A recent ruling handed down by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has given employers discretion in using Medicare eligibility as a factor when calculating health care benefits for retired employees, as reported by Marketplace. The AARP had raised a stink about the issue claiming that having employers shift health care costs to Medicare when applicable amounted to age discrimination. My question is, if the level of care and benefits remains the same, who really cares from what direction the bills are paid? If employers carry the burden then we all see it in our bottom line. If the government pays for it, then we all see it in our tax load. The end effect to us as a society is basically the same.

This decision reaffirms in part exactly what Medicare was intended to do. The system has two major intents. First and foremost, Medicare is meant to fill the gap in cases where health care coverage is lacking. Secondly, Medicare is intended to help free the business world from the administration of benefits for people who no longer participate as an active part of their work force.

If the level of actual benefits is in no way reduced and the process of accessing those benefits is in no way hampered, then there's no room to gripe about employers shifting the burden. In fact, this kind of move is exactly what American business needs right now. However, if this decision in any way dilutes the benefits that hard working people have bargained their working careers for, then the AARP has an extremely valid argument and they desire to have that argument tested by the Supreme Court.

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox thinks that the internet should be a great place for investors to have access to broader information about the companies they're considering investing in than ever before.

According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "Mr. Cox also is expected to put up for final vote Wednesday a proposed rule that would enable companies to create online shareholder forums where investors and management could exchange thoughts, establishing a kind of chat room to improve communication. Opposing that model is the AARP, the lobby group for adults 50 and older, which said its studies show that doing so would result in fewer of its members participating in shareholder elections."

Huh? Why would being allowed to interact with management online make people less likely to vote in corporate elections? Isn't that kind of like saying the YouTube presidential debates would reduce voter turnout?

An online forum for shareholders and managers is a fabulous idea. One of the biggest corporate governance concerns in America is that executives are isolated from the owners of their companies. With notable exceptions, it's hard for investors to get the ear of a corporate executive to ask questions or provide ideas for boosting shareholder value.

Online forums would be a way to facilitate that, and it's something that should be cheered.

The AARP announced on Monday that it has signed seven-year contracts with Aetna Inc. (NYSE: AET) and UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE: UNH) that will double the organization's branded HMO offerings. This looks like a big victory for consumers, as the AARP will be able to use its leverage to push for better quality of care standards.

According to the USA Today, Aetna and UnitedHealth will risk losing incentive payments if they don't provide the maximum recommended care for diabetic patients, for example.

The AARP will be using the proceeds to fund its lobbying efforts for health care reform, and will be launching a 500 million dollar campaign to educate people about the health care system. The AARP has tremendous clout, and studies show that it is the most powerful organization in the United States.