KIPLINGER RECOMMENDS

Home > Employee Health Care, Business Law

COMMENT

BUZZ UP

DIGG

CHECK OUT:

EXECUTIVE POLL

Bernard Madoff, convicted of running an $65 billion Ponzi scheme, was sentenced to 150 years in jail. What’s your take on his punishment?

Compare Price Quotes 100+ Services

OUR PREMIUM CONTENT

The Kiplinger Tax Letter
The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter
The Kiplinger California Letter
Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
Kiplinger's Retirement Report

SUBSCRIBER HELP

CURRENT LETTER

By Knight Kiplinger

The Kiplinger Washington Editors

July 2, 2009

By year-end or so, Congress will give the nod to a major rewriting of the nation's financial regulatory system. This week’s Kiplinger Letter explores whether the package will do more harm than good and what lawmakers are likely to include.

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: The Economy, Business Costs, Taxes, Supreme Court, Energy, Workplace Regulations, Climate Change, Health Care Legislation and Foreign Policy

PREVIOUS ISSUES

CORRECTIONS

TRY THE LETTER:
Subscribe | See Sample

YOUR FEEDBACK

SUBSCRIBERLOG: Got a topic you'd like to discuss? Or a problem or question? Please join our exclusive forum for Letter subscribers only.

ASK US: A Kiplinger Letter editor will promptly answer subscriber questions.

OPEN FORUM: Share your insights and analysis with other visitors.

I just attended a franchise seminar. The speaker represents a few hundred franchises that (he says) are hand picked. He has the prospect (aka victim?) answer some questions about themselves then he makes recomendations - based on your personality, capital situation, etc.. If you pick a franchise, then he does some due dilligence for you. If you both decide it's a good idea, he helps you get started. He says he offers this service free of charge, which means he gets a commission if he's able to sell you a franchise. Has anyone done this? Successfully? Unsuccessfully?

-- fender

A Break May Be Coming on Retiree Health Costs

A court ruling may have cleared the way for employers to save money by coordinating retiree health benefits with Medicare without being guilty of age discrimination.

Worth Reading: The Quick Take from Kiplinger

October 2007

Clarissa A. Kang

Trucker Huss

Clarissa A. Kang, an associate attorney at Trucker Huss, an employee benefits specialty law firm in San Francisco, practices in the area of employee benefits and ERISA litigation. She has represented clients in federal and state courts at trial and appeals levels. She has experience in handling a wide spectrum of employee benefits litigation, including cases involving benefit claims, fiduciary issues, plan administration, multiemployer plans, and stock option grants.

As if companies weren't already under enough financial pressure on the health care front, a federal appeals court ruling seven years ago effectively increased the cost of providing health care to retirees. The effect was predictable: Many companies stopped providing the popular -- and often essential -- benefit.

But cutting benefits in an increasingly competitive labor market is not a particularly winning strategy for attracting and keeping the sharpest talent. With aging workers increasingly worried about economic and health security in retirement, many companies are making themselves more attractive by offering retiree health benefits.

Now such benefits may soon be more affordable because employers may be allowed to coordinate health insurance for retirees with Medicare. Clarissa Kang, of the law firm Trucker Huss, explains how the federal courts are changing course and why a federal appeals court no longer regards such coordination of benefits to be age discrimination -- and she explains why the courts took such a view in the first place. The appeals court ruling will likely be taken to the Supreme Court, but it appears unlikely the justices will intervene.

READER COMMENTS