81°F
sponsored by:
FIND IT WITH OUR NEW DIRECTORY!
Click to activate search window!


Front Page    Subscribe to our feeds    Add to My Yahoo!
Advertisement

Advertising Info

Article Options

Comments (2 comment(s))  |  Email this story
Print this story  |  Discuss  |  Big Text  |  Normal Text
Current Rating:
0
   Number of Votes:
0
Rate:  |  |  | 
Save and Share  add to yahoo add delicious add to digg add to facebook add to reddit add to newsvine  
   How do I share?
Williamson's retirement health insurance plan a success
BY JOHN D. HOMAN, THE SOUTHERN
Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:22 PM CST
MARION - Today marks the one-year anniversary of Williamson County's retirement health insurance plan. And by all accounts, it's been a success.

Board Chair Brent Gentry, who introduced the plan that was readily adopted by fellow board members Tracey Glenn and Bob Barnett late last fall, said he couldn't be happier that the county is able to provide assistance for those who deserve it the most - retirees.

"The plan is funded from the wage disparity that occurs in the first year that the departing employee retires," Gentry said. "By using these funding mechanisms, the plan appears fully funded. With this being the first full year of the plan, it is continuing to evolve.

"The county will continue to watch the funding status and employee participation to determine if there are any necessary adjustments to the plan as time goes by."

Eligibility requirements include age limits, 10 years of continuous or non-continuous service and an irrevocable statement of retirement and election for the insurance.

Employees with 10 to 20 years of service pay 75 percent of the monthly premium, plus any amount above the maximum monthly county contribution, while the county will pay the balance.

Likewise, employees with 20 to 25 years pay 50 percent and those with 25 or more years of service will pay 25 percent of the monthly premium.

Late last year, Louise Valco with the assessor's office became the first county employee to take advantage of the new retirement plan.

Valco, now 77, said previously that the supplemental coverage to Medicare has paid great dividends to her.

Joining Valco as retirees this year are: Rima English (assessor's office); Glenda King (county clerk's office); William Newbold (highway department); and Barb Pulley (county clerk's office).

English, who resides in Herrin, retired from the assessor's office in July. She had also spent 20 years with general assistance.

"Without the new health insurance plan, I wouldn't have been able to retire at age 55," English said. "Having this insurance is a godsend. I just can't say enough good things about it."

Gentry stressed that county employees of retirement age are not required to participate in the retirement health insurance program.

"I have been contacted by several counties and municipalities for copies of this plan for possible use," Gentry said. "And one of the best parts of the plan is that we can provide it at absolutely no added taxpayer cost."

john.homan@thesouthern.com / 351-5805


Add Your Own Comments

No account? Register here!

Terms & Conditions

If you already have, sign in below:
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 

 

Smallvoice wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:08 PM:

" Thank goodness we can tax base fund such a wonderful life as this at the very old age of 55 - LOL ........
"Without the new health insurance plan, I wouldn't have been able to retire at age 55," English said. "Having this insurance is a godsend. I just can't say enough good things about it." "

madblogger wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:42 AM:

" no added taxpayer cost? I would like a little more explanation on the "wage disparity" after the first year. Does this mean, that say somebody worked in a position for 30 years and was making $80,000 who retired, would be replaced by a new person, say, making $50,000 a year? The $30,000 differential is then put into this fund? (Yes I'm using exaggerated numbers for clarity)

If this is the case, then, yes, it is at an added cost to the taxpayer, in the form of whatever raises are implemented through the years. Instead of cutting funding to what the requirements are, they keep it at its highest rate. Regardless, it is the tax-payer who pays for this. Retirement at 55? That's nice. Well, I mean, it's really nice, since it was on the tax-payer's back that this was possible.

Gentry sounds a lot like Butler, doesn't he? It won't cost the tax-payers one thin dime! (Hey, it won't save them one thin dime either, which is what they really need) "