It seem s that 2007 is coming to a close much too quickly now for me to individually discuss all of the subjects that I wanted to talk about before the start of the New Year.

But the good news it the fact that I've got 52 more weeks in the upcoming new year to expound on those leftover subjects and more new ones to come.

And if you would like me to resurrect and further expound on any topic previously discussed during 2007, just drop me an email at:

webmaster@BoomerBikerOnline.com

and I'll see what more I can discover for you.

Ah!!!, but first - yet another Newsflash…..

I was enjoying my daily cup of coffee and reading this morning's newspaper when I came across a VERY DISTURBING STORY about a Wednesday, 12/26/2007 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission http://www.eeoc.gov/ ruling that now has a profound affect on the medical coverage and the wallets of all we Baby Boomers -- and this decision should be legally challenged immediately and overturned.

It seems that the EEOC,the very agency that is supposed to make sure that we --members of the American Workforce - whether we're retired or not - are protected from discrimination by our employers based on AGE, sex race and so on,

decided yesterday that its now OK for employers to reduce or eliminate health benefits for their retirees when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicaid.

I find this EEOC ruling particularly reprehensible although, unfortunately completely in line with the EEOC's continuous failure to uphold the very laws it was created to enforce.

I thought that I was finally through dealing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission once I retired. But lo and behold, that government entity, that horrible excuse for a workers employment advocacy agency, has actually found a way to reach out and touch all we boomers even in our retirement.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but personally, I found my workplace dealings with the EEOC both unfair and extremely disappointing. I have always been of the opinion that the agency was merely a puppet on a string and those strings were pulled by big business -- in cahoots with our politicians -- so, please witness the proof of my suspicions - its now available for all to see. (Excerpts from the New York Times December 27, 2007)

But AARP and other advocates for older Americans attacked the rule. "This rule gives employers free rein to use age as a basis for reducing or eliminating health care benefits for retirees 65 and older," said Christopher G. Mackaronis, a lawyer for AARP, which represents millions of people age 50 or above and which had sued in an effort to block issuance of the final regulation. "Ten million people could be affected -- adversely affected -- by the rule."

The new policy creates an explicit exemption from age-discrimination laws for employers that scale back benefits of retirees 65 and over. Mr. Mackaronis asserted that the exemption was "in direct conflict" with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

The commission, by contrast, said that under that law, it could establish "such reasonable exemptions" as it might find "necessary and proper in the public interest." The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, upheld this claim in June, in the case filed by AARP, which has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.

In its ruling, the appeals court said, "We recognize with some dismay that the proposed exemption may allow employers to reduce health benefits to retirees over the age of 65 while maintaining greater benefits for younger retirees." But the court said the commission had shown that the exemption was "a reasonable, necessary and proper exercise" of its authority.

Under the new rule, employers may, if they choose, provide retiree health benefits "only to those retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare." Likewise, the rule says, retiree health benefits can be "altered, reduced or eliminated" when a retiree becomes eligible for Medicare.

Further, employers will be able to reduce or eliminate health benefits provided to the spouse or dependents of a retired worker 65 or over, regardless of whether benefits for the retiree are changed.

Employers and some unions contend that retirees under 65 have a greater need for employer-sponsored health benefits because they are generally not Medicare-eligible. Large employers have often provided some health benefits to retirees 65 and older, to help cover costs not paid by Medicare. But employers have for years been trying to reduce retiree benefits or to shift more of the cost to retirees.

Lawyers for the commission said the new Medicare drug benefit, now nearing the end of its second year, had strengthened the case for the regulation because it guaranteed that retirees 65 and older would have access to drug coverage. Younger retirees have no such guarantee, so employers may want to provide drug coverage to them in particular, the lawyers said.

Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large employers, welcomed the rule. "If employers could not coordinate with Medicare, they would be far less likely to provide health coverage" to retirees, Ms. Darling said. "They could not afford to."

A study by the Government Accountability Office in 2001 estimated that one-third of large employers and fewer than one-tenth of small employers offered health benefits to retirees. Ms. Darling said newer retirees often received not comprehensive coverage but instead a fixed amount of money, based on years of service, to help them with their medical costs.

James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, a lobby for large employers, said: "The new rule is a victory for common sense and for retirees. Retiree health coverage has been declining for many years. Without this rule, many more retirees, especially early retirees, could find themselves without employer-sponsored coverage."

