8 ms·
The point is that on the day that the USPS hires a 20-year-old employee they immediately need to set aside money for this worker's healthcare at age 90, which i
by jellicle 6y ago
The point is that on the day that the USPS hires a 20-year-old employee they immediately need to set aside money for this worker's healthcare at age 90, which is an astronomical sum (as projections of future healthcare costs are inevitably astronomical).
And no, no private entity in the US is required to prefund retiree health benefits.
- Borealid 6y agoLet's say USPS has promised to pay for a 20-year-old employee's health care for the next 70 years. Let's say the total price of that health care is going to be $10M over the 70-year course. What should they do that neither involves setting sufficient money aside today nor a significant chance of failing to fulfill their obligation? Keep in mind that USPS' core business can't turn much of a profit due to Congressionally-defined price caps, so it is a very poor place to "invest" money.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoWhich goes to show how ridiculous it is to offer retiree healthcare benefits. If the cost is so high as to be described as astronomical, then why is the government offering it?