'Times' Being Naïve 

To the Editor:

(The following letter was written to, but not published by, the New York Times in response to a Jan. 5 editorial.)

The New York Times is engaged in Orwellian "Truth Speak" in the editorial "Health Benefits and Retirees" by suggesting that reducing benefits will benefit those who are reduced.

The Times notes that a new Federal regulation allows employers to reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they turn 65 and become Medicare-eligible, and that this "is a welcome step that could help slow the deterioration of employment-based health insurance." Does the Times believe that employers will voluntarily start increasing health benefits to those workers under age 65? Who's kidding whom? In fact, the Times' position only provides added ammunition to those who are pushing for cutbacks in employer-provided health-care coverage.

The Times concludes that "if employers struggling with the rising cost of healthcare have to provide equal benefits, they will be more likely to eliminate all their retiree coverage or reduce benefits to the younger retires.

The Times states that "the new regulation is supported by some labor unions which want precious health-care dollars to go to active workers and younger retirees." However, The Times never identifies such unions. In fact, my union, AFSCME, representing 1,400,000 active and 230,000 retired members, is opposed to any givebacks or retreats with respect to retiree health coverage. My union understands that the benefit a retiree receives today is available to those actives who retire tomorrow. Any reductions in retiree benefits today means less for the actives when they retire tomorrow.

The Times acknowledges that "the regulation is clearly unfair to people who were willing to accept lower wages while working in return for lifetime health benefits that may now evaporate."

It is naïve for the Times to conclude that this change in the regulation will make employers focus on younger retirees by having Medicare cover for those 65 and older.

For years, employers have focused on reducing or eliminating health benefits to younger retirees. Employers now have the imprimatur of the New York Times to continue what they have been doing anyway. There is a real solution to the health-care crisis in this country for all citizens - and that is universal health care for all. Perhaps the elections of 2008 will resolve this issue.

STUART LEIBOWITZ, President, District Council 37 Retirees Association