The AARP managed to get a federal judge to block EEOC rules that allowed employers to reduce health care benefits to retirees when they turned 65 and could qualify for Medicare.

The AARP claimed that the rule was discriminatory because it provided more substantial benefits for those under 65.

“The EEOC argued that without the exemption, employers will reduce or eliminate health benefits for all retirees, no matter what their age, because retiree health benefits are becoming so expensive that employers cannot afford to give the same level of health benefits to all.”

The law does not require that firms provide retired workers health care. In most cases it is voluntarily provided and not contractually obligated under employment contracts. Firms must now face the difficult choice of providing expensive but perhaps unneeded benefits to those 65 and over, or terminate benefits to those under 65 who do need the protection.

Why would AARP operate against the interest of their members? What’s missing in this story? Comments welcome.