Local News

Retirees file lawsuit against State Treasurer's Office

Posted January 26, 2011
Updated January 28, 2011

— A class action suit was filed Wednesday against the state Treasurer's Office on behalf of 90,000 state and local government retirees with supplemental insurance.

The lawsuit claims the retirees stand to lose more than $18 million in roll-over benefits if the state continues with plans to switch insurance providers.

The Treasurer's Office claims the state could save $13 million by making the switch.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • radiovoiceusa Jan 28, 2011

    Probably most of you don['t know that the health insurance for state employees is state owned insurance. The state is the insurance company. Blue Cross only administers the plan for a fee to the state. So, the real problem is you have people running a insurance company who have no idea how to do it.

  • fzero Jan 27, 2011

    You're correct I've never worked in state gov't, but I've worked as an external auditor for a number of them in recent years. So sorry to burst your bubble, but I have pretty detailed knowledge about pay scales and benefits.

  • EverythingTicksMeOff Jan 27, 2011

    fzero, if you think it is as bad in the private sector as in state government, then you clearly have never worked in state government and haven't a clue about their compensation and benefits.

  • whatelseisnew Jan 27, 2011

    If the State has a stipulation for their benefit package that they can change benefits at any time, then this lawsuit is nothing more than a waste of taxpayer money. If the State does not have such a stipulation, then one can only assume that once again incompetent people did their jobs incorrectly.

  • demo7691 Jan 27, 2011

    There is another time the Govt wants to control your INS. All I got to say is that thats 90,000 votes

  • wildcat Jan 27, 2011

    What a mess!

  • dogluvr26 Jan 27, 2011

    As GoHeelsGo and gradmadof8 have pointed out, this has NOTHING to do with any tax payer money. This is SUPPLEMENTAL insurance, which is paid for completely by retirees and not subsidized by the State--in fact, a penny in administration costs can't even be charged to the State for this. It would basically be like a private employer offering additional insurance options to its retirees, but at no cost to that former employer. The State is allowing options to be made available to the retirees, but the State (and tax payers) certainly don't pay for them.

  • fzero Jan 27, 2011

    While I agree that more facts need to be given before I'll pass judgment,the following statement irks me (and not just for the horrible spelling):

    "You need to have worked for state government yourself an then you would truely inderstand these state employees that haven' t had a raise in years they benfits plans for their health care / hospitilaztion insurnace deductables have been increased the preimuns have gone up drasticly an what the insurance companys do pay out to the hospitials has drasticly gone down an leaving state employees still holding the bag"

    WELCOME TO THE REST OF AMERICA. We have the same problem in the private sector. Don't act like it's your burden alone. The fact is if people would be more cost conscious about their medical care, medical costs would not be rising at the rate they are. Do I like paying a higher deductible? Absolutely not. But does it cause me to ask what things will cost up front and then call around to a few more doctors/hospitals to find the bes

  • rgrigston Jan 27, 2011

    State employees ARE part of the taxpaying public. They are your neighbors. Ordinary people, just trying to make a living. Unfortunately, they are often used as pawns for political purposes. That's what's shameful.

  • pennychildress Jan 27, 2011

    I don't understand why you work all your life for the state and then they want to take evertything you have earned away after you retire. Politics right on.