Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I appreciate you posting this. It is a tricky point, but important for all to think about.
As a member of the younger generation, it is amazing to me that it is possible to have a health insurance benefit after having worked for only 10 years. That's just insane.... and totally unaffordable for our society. She already will be eligible for Medicare in just a few years, and to have health insurance covered ON TOP of that is such a fantasy...... It is not that I am suggesting you were a lazy worker or feeling entitled, it is just that this benefit is crazy good, and was probably a mistake for the government to have offered in the first place. The fact that you were forward thinking enough to choose a job with this benefit was very very smart of you. So I can understand why you are struggling now. I would be too. I would want those health benefits, and would be thinking if there was any way I could keep those and make some sort of lateral move/new job.
I have already realized that I will probably have to work indefinitely, as do many of my peers. Retirement in the old sense of the world seems impossible. My employers don't match retirement contributions. Working in the private sector for me means no pension, no health benefits long term... it is just shocking to me to see some of the public sector benefits. I do wonder whether I should be moving to the public sector now (!) but suspect the benefits of course will not be the same by the time I'm 60/70.
Of course, I can also understand being tired at age 60, having an unpleasant work environment, or having health problems that are making it hard to work. Even more concerning, as the job market changes/shrinks, employers may not want a 65 or 70 year old on their payroll.... as we may be slower, and may bring in higher health care costs for the employer. It is very scary to me, and I worry about it now.... So I do sympathize with your situation.
I should clarify my familiarity is with others not myself. I was well schooled early on in how to do it right and how to maximize what was available. Folks like the poster are caught up in a quandry of having taken public sector jobs later in life and seeing a retirement target that was within their reach. As part of the fiscal retrenchment by government they are finding that what they thought was a fixed target is now a moving target subject to perhaps multiple changes. Health care benefits are the most vulnerable to be changed as they are usually without any legal safeguards and perhaps most importantly are usually not funded by a trust fund but are part of the annual operating budget and subject to constant scrutiny and fiscal competition with other government programs.
I was laid off in 2009 at age 62. Job market had plummeted so I took early SSI. Even with my tiny pension I still need more to have anything for car repair and other emergencies. I did find something to work from home. Projects are sporadic but it works for me.
I haven't read all replies yet but here are two work from home links someone provided. It didn't find mine from either of those but keep them in case I need to search again.
Thanks everyone for your comments. My initial post was in error that I have to work 8 more years, it is actually 6 years (typo). I work in the public sector and they are changing the number of years you are vested to obtain health care. It suddenly goes from 10 years (which I have) to 20 years effective 1/1/14. To get 20 years I will have to work another 6 years. My problem is if something happens like I get layed off, fired, etc. I will not be able to get health insurance. Plus I really don't want to work until I'm 66. I will have the windfall on social security when I can obtain that at 62 because of my public service, but at least if it is still available I'll be able to collect social security. It is just very scary to go from a decent salary to all of a sudden a poverty level salary. I know things will work out, I just am stressing over it. This forum amazes me, I always get so many responses with good information. I'm glad I visit here. Thanks again.
Seems like there should be a 'grandfather' provision for those who are already vested or near the 10-year period within 2-3 years. Whether there is or not, healthcare after early retirement is a biggie. It's cost me $600 per month for the past 4-years, just to get to age 65 and qualify for Medicare (and I've been told that others pay significantly more).
Seems like there should be a 'grandfather' provision for those who are already vested or near the 10-year period within 2-3 years. Whether there is or not, healthcare after early retirement is a biggie. It's cost me $600 per month for the past 4-years, just to get to age 65 and qualify for Medicare (and I've been told that others pay significantly more).
I just posted a couiple of links in another thread about how Kodak is trying to cut health benefits for current retirees as part of their Chap 11 filing. What folks have to remember about retirement health benefits is that they are normally part of the operating budget and while a fixed item are subject to revision every annual budget cycle. That is why I made the comment about seeing things through the lens of a tax payer. Imagine the budget meetings when the choice is between retiree health cost for those not at full retirement age and having worked for a short period of time. for the school system or class size and pre school programs. Imagine the discussion at the local government level when the choice is health benefits for those retired etc and snow removal. Even if you have a union when you retire you are usually not a member and if so not a full dues paying member so don't expect them to fight for you at the expense of a raise for active working members.
