Under existing legislation, employers can terminate group benefit plans for employees aged 65 and older and those workers are shifted onto the province's health-care plan.

With the legislative change, however, employers will no longer be allowed to terminate benefits for any employee "solely on the basis of age" and will have to cover health-care and benefit costs for those over 65 themselves.

"So it means that Alberta employers and their employees are going to be looking at the possibility of premium costs going up over time, as those plans are responsible for paying for more health care," she said in an interview.

"Employers have to find that money somewhere or they start, you know, trimming back a little bit the generosity of their insurance coverage."

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Alberta doing something right? Is this the upside down?

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

I think you misunderstand, although to be fair I don't know for sure how the benefits packages compare, although I'd guess the public one is more extensive.

As is, 65+ go onto the provincial healthcare plan and because of that employers can drop their benefits.

Now the AB government says employers can't drop benefits for 65+. 3 impacts are expected. 1) Companies will hire fewer people 65+, 2) employer-associated benefits packages will cost more for everyone but the insurance companies as policies include 'more expensive' claimants, and 3) this is no doubt a piece of reducing the public healthcare system in AB and pushing us towards the US model with only private healthcare insurance

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Can you explain to me like I'm five how pension systems work?

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

This article's about health insurance. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about pensions to provide an ELI5; in fact, I could use one myself ;P

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Not OP but the pension system was built when 3% of people or less made it past 65, and everyone was having 5 kids that all moved out, got married, and were supposed to have 5 kids as well. We don't have enough young kids to pay into the system to support the tsunami of old people forced to retire soon, and our young kids make fuck all for 20 years because the job market and TFW programs ate up all the entry level jobs they could have gotten valuable work experience with and cut their teeth on.

That also doesn't even begin to touch all the other ways the older generation have stolen the future of young people, but it's the one that affects old people the most when the system implodes.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That would mean taxpayers have to foot the bill instead of the corporations that employ these people.

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Sorry, are you against public healthcare?

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

Under current legislation, does an employed worker get more coverage from the public insurance plan than an unemployed person? The worker above 65 is dropped from group benefits but do they get those benefits, benefits not included in the public plan, by being paid by the public plan?