Don’t Ignore Vanishing Private Benefits

This is in response to the article on the front page of the Aug. 17 Journal, “State workers retiring rarely because of health benefits.” I’m not sure if there’s a difference between state pensions and private-sector pensions, but things may not be as clear cut as these people think.

Last year my husband, who had worked in a private-sector company for about 20 years, retired from that company as one of the last of his kind. He had a pension. The company had many years before given up the pension plan for new hires. He had watched all his older co- workers retire with good pensions and full health coverage.

Well, just about four years ago these retirees were told that the company would no longer cover health benefits. They would still be part of the group plan at a reduced rate, but they have to pay for it themselves. This was done over a short period in which they received partial payments. By the time my husband retired, the medical benefit was entirely off the table. It seems that the only guarantee that a pensioner has is the pension that he retires with; all other benefits are optional.

My husband spent a weekend as a retiree and then began work at his next job on Monday. I’m not sure if this situation applies to state pensions, but if it affects decisions as to whether someone would retire early or not, maybe that question should be asked.

DEBORAH LEIGHTON

Coventry

(c) 2008 Providence Journal. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.