presently have. I very much appreciate the recommendations of Rep. Paul Baumbach and his committee. — Lou Mosberg
• Well said! — Jennifer MacDonald