Birthday Present for me -- NYC Municipal Retirees Claim Victory over MulgrewCare While Mulgew will declare victory for UFT -- Devil may be in details - Press Conf at 2PM - Don't count those chickens yst

Well this Unity Caucus attack on UFC over MulgrewCare didn't age well. 

What a way to celebrate my 77th birthday and 12th year on Medicare. I still am not 100% sure I won't start paying an extra $400 a month (for me and my wife) starting April 1 to keep my seniorcare. Lots of legalese to wade through.

I'm going to spend the money anyway on Beef Wellington tonight at One if By Land, Two if By Sea.

This is not a slam dunk win for us. The judge offers the city the choice to offer no options and toss everyone into a medicare advantage plan. So if they can't get $200 out of us now they can only save money but eliminating the opt out option. Adams may still do it and Mulgrew won't say boo.  

So we may just yet be forced into a MEDAV without the choice other than to leave the senior care altogether and buy an AARP type plan for $200.

A real issue for me is the UFT/Mulgrew backing of privatized healthcare profit making slimebags in the healthcare industry while undermining public option of Medicare. But I'm not shocked at Unity backing naked unfettered capitalism.

• That the unions are siding with profit making privatized healthcare over the public options.
• They say they are saving money but are opposed to universal care which will be the money saver.
• They are contributing to the long-time decline of medicare which has to pay a higher premium to MedAdv to cover higher admin costs.
• Upcoding is harmful to our health and that is how they squeeze more money out of Medicare.
  

Expect Mulgew and Unity hacks to declare this a victory for them after attacking the people filing the suit for months. "We intended this all the time."

While happy at the possibilities of victory, it may not be a total one as city and union may still have options. I'm also looking at spin from our side too.  

Manhattan judge strikes down NYC's plan to force retired city workers to pay to keep insurance they were promised for life - CBS News

Court doc: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=dRipd9Zx30t7/KdICQrtbQ==

From the decision: ...states unequivocally that “[t]he City will pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage for city employees, city retirees and their dependents, not to exceed one hundred percent of the full cost of H.I.P.-H.M.O. on a category basis. 2 ” Respondent and nominal respondent aver that the definition of “health insurance coverage”, as defined in Admin. Code§ 12-126 (a), stating “a program” as opposed to “any program” means that the City of New York need only pay for the entire cost of one program. This Court respectfully disagrees. NYC Admin. Code § 12-126 (b)(1) is simply unequivocal and does not use terms like “provide” or “offer”; rather it uses the term will pay and it provides parameters of such payment. The definition in NYC Admin. Code § 12-126 (a)(iv) simply provides what constitutes a program or plan that the City of New York is required by law to pay for, by defining the contents of such a plan. This Court holds that this is the only reasonable way of interpreting this section. Of course, none of this is to say that the respondent must give retirees an option of plans, nor that if the plan goes above the threshold discussed in NYC Admin. Code § 12-126 (b)(1) that the respondent could not pass along the cost above the threshold to the retiree; only that if there is to be an option of more than one plan, that the respondent may not pass any cost of the prior plan to the retirees, as it is the Court’s understanding that the threshold is not crossed by the cost of the retirees’ current health insurance plan. This is buoyed by the fact that the current plan has been paid for by the respondent in full to this point.

A wise sage says:

As I read this, the city if it gives a choice, must pay for it fully unless it costs more than HIP. If they take the choice away and truly throw all retirees into MAP, that would be a bad political move for unions.

Here is Daily News -- called us David -- funny but talks about city but not getting screwed by union. After all, if unions didn't agree there would be no deal.

