In the case of M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments about whether it is lawful for an employer to terminate promised health care benefits to retirees after the fact. At face value, if the employer has agreed to provide certain benefits to their retirees, they should be compelled to do so. However, as the saying goes, the “devil is in the details”.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia expressed his displeasure over the matter because he stated that despite the high degree of importance the health care benefits mean to retirees, their union failed to explicitly stipulate it would be paid for by their former employer. The lack of clear language to that effect is what has brought the case before the High Court.
As a result, Scalia rather callously noted that he will not feel bad for whichever party loses. The Left has taken this to mean that when speaking of health care benefits for retirees in general, he is okay with people losing their benefits. It is a curious line of attack from the same political party that supported the deception-laden Affordable Care Act.
The law’s language regarding the 40% Cadillac tax on high-end health insurance policies is written so that within 10-14 years, virtually every employer sponsored health care plan will be terminated. Yet, the left is okay with that aspect of the law and highly critical of Scalia. It isn’t clear at this point how the justices will rule, but the case may have far reaching implications as other companies look for ways to get out of the benefits promised to their retirees.