2012 is the beginning of reporting the value of employer-provided health benefits on form W-2 and it may also be the beginning of the end of this tax benefit. There is little logic to continue this massive revenue loss.
Read more on Health Insurance Illuminated.
As I am preparing to board a cruise ship, I look around and it is hard to see a fellow traveler under age 65 or perhaps even age 70 or to put it another way there are a large number of Medicare cards on this boat. Then I equate the cost of a cruise with the following. Yeah I know there are a lot of poor elderly, I know that because government stats tell me so. However, those averages miss a lot of people with a lot of money to spend. Hey, why not split a pill if you can do it on a cruise?
1 in 5 Older Americans Cutting Back on Health Care to Save Money
WASHINGTON—More than 20 percent of Americans age 50 or over report saving on health costs by switching to cheaper generic drugs, getting free samples, stopping pills or reducing dosages, and nearly as many skip or postpone doctor appointments for the same reason, according a new report by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).
The data suggest that spending by those near or in retirement declines to match income, even when it means giving up real needs.
“We know that consumption tends to fall with age, but it’s difficult to measure whether falling consumption is voluntary,” said Sudipto Banerjee of EBRI, author of the study. “However, we found evidence that a significant segment of the older population may be making spending adjustments to their health care in order to save money.”
Specifically, the analysis found that more than 1 in 5 (21.5 percent) households reported that they have made some changes in their prescription drugs to save money, and nearly as many (19.4 percent) said they have either skipped or postponed doctor appointments to do so. More than a quarter of households (27.5 percent) reported difficulty in paying their monthly bills.
The report found that these reductions were almost equally prevalent among households, whether they reported increasing or decreasing their annual spending. Even for those who reported that their spending was unchanged, 16.5 percent reported making prescription drug changes, while 11.7 percent reported skipping or postponing doctor visits to save money.
The study also found that about 1 in 10 of those in excellent health reported skipping or postponing doctor appointments to save money, while more than three times as many (36.5 percent) of those in poor health reported doing so. Similarly, nearly 1 in 3 (29.9 percent) of those in poor health reported making prescription drug changes to save money, which is nearly twice the number of those in excellent health.
Further, the study found that single women and blacks had the highest involuntary spending adjustments: 22.8 per- cent and 24.8 percent of single women made prescription drug changes and skipped or postponed doctor appointments to save money. Comparable numbers for blacks were 25.9 percent and 27.3 percent, respectively.
The study is based on data from the 2009 Internet Survey of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). The full report is published in the January 2012 EBRI Notes, “Spending Adjustments Made By Older Americans to Save Money,” online at www.ebri.org
Is there is a solution to health care costs and quality? Apparently there is a simple solution, just have government – run the entire system, just like Medicare.
The following is from a newspaper in Massachusetts. I guess what MA has already done is insufficient. A State representative has introduced legislation for a single-payer system. Throwing out a few platitudes about quality and affordability sounds good and gets some people excited, but it is hardly effective management of the health care system. There is no evidence that a single payer system makes health care affordable, improves quality or reduces costs (especially without numerous unintended consequences). With regard to Massachusetts, their current system has yet to prove itself beyond expanding coverage – much like the Affordable Care Act.
As I have said many times, when a politician makes outrageous promises, make sure you ask exactly how they will be met.
Last update Dec 31, 2011 @ 04:51 PM
Touting dramatic reductions in health care costs, improved access to health care for all residents and a boost to local businesses, state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, has filed a bill that would create a single-payer health care system for Massachusetts. The bill, heard by the Joint Committee on Health Care Finance, would establish a universal public insurance plan covering all medically necessary care. This plan would function for residents younger than 65 much the way Medicare does for residents 65 and older, but without premiums or co-payments, according to Eldridge’s office. “If Massachusetts is serious about reducing health care costs for families, businesses and state and local governments, we need to stop tinkering at the edges of a broken system and enact a single-payer healthcare system,” Eldridge said. “It’s the only reform that would truly reduce costs in a substantial way, eliminating medical debt and bankruptcies while guaranteeing access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.”
Defense, foreign aid, a bloated bureaucracy don’t matter at all.