Judge rules Adams admin cannot financially penalize NYC retirees who reject controversial Medicare plan

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-judge-rules-nyc-mayor-adams-cant-penalize-city-workers-medicare-plan-20220303-hyvzsazfqnd7fkijenskrurf5a-story.html?fbclid=IwAR2oFqAjhzskYkRgKOv2KG2rMdp3po61_Vgh_bWfINLBhSzF9-wAAe70Qxk

A Manhattan judge ruled Thursday that Mayor Adams’ administration cannot slap a financial penalty on retired municipal workers who opt out of the city’s controversial new Medicare plan, marking a significant win for a group of retirees who fought the health insurance switch in court for months.

The effort by the administration to levy a $191 monthly fee on retirees who want to keep their current coverage instead of enrolling in the new Medicare Advantage Plan runs counter to longstanding local administrative law, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank wrote in a decision.

The law in question, Frank continued, requires the city to “pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage for city employees, city retirees and their dependents.” Any attempt to impose a premium or other cost for coverage is thereby illegal, he added.

“This Court holds that this is the only reasonable way of interpreting this section,” the judge wrote.

Frank’s decision caps a court battle between the city and a group of retired city workers that began last year under former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration.

In announcing the plan last fall, de Blasio’s administration presented Medicare Advantage as a boon to the city and save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year because it is subsidized by the federal government at a higher rate. At the same time, the administration maintained the new plan would provide the city’s roughly 250,000 Medicare-aged retirees with health coverage that’s comparable to what they’re currently receiving.

But the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees sued over the move, charging that the new plan would result in inferior coverage, including by imposing complex new preauthorization procedures for specific medical procedures.

After vowing on the campaign trail to make sure the new Medicare plan wouldn’t be a “bait and switch” for retired workers, Adams announced last month that he would move ahead with implementing it as envisioned by de Blasio, angering retirees who said he was going back on his promise by keeping the $191 penalty intact.

Retired New York City municipal workers are pictured marching near Brooklyn Borough Hall to call on Mayor-elect Adams to preserve their Medicare coverage last December. (Luiz C. Ribeiro/for New York Daily News)

A spokesman for Adams did not immediately return a request for comment after Frank’s ruling.

Steve Cohen, a lawyer for the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, said the judge’s order validates the concerns of his clients and amounts to an “incredible victory” for them.

“The city got greedy, and held a sword over the head of retirees and said, ‘If you don’t accept your new plan, we’re not going to pay for your health care,’” Cohen said. “The judge saw right through that and said, ‘No way, you can’t do that.’”

According to data reviewed by the Daily News, more than 45,000 retired city workers had opted out of Medicare Advantage Plan as of mid-February despite the now-rescinded financial penalty they would face.

The Adams administration can still offer the Advantage plan to retirees on a voluntary basis, starting April 1, under Frank’s ruling. It was not immediately clear Thursday afternoon how the administration will proceed.

Here is the presser announcement going on now.

NYC Municipal Retirees to Celebrate Court Victory on Healthcare Coverage

Scores of retirees will gather near City Hall at 2:00 p.m. today (3-3-22) to celebrate a court ruling that will let them keep their health benefits without paying punishing premiums.

In a David-over-Goliath victory, a Manhattan judge ruled this morning against the city's plan to move a quarter-million retirees off their current coverage, traditional Medicare and a supplement, into a controversial new Medicare Advantage plan. 

A retiree group had sued the city, saying the proposed plan would limit their access to doctors and services. Today Justice Lyle E. Frank of state supreme court in Manhattan prohibited the city from imposing stiff new premiums, $191 per covered person, on retirees wishing to opt out of the premium-free new plan. Roughly 47,000 retirees and dependents have already opted out despite the proposed penalty, which will no longer be imposed. 

The city can still implement its new Medicare Advantage plan on April 1, with many retirees expected to be enrolled in it -- not necessarily with their active consent -- but the ruling gives them three months to switch out of it.

Lawyers for the retiree groups will address the rally this afternoon to give more details.

WHEN: Today, Thursday March 3, 2022, 2:00 p.m.

WHERE: Broadway and Murray St., near City Hall

Contact: Sarah Shapiro, sarahmorah@gmail.com