As we look around the room we are saddened. Dan Coyne, long time Board Member will no longer smile at us; offer his unique insight and genuine humor.
Dan’s passing was unexpected. He will be missed.
Please excuse the abruptness of this message. Frankly, it is a very difficult transition from the above subject to the following: we are looking for a member to fill retired treasurer Phyllis Hinshaw’s position. I have accepted the job as treasurer Pro Tem. Fear not, I know how to do this. Besides, Ms. Hinshaw dutifully trained Marie Mzvirin to perform the essential tasks of Telco booking, etc. I have had the pleasure of meeting with Phyllis and Marie. Marie is very capable. Checks and balances are in place to insure integrity, accuracy and protection of corporate assets. Unfortunately, the nature of the job does not easily lend itself to a Treasurer living outside San Diego County. So, we must limit our search to members close by. Any one interested?? Please hold up your hand. Or, better yet call me on 619-991-2709.

Ok…now this is the place for information about what your Board Members are acting on in the legislative arena. The real action is in our Nations Capital with Congress. If you have an interest in the nation’s new health care plan now is the time to give the subject special attention. Read. Listen to the news. Do not stand idly by. Call, write, e-mail your elected officials and let them know your opinion. Our opinions, now more than ever, are of vital importance to the issue of health care as Congress prepares to act. Our associate, the NRLN (National Retirees Legislative Network, Inc.) is continuing their work at a feverish pace as legislative Advocates in the Capital. They are answering questions from members of Congress seeking to understand the very complex issues of health Care legislation. The NRLN zeroes in on the needs of Retirees. Telco and the NRLN are known resources for information. I am reminded of insight provided me at the past NRLN Board meeting in Washington, D.C. Ms. Marta Bascom, Executive Director, NRLN works directly with Senators and members of The House of representatives. We were discussing how bills are prepared and the chances for success. She said our best hope is to be part of a bill NRLN can support. She went on to say much of what she accomplishes was being on hand to provide professional timely advice on bills that could adversely affect Retirees. Legislators come to the NRLN through Marta and Michael Calbrese, Attorney for advice and counsel. The NRLN now represents tens- of -thousands of Retirees. So, the numbers become important because the numbers are Retirees who can and will vote. TelCo members may use the TelCo web site to access NRLN information. As I see it this is the most important period to make our individual thoughts known to local, state and federal elected officials. Thank you for your continued support. I am proud to work on our behalf.

At your service,

Chuck Gilbert, President, TelCo Retirees Assoc. Inc.

1. Premium rules that are a giveaway to the insurance companies.
The first shocker in the Baucus bill came early on in the draft. Since I've worked in health insurance underwriting I have a certain familiarity with these kinds of numbers. I was stunned to see that the bill allows insurers to charge up to five times as much for some enrollees as for others, based on age. (By contrast, the House draft bill only allows them to charge up to twice as much based on age.)
One of the things we've been hearing from the President and other Democrats is that insurance needs to be affordable to everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions. This new provision, however, is a back-door way to let insurers essentially evade that provision. High-cost medical conditions, including chronic (and therefore pre-existing) conditions, aren't restricted to older people, of course. But they become increasingly common as we age -- so much so that indexing costs to age addresses a lot of the difference. The Baucus bill allows insurers to use age as a proxy for costly medical conditions and make coverage prohibitively expensive for those who need it the most.
There's a principle involved here. The fundamental reason we have insurance in the first place is to spread the risk, so that services are accessible and affordable in our time of need. That's why it's considered a social good (if done right). This provision goes a long way toward undoing the principle of shared risk.
The net result would be to make insurance increasingly unaffordable to Americans as they age. Nevertheless ..

2. The individual mandate is in there anyway.
Although I've been critical of the way many proposals have structured the individual mandate, I've always said that I understand the logic behind them: If you're going to force insurers to take all comers at a relatively average price, the healthy as well as the sick need to enroll. But if you're allowing insurers to charge much more for the (probably) sick than they do for the (probably) healthier, why have a mandate at all? You're not pooling risk in the manner originally proposed, so this is a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose proposition for the health plans.

3. It taxes benefits, slowly but surely.
I've been opposing the idea of taxing so-called "Cadillac benefits" for a long time. This plan does just that, although they're not likely to be "Cadillac plans" for long. As I feared, the tax isn't based on plan design. It targets plans above $21,000 indiscriminately, regardless of the reason for the added cost.
How is this terrible? Let us count the ways. First, it will hit plans hardest when they enroll older employees (who, you will remember, can cost five times as much to cover). That will penalize older employee groups, and will encourage employers to discriminate on the basis of age. Next, it will hurt people who live in urban and coastal areas where medical costs are higher (not that the Senator from Montana cares about that, I suppose). Lastly, if medical costs continue to increase at 10% per year, $21,000 will be the cost of the average plan in five or six years.
This plan's good CBO forecast rests in part on this new tax income. In other words, it achieves much of its vaunted "budget consciousness" on the backs of the middle class. It's a lousy bargain for workers and business alike. Granted, taxes will apply only to that portion of cost that exceeds $21,000 -- but that portion will increase nationally every year. And the tax rate for costs above the cap is 35%, so it will quickly become a huge new burden.

4. No public plan option.
But you knew that already, didn't you?

5. Co-ops can't always "cooperate."
First, the good news: Co-ops will be able to share data systems and some other services. Given the horrible nature of the bill overall, I was surprised to find that. But they can't pool their negotiating ability to get better deals from providers on behalf of the American consumer. (Congratulations, Dems -- more money out of the taxpayer's pocket.)
The draft language reads: "[Purchasing councils for co-ops] shall be prohibited from setting payment rates for health care facilities and providers." That means less savings to be passed on to enrollees."
It's unclear whether this provision also applies to drug companies and pharmacy benefit programs. If so, guess who that benefits? After all, most physicians serve patients primarily from one state, so this provision wouldn't apply to them. Hospital systems may serve patients in two or three states at most. But pharmaceutical companies are national entities. If co-ops could bargain with them collectively (make that "cooperatively"), they could demand substantial savings.
This issue needs to be clarified right away -- hopefully in the consumer's favor, by indicating that it does not apply to drug companies.
The plan does other bad things, too, like the provision that will encourage employers to discriminate against lower-income workers.

But hitting you with more than five of them at once could conceivably be bad for your health.