Seems like there should be a 'grandfather' provision for those who are already vested or near the 10-year period within 2-3 years. Whether there is or not, healthcare after early retirement is a biggie. It's cost me $600 per month for the past 4-years, just to get to age 65 and qualify for Medicare (and I've been told that others pay significantly more).
Vesting requires long term planning and usually government is trying to make it from one budget cycle to the next and when they need money they need it now.
I just posted a couiple of links in another thread about how Kodak is trying to cut health benefits for current retirees as part of their Chap 11 filing. What folks have to remember about retirement health benefits is that they are normally part of the operating budget and while a fixed item are subject to revision every annual budget cycle. That is why I made the comment about seeing things through the lens of a tax payer. Imagine the budget meetings when the choice is between retiree health cost for those not at full retirement age and having worked for a short period of time. for the school system or class size and pre school programs. Imagine the discussion at the local government level when the choice is health benefits for those retired etc and snow removal. Even if you have a union when you retire you are usually not a member and if so not a full dues paying member so don't expect them to fight for you at the expense of a raise for active working members.
I believe General Motors took away the health benefits of it's salaried retiree's a few years back, although I think they gave them a little something each month to supplement a plan if they purchase one. Things have changed and nothing is secure anymore.
I imagine the policy makers who are changing these vesting thresholds, were thinking in terms of young people just entering government service. Little thought was given to midlife career changers, who are trying to catch the train before it leaves the station.
Back in my youth, government service was often viewed by my contemporaries as an employer of last resort. An outgrowth of the anti-authority youth subculture that existed at the time. Now, 40 years later, some want a piece of the pie.
How long do you ideally want to work ? Til 62 til 66?
How much will your pension increase in those 6 years.? That's your bigger problem. You will have to live on that pension for a lot of years, you will only have to cover your insurance until 65 and Medicare eligibility. Yes I understand there are changes coming there, but those will happen no matter your decision.
I 'retired' early 5 years ago after medical crisis. Because I had medical coverage prior to that and used the COBRA extension I was able to get a individual policy-around $390 a month. So that could be an option for you.
I say keep your job and good paycheck, start saving for those retirement costs while you have a income coming in.
As a member of the younger generation, it is amazing to me that it is possible to have a health insurance benefit after having worked for only 10 years. That's just insane.... and totally unaffordable for our society. She already will be eligible for Medicare in just a few years, and to have health insurance covered ON TOP of that is such a fantasy...... it is just that this benefit is crazy good, and was probably a mistake for the government to have offered in the first place.
In my area, the government jobs used to have a lower pay scale then non-government jobs. They offered better benefits to try and attract workers to the lower payscale. Nowadays though, the government jobs are paying more than the other jobs and have much better benefits, but it's come time to pay the piper.
My employers don't match retirement contributions. Working in the private sector for me means no pension, no health benefits long term...
I am in the same boat with you. The employers in my field have NEVER offered any kind of pension, 401K, nada. I've had to do all this on my own.
employers may not want a 65 or 70 year old on their payroll.... as we may be slower, and may bring in higher health care costs for the employer. It is very scary to me, and I worry about it now.... So I do sympathize with your situation.
I'm sure this will be the wave of the future. There are ways to get around the age discrimination laws and you had best be prepared to someday have the plug pulled on your job.
I just posted a couiple of links in another thread about how Kodak is trying to cut health benefits for current retirees as part of their Chap 11 filing. What folks have to remember about retirement health benefits is that they are normally part of the operating budget and while a fixed item are subject to revision every annual budget cycle. That is why I made the comment about seeing things through the lens of a tax payer. Imagine the budget meetings when the choice is between retiree health cost for those not at full retirement age and having worked for a short period of time. for the school system or class size and pre school programs. Imagine the discussion at the local government level when the choice is health benefits for those retired etc and snow removal. Even if you have a union when you retire you are usually not a member and if so not a full dues paying member so don't expect them to fight for you at the expense of a raise for active working members.
I think you make some excellent points and are very smart!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