The reality is that while we hear lots of rhetoric about debt and deficits, what really matters is long term liabilities. If you don’t believe me consider what happened with General Motors and it’s liabilities to retirees mostly with regard to health benefits. The latest example is Kodak filing bankruptcy during which the promise of retiree health benefits is likely to disappear along with some pension promises for higher paid workers who are affected by income limits on pension funding. Losing a substantial portion of your pension after you have already retired sounds like more than ones fair share to me ( and we are not talking about CEOs).
If you want more examples of this liability thing causing trouble just look to the various states that have agreed to unrealistic pension and health benefit commitments to state workers. And then you look at the results of all this. In Wisconsin the unions have gotten 1,000,000 signatures to force a recall election of the governor who did the right, albeit painful, thing to correct the State’s problems.
What is the most significant problem affecting the U.S., it is the same as I have just described above; long term liabilities for health care first and pensions second. That means Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but mostly Medicare.
So now the question is what will you do for the politician who tells you the truth (assuming you can find one)? Chances are you won’t vote for him because it is far easier to ignore a long term problem than deal with it. It is more abstract to believe foreign aid is the culprit than something that affects you directly. It is less stressful to agree with a politician who claims to have a solution while leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched.
The difficult part is accepting the truth. The U.S. has made open ended, demographic based commitments that it can’t control and can’t pay for. Twenty to thirty years from now there will be hell to pay. The longer it takes to implement corrective action the worse it will be… and that’s the truth like it or not
If any insurance company, say your auto insurer or home owners insurer raised your premiums an unreasonable amount what would you do? I suspect you would switch insurance companies, perhaps give that little lizard a boot in the butt. When it comes to health insurance it takes the federal government to tell you what is unreasonable. We all better hope that the denials being made by regulators are themselves reasonable. A small change in assumptions can make a big difference in outcomes and if premiums are too low, there will be a great deal of catching up to do. Remember, a premium set in 2011 is designed to cover claims incurred through 2012 which may not be reflective of experience in the past twelve months. Actuaries know this of course, but let us hope political pressure is not influencing the many variables that go into setting premiums.
If you look at the release below you will see a rate cut for Anthem Blue Cross in Connecticut. However, when you go to the HHS link in the press release you find this:
Connecticut Rate Review
The Rate Review program began September 1, 2011. No insurers in Connecticut have proposed rate increases of 10% or more since that time. Check back regularly for updates.
Then we have the following hype. HHS is incapable of preparing a press release containing just facts, but rather must include more and more spin and unsubstantiated claims.
“The Affordable Care Act includes several policies, including rate review, to continue this slow growth. By fighting fraud, better coordinating care, preventing disease and illness before they happen and creating a new state-based insurance marketplace, it helps keep health care cost growth low.”
In fact only rate review has been implemented, the efforts at coordinated care are focused on Medicare, preventive disease programs have been used by employers for many years with no measurable results and the state-based marketplace is two years away.
News Release
Affordable Care Act holding insurers accountable for premium hikes. Health insurance premium increases in five states have been deemed “unreasonable” by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today.
After independent expert review, HHS determined that Trustmark Life Insurance Company has proposed unreasonable health insurance premium increases in five states—Alabama, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming. The excessive rate hikes would affect nearly 10,000 residents across these five states.
To make these determinations, HHS used its “rate review” authority from the Affordable Care Act (the health care law of 2010) to determine whether premium increases of over 10 percent are reasonable.
“Before the Affordable Care Act, consumers were in the dark about their health insurance premiums because there was no nationwide transparency or accountability,” said Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. ”Now, insurance companies are required to disclose rate increases over 10 percent and justify these increases. It’s time for Trustmark to immediately rescind the rates, issue refunds to consumers or publicly explain their refusal to do so.”
In these five states, Trustmark has raised rates by 13 percent. For small businesses in Alabama and Arizona, when combined with other rate hikes made over the last 12 months, rates have increased by 27.2 percent and 18.1 percent, respectively. These increases were reviewed by independent experts to determine whether they are reasonable. In this case, HHS determined that the rate increases were unreasonable because the insurer would be spending a low percent of premium dollars on actual medical care and quality improvements, and because the justifications were based on unreasonable assumptions.