Gerald M. Shea, assistant to the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., also saw merit in the new rule. "Given the enormous cost pressures on employer-sponsored health benefits," Mr. Shea said, "we support the flexibility reflected in the rule as a way to maximize our ability to maintain comprehensive coverage for active and retired workers."

Schoolteachers, like many other public employees, often retire early and rely on employer-provided health benefits until they become eligible for Medicare. At a Congressional hearing in 2005, the National Education Association and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, who is now the House Republican leader, supported the proposed rule. The teachers union said it feared that employers would cut health benefits for early retirees if they had to provide identical benefits to those over 65 and those under.

What really needs to change:

is the fundamental way we deal with healthcare in the United States. The good health of America's citizens should be our highest priority, because like the saying goes, "Without your health, you've got nothing."

And a good place to start is to take the billions of dollars that we Americans squander on senseless wars and invest it in our nations, and the worlds, future by financing medical research to find the cure for diseases.

We could start immediately by lifting the restrictions on federal government agencies that prevent them from opening drug procurement to competitive bidding. Doing just that would have an immediate and profound effect on lowering the cost of prescription drugs.

Here's just one current example of what I'm talking about.

A cure for Cancer?

Within the first couple of months of 2008, researchers at three medical centers expect to start the first tests in patients of one of the most promising - and contentious -- ideas about the cause and treatment of cancer.

The idea is to take aim at what some scientists say are cancerous stem cells, aberrant cells that maintain and propagate malignant tumors.

Although many scientists assume that cancer cells are immortal -- that they divide and grow indefinitely, there is now a growing hypostasis among researchers that cancer cells do die over time and those dead cells are then replaced in kind by cancerous stem cells, a small and particularly dangerous kind of cell that can renew by dividing even as it spews out more cells that form the bulk of the tumor. Worse, stem cells may be impervious to most standard cancer therapies.

Not everyone in the scientific community accepts this new hypothesis and skeptics even say that continued research along those lines is a huge waste of time and money.

What's at stake in this debate is the direction of cancer research. If proponents of the stem cell theory are correct, it will usher in an era of hope for curing once-incurable cancers.

If the critics are right, they say it would waste and resources and become yet another cautionary tale in the history of cancer research.

In the meantime, proponents of the cancerous stem cell theory are hard at work developing new drugs to target stem cells in almost every cancer.

I am of the opinion that America should approach the cure for cancer with the same urgency and importance that our forefathers placed in the Trinity Project during WWII. You'll remember that our military and political leaders determined that the only way to defeat the Germans and Japanese war machines and bring an end to the war was to develop the Hydrogen bomb.

To accomplish this, our country made the Trinity Project our top priority and achieved that goal in short order through national unity, strong leadership, and by investing a lot of money (over a Trillion dollars)

I believe the same approach that our forefathers used to resolve our common problems and bring a swift end to WWII will also work just as well for us today, to help us cope with issues like healthcare, the economy, global warming and even national security. But we must have strong leadership. We must set attainable goals. And we must be united in our resolve.

You can't take it with you, so…..

Most of we boomers grew up hearing tidbits of financial advice throughout our lives like: "You can't take it with you, so make sure you enjoy what you've got while you can.

And we've all seen those stickers on the back bumper of an expensive new vehicle that proudly proclaim: "I'm spending my children's Inheritance!"

Well, it seems that the majority of us boomers have bought into this philosophy. So many, in fact, that financial advisors are beginning to notice a growing trend leading to the greatest transfer of wealth in our countries' history.

Research indicates that the goal of the majority of boomers is to enjoy an exciting active retirement. Furthermore, it's becoming abundantly clear that boomers will not hesitate to work longer and spend their children's inheritance to accomplish their goal.

Please try to always keep this in mind, Freedom is not free.

Freedom takes a lot of work, diligence and sacrifice.

Preserving Freedom is every American's responsibility.

And we all know that Freedom is definitely worth the effort.

So, here's my final Tip of the Week" for 2007 to you, my valued BoomerBikerOnline audience. Furthermore, it really doesn't matter whether you are a boomer or not, my tip is directed to all Americans.

Pay attention, accept nothing less than the truth, have an opinion, stay involved, organize, and make sure your voice is heard.

Here's hoping we all enjoy a safe, healthy and prosperous New Year!

Respectfully,
Bruce Hosking and the rest of the "Gang" @ BoomerBikerOnline.com
2174 Nursery Road, Suite 110
Clearwater, Fl. 33764
USA
727-729-4270

To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit: http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?ThisIsATestEmail