UPS dropping 15,000 spouses from health insurance.

[dkf]

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

The decision comes as many analysts are downplaying the Affordable Care Act's effect on companies such as UPS, noting that the move reflects a long-term trend of shrinking corporate medical benefits, Kaiser Health News reports. But UPS repeatedly cites Obamacare to explain the decision, adding fuel to the debate over whether it erodes traditional employer coverage, Kaiser says.


The health law requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children, but not spouses or domestic partners, Kaiser adds.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/08/ups-to-drop-15000-spouses-from.html

[The Link]

1. What if the insurance is worse than UPS's?

[dkf]

2. Too bad. The spouse needs insurance or they pay the mandate penalty.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

43. "Penalty". The Obama Administration argued before the Supreme Court that it was a tax

rather than a penalty, notwithstanding the designation in the statute.

A majority of the Supeme Court agreed with the U.S. Solicitor General that the statute provides for a tax and upheld it on that basis:
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012),
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/11-393.pdf

"Opponents said the individual mandate was an overreach by the federal government and that Congress had exceeded its powers. The court was deeply divided on this issue, but the majority ruled that Congress's taxing authority allowed the mandate.

"The law's "requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts wrote.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-usa-healthcare-court-idUSBRE85R06420120628

[pnwmom]

51. If the spouse's policy doesn't meet ACA coverage standards, the spouse will have the option

of choosing another policy on the state exchange.

[Kingofalldems]

69. Well that's what the republicans called it---

Why do you insist on still calling it a penalty?

[Xithras]

17. Happened to me.

The insurance through my wifes employer is expensive and the coverage stinks. My insurance is pretty good. Because she has coverage options through her employer, she isn't eligible for mine. As a result, my kids and I get great coverage, and she rarely sees a doctor because of the steep copays and coinsurance limits. If she ever has any serious problems, we'll be better off if she just quits her job entirely, because that's the only way my employer will cover her.

[anneboleyn]

47. I know of a few cases also -- the spouse is kicked off if they have "coverage"

of whatever sort the spouse has available through his/her employer. No more choice. It is appalling frankly.

[kelliekat44]

3. Some more misinformation about the ACA to try to dismantle it.

More corporate nonsense just to keep from providing coverage for spouses.

[Jesus Malverde]

6. In this case the corporation needs the ACA...

How is this misinformation to dismantle the ACA? Something the UPS corporation needs?

or are you saying Kaiser wants to disable the ACA?

I agree they are using