In addition to the review of rate increases, many states have the authority to reject unreasonable premium increases. Since the passage of the health care reform law, the number of states with this authority increased from 30 to 37, with several states extending existing “prior authority” to new markets.
Examples of how states have used this authority include:
In New Mexico, the state insurance division denied a request from Presbyterian Healthcare for a 9.7 percent rate hike, lowering it to 4.7 percent;In Connecticut, the state stopped Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the state’s largest insurer, from hiking rates by a proposed 12.9 percent, instead limiting it to a 3.9 percent increase;In Oregon, the state denied a proposed 22.1 percent rate hike by Regence, limiting it to 12.8 percent.In New York, the state denied rate increases from Emblem, Oxford, and Aetna that averaged 12.7 percent, instead holding them to an 8.2 percent increase.In Rhode Island, the state denied rate hikes from United Healthcare of New England ranging from 18 to 20.1 percent, instead seeing them cut to 9.6 to 10.6 percent.In Pennsylvania, the state held Highmark to rate hikes ranging from 4.9 to 8.3 percent, down from 9.9 percent.
Today’s announcement comes the same week that a report showed that health care spending has grown at remarkably low rates. According to an analysis done each year by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. health care spending experienced historically low rates of growth in 2009 and 2010. A recent study released by Mercer Consulting also showed a slow-down in the average employee health benefit cost to businesses.
The Affordable Care Act includes several policies, including rate review, to continue this slow growth. By fighting fraud, better coordinating care, preventing disease and illness before they happen and creating a new state-based insurance marketplace, it helps keep health care cost growth low.
For more information on the specific determinations made today, please visit http://companyprofiles.healthcare.gov/
According to a recent federal report, health care spending rose at only 3.9% in 2010, the lowest rate in several years. The experts say this is probably due to the weak economy. That may be part of it, but this cycle has happened in he past, mainly when there was a national focus on health care costs as when the federal government promoted HMOs as the final solution and during the Clinton health care initiative.
Some of this trend has to do with the turmoil and misinformation about where health care reform is going and whose ox is going to get gored. In times of uncertainty health care providers hunker down to keep a lower profile.
This time things may be much worse when the cycle changes again. Millions more Americans will have coverage under very comprehensive benefits, most will be heavily subsidized for their premium costs, the mentality of “free” services to consumers is stronger because of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, there is pent-up demand that will be released soon after the start of 2014 and perhaps before.
I'm still not optimistic
In some cases, especially with employer based coverage, more and more expenses will move to employees because of cost shifting. So while the employer premiums and costs are moderated, that is only part of the story. Keep in mind also that the new mandates within the Affordable Care Act have already added 3% + – to insurance costs.
Finally, there are the hidden new costs imposed by the Affordable Care Act. New taxes and fees on medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, insurers and employers will eventually find their way into premiums and out of consumer’s pockets. America may have slowed for the curve, but it has not hit the brakes.
There are some signs of serious efforts to fundamentally change the health care system and the way care is provided and paid for. However, how well patients will accept those changes is unknown, even if they are in their best interest. Nevertheless, significant positive affects of such changes are years in the future.
There is no joy in Mudville yet; mighty Casey is still looking for his bat.
First target
One of the criticisms of the Affordable Care Act has been that few people actually know what is contained in the Act. Having spent untold hours reading the Act along with various independent assessments of the Act, I can testify to its immense complexity.
For example, in order to pay for the expansion of subsidized health insurance to millions of Americans, the Affordable Care Act adds numerous new fees and taxes on individuals’, employers and the health insurance industry. In 2010, there was a new tax on indoor tanning facilities (ok, so that is not a big deal, anyone who uses one of those deserves to be taxed). In 2014 there are new fees on employers and insurance companies, all of which have the potential of being passed along to consumers. In 2012 pharmaceutical companies that sell to the federal government are assessed what is called an annual fee (excise tax).
The various fees and taxes contained in the Act are among the few elements that are reasonably quantifiable. Other elements of the Act that are to reduce costs rely on assumptions of long-term success for well-meaning, but untried programs generally related to Medicare. To be successful, hospitals, physicians, other health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries must all work in a coordinated effort under new paradigms for providing health care.
