Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Boeing keeps setting new highs! When will it split? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kerry S. Nelson who wrote (2423)	8/28/1999 1:24:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3764

Kerry- Mostly OT- You are certainly correct, health care for retirees and older people is a looming problem not only for our corporations, but also for our society and possibly a challenge for our civilization. And the issue does raise raise some philosophical questions- what some call "intellectual crap"- that are largely beyond the purview of this thread. I suspect you and I look at this issue from very different perspective. No adult, in my opinion, is owed medical care- or any other service- by anyone else, in the absence of mutually agreed upon contractual arrangements indicating otherwise. If you cannot afford the care, and nobody is willing to give it to you, then you must do without it. (And government forcing people at gunpoint to pay for someone's needs is not my idea of giving). I'd like to pin you down a bit. You said, <<I happen to think it [company paid medical care for retirees] is a good idea, especially for those that spent 20-30 years of their life with the same employer. Loyalty works both ways.>> Well why is it a good idea? It certainly is desirable for those receiving it. If a corporation finds it in its best interest to offer it- say because it fosters a desired loyalty- then they will of their own accord offer it as part of their compensation package. But remember, health care costs are a bit of a wild card: nobody can accurately predict what they may be over the coming decades, particularly if the emphasis is on prolonging life in any form for as long as possible. Even a generation ago, medical costs for the elderly were much more contained, but today, aggressive geriatric care can often prolong life at considerable cost, and that trend will probably continue. The "third rail" here is "who pays?". With this in mind, even a wealthy corporation might be very chary about making commitments to provide for the medical care of its retirees. They would be writing a blank check- always a dubious proposition. I suspect these are some of the considerations going through Boeing's management's mind as it seeks a way out of this degree of support for its retirees. Finally, I might even wonder about the supposed loyalty to a company on the part of a group of employees who go out on strike three times in five(?) years (I realize, the third strike has not materialized, but it's a distinct possibility). <<I think employers owe this to their employees for the money saved by the company for employees who stay with the same company for so long.>> Face it, employers and employees for the most part remain together because it is in their mutual interests to do so. On what basis, may I ask, do you think employers "owe" people this kind of benefit. Is my employer not offering me something he "owes" me? (why I'll sue the s.o.b.!) I don't think so, but it therefore becomes incumbent on me to look after my own future. A good insurance company might be, well, good insurance. I might add, in no way do I think ill of the IAM or anybody else for seeking this benefit from their employer. While it's certainly not unreasonable for the IAM to try to get lifelong medical benefits for its members, it may not be realistic in today's world. Neither, do I think, can BA be legitimately accused of "screwing" people if they decide they want to get out of that business. Regards, Larry