Taking billions of dollars each year in new taxes impacts these organizations which then must find ways to mitigate this loss. It is tempting to simply dismiss such taxes as justified on highly profitable organizations. However, we should never forget that everything we do is connected to something else and every action has its consequences (think housing crisis). Generating revenue for some means a loss for others, a savings here means less revenue there and in some cases that may mean a loss of jobs, less invested in research or simply passing costs along to another party. When additional costs are imposed on employers, especially related to health benefits, it generally means greater cost sharing for employees and a shift in compensation from cash to employee benefit programs. Good benefits are valuable, but they don’t buy groceries or pay college tuition.
The following is excerpted from the IRS regulations with regard to the new fees on drug manufacturers (a very small sample of the hundreds of thousands, ultimately millions, of pages of regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act).
The aggregate fee amount each year for all covered entities (referred to as the applicable amount) is $2.5 billion for fee year 2011; $2.8 billion for fee years 2012 and 2013; $3 billion for fee years 2014 through 2016; $4 billion for fee year 2017; $4.1 billion for fee year 2018; and $2.8 billion for fee year 2019 and thereafter. The applicable amount for each year is allocated, using a specified formula, among covered entities with aggregate branded prescription drug sales of over $5 million to specified government programs or pursuant to coverage under such programs.
The specified government programs are the Medicare Part B program, the Medicare Part D program, the Medicaid program, any program under which branded prescription drugs are procured by the Department of Veterans Affairs, any program under which branded prescription drugs are procured by the Department of Defense, and the TRICARE retail pharmacy program (collectively, the Programs).
The annual fee for each covered entity is calculated by determining the ratio of (i) the covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales taken into account during the preceding calendar year to (ii) the aggregate branded prescription drug sales taken into account for all covered entities during the same year, and applying this ratio to the applicable amount. Sales taken into account means branded prescription drug sales after the application of the percentage adjustment table.
I have no doubt there is significant opportunity to wring savings from the Defense Department as there is from virtually all government departments. For example, health costs for retired career military are out of control and their premiums have not been raised in over fifteen years … those folks are no different from any other retiree. It is also true there must be a balance in cost management between the three largest expenditures, Medicare, Defense and Social Security.
Having said all that, in the world we live in today do cuts that make it impossible to fight two ground wars simultaneously make sense, does cutting back on development for new weapon systems make sense? Don’t get me wrong I am not for war or starting a new war, but in the face of a military build up by China, North Korea‘s ongoing threat, ongoing instability in the Middle East, and spreading terrorism especially in Africa, announcing to the world that we are reducing our capability is risky business at best.
In an ideal world, perhaps the world of progressives, a defense force would only be needed to help with natural disasters but that is not our world and never has been. America is in decline as the worlds economic power and even our once dominate influence is diminished, there is no need to send signals that we will become ripe for picking. By all means, seek out waste and duplication, close domestic bases and facilities that are not needed, strengthen the procurement process to get more for our money.
However, cutting our military to avoid changes to Social Security and Medicare is a bad deal and potentially a long-term debacle. If we don’t have the best security possible, that monthly check won’t mean much.
See the following from Rasmussen.
New High: 48% Say Most Members of Congress Are Corrupt In Politics
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that most members of Congress are corrupt. Just 28% disagree, and another 24% are not sure. Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on December 27-28, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.
Many people don’t think Congress is doing a good job, that government is the problem and even that Congress is corrupt. Based on my personal experience with feedback it also appears people are willing to believe the most outrageous things about members of Congress, like they receive their pay for life and that Congress stopped the Social Security COLA for two years . . . And yet we keep electing the same people over and over so they become so ingrained in the system they are frozen with the fear of losing power.
Isn’t it really time for term limits? We only need a few more signatures on our petition to get it released to Congress. Please click in the term limit link and sign the petition (U.S. citizens only please).
Small change
Writing for The Huffington Post, Paul Kleyman talks about the very real shortcomings of the 2% payroll tax recently extended by Congress. His point being it’s really not much of a cut for working families and that there were better ways to get money in workers (voters) hands (he is right about that). Here is a small part of what he said.
In other words, by giving everyone a 2 percent cut, Washington has gifted more money to wealthier people, those apt to salt the savings away in their banks, and less to middle and working class people, who would be more likely to spend it on rent, groceries and maybe a few holiday gifts.
So, it appears that within the last few years we have developed a society of poor middle – income Americans despite low inflation and interest rates. So much so that the two percent temporary tax cut will go to rent or groceries, and this among people who are working. No doubt everyone can find a way to spend two percent more in take home pay (if they even notice it is there), but it appears the media can’t resist playing up the idea that everyone short of the infamous 1% is poor. I’ll believe that when I start seeing nail salons, beauty salons, Chinese restaurants and Dunkin Donut shops going out of business.
While some people are spending their 2% on rent and groceries, others in the group attending a White House photo op promoting the tax cut said they were using it to give to charity or to go out to dinner. In any case, spending on necessities or donating the money hardly sounds like economic stimulus.
Whether it is a payroll tax holiday or some other refund or rebate, it all boils down to one thing the government giving you back your own money that has already spent on something else. Doesnt that beg the question why the money was collected in the first place? This is not about stimulating much of anything other than your undying gratitude for the politician of your choice.
Will extension of the two percent payroll tax cut help the economy? Most people say yes, but that it won’t affect their finances … Ummmmmm?
This from a recent Rasmussen poll:
Most voters agree that extending a 2% cut in the Social Security payroll tax for all of 2012 will be beneficial for the economy but won’t significantly impact their financial plans for the year. Congress signed off on a two-month extension of the tax cut last week but are hoping to extend it for all of 2012 when they reconvene after the holiday. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 60% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that if the payroll tax cut is extended for the full year of 2012, it will help the economy at least a little. That includes 22% who think it will help the economy a lot. Only 10% feel extending the tax cut will hurt the economy, with just four percent (4%) who think it will hurt a lot.
Interestingly, in another Rasmussen survey 60% of respondents said government is the problem, not the solution. I wonder if voters have any idea what they want, except as George Meany famously said, “more.”
While members of Congress are busy patting themselves on the back for managing to extend a tax cut for two months, we should not lose sight of how this was paid for. Check this out from Huffington Post.
Although House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has repeatedly insisted there are no large differences between what the two parties want, there are. When senators gave up on trying to reach a yearlong agreement before Christmas, it was because they could only agree on how to pay for about $100 billion of the $200 billion total cost.
And the only pay-for that both sides really embraced was raising $36 billion by levying fees on bank transactions with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a funding source that will take a decade to cover the cost of the two-month extension.
So, a two month tax cut will be paid for over a ten – year period by adding to the cost of a mortgage for the upcoming generation. It’s a good thing they didn’t extend the cut for the full year, that would have taken sixty years to pay off. But hey, they did a darn sight better than in 2011, that tax cut wasn’t paid for at all … bazinga!
Don't worry Barack, we are saving a place for you on the three dollar bill.
Let’s say you are sitting in your office and an employee comes to you and says he thinks he should stop producing widgets. Why, you ask. Well because there is a two-year supply in the warehouse and nobody is buying them. A two-year supply and you are still producing them, what the hell took so long for you to figure out you should stop production? Well, you didn’t say you wanted to save money until last week. Get out you moron, you’re fired!
Now, let’s look at the pat on the back released by government on December 13th. Do you want to bet nobody gets fired.
As part of the Obama Administration’s Campaign to Cut Waste, Vice President Biden today announced the U.S. Mint would suspend the production of presidential dollar coins for circulation. Today, nearly 1.4 billion surplus dollar coins are sitting in Federal Reserve vaults due to lack of demand for the coins. By halting this unnecessary production, the administration will save taxpayers at least $50 million per year in production and storage costs. The vice president made today’s announcement at a Cabinet meeting focused on the president’s commitment to cut waste and eliminate misspent dollars across the federal government.
Of course, the other alternative would be to promote the use of the coins or cut back on paper dollars to increase demand for the more durable coins. The coins cost fifteen cents to produce and last about forever. The dollar costs 4.2 cents to produce and last from 18-22 months. What is the best way to save money?
They use both one and two Euro coins and they are quite convenient.
Much has been written, discussed and debated about health care reform. Even more has been promised in terms of savings and making health care “affordable,” but what does it all mean?
Will there be savings and how will any savings generated benefit you? Read my assessment of the situation for a definitive answer to this important question.
ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, had its genesis in the failure of the Studebaker car manufacturer when the pensions of its workers we’re wiped away with the passing of the company. ERISA included the establishment of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) a government agency funded by premiums paid by pension plan sponsors, well partially funded, the PBGC is not in great shape itself in terms of assets versus liabilities.
If you would like to see the issues facing the PBGC and what Congress is considering doing take a look at this: Congress and the PBGC
While ERISA imposed new minimum funding standards on pension plans, employers don’t or can’t always comply. The result is that if a pension plan is terminated with insufficient assets to cover liabilities or an employer goes bankrupt, the PBGC steps in to make up the difference for retirees … up to a point that is.
For example, a 65-year-old retiree is guaranteed up to $4,653.41 in monthly payments from the PBGC in 2012 should the agency take over his or her plan. On the other hand, a 55-year-old retiree is guaranteed just $2,094.03 (both based on the age at which a person retired). Any amount above those limits is lost, you had it and now you don’t. Participants who have earned a benefit but are not yet eligible to retire have even more to lose.
The situation is worse for anyone who earned above the amount permitted under federal law for pension purposes. In 2011 the annual compensation limit is $245,000 (it’s adjusted periodically, for example: 1990=$209,200, 1995=$150,000, 2000=$170,000 and 2005=$210,000). That means any earnings above the annual compensation limit cannot be used to calculate a pension in a qualified plan, the benefit cannot be funded in a pension trust and is not guaranteed.
So, if you happen to be in the same pension plan as employees earning $100,000 and you are fortunate to earn $300,000 you better hope your employer stays in good financial shape because the pension you earned is at risk if the employer goes bust. Unlike a qualified pension trust, money put aside to pay pensions earned on income above IRS annual compensation limits is not protected from creditors. Remember, these are not extra pensions; they are based on the same formula used for all plan participants. It’s just that you earned too much and I guess you need to take your “fair share” of risk.
Here is the bottom line, regardless of your income; at least a portion of your pension could be at risk if your employer or union is not adequately funding your pension. This is something you want to pay close attention to. What percentage of the promised benefits is funded in the pension trust? Is the employer making required funding contributions today? This information must be made available to participants once each year through the Annual Plan Funding Notice.
The lack of adequate funding is going to wipe out a significant portion of the pensions earned by American Airlines (AMR) employees just as it did for United Airlines several years ago.
Here are the results of one study.
The funded ratio of the Milliman 100 pension plans increased slightly during 2010, reaching 83.9%. The aggregate pension deficit of $231.6 billion had decreased by $12.4 billion during the 2010 fiscal years, partially reducing an aggregate deficit of $244.1 billion at the end of 2009.
Many employer plans are far less funded as a result of employer actions and the decline in stock values. States are among the poorest funded plans, but then a state doesn’t go out of business.
Read this from The Atlantic:
The Incredible Shrinking Public Pension Funds
By Megan McArdle
Apr 9 2009, 4:38 PM ET 36
America’s public sector pensions have been a scandal for years. It wasn’t that long ago that they finally got around to doing their accounting the way that normal pensions do: by showing how likely their assets were to generate enough revenue to pay for future benefits. When they did, we found out what critics had long been claiming: many pension funds for state and local governments were disastrously underfunded. Politicians had gotten into the habit of promising generous pensions as a “cheap” giveaway to powerful unions…
This is not, it should be emphasized, exclusively a problem of public sector pensions; private firms are also underfunded. But the scale is vastly different. According to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which regulates and insures pensions, the total deficit in private plans covering about 34 million workers was a little over 10 billion as of September 2008. That’s almost certainly multiplied quite a bit since then. But the current underfunding in public plans, which cover about 22 million workers, seems to be something north of a trillion dollars. And they’re not insured.
Recent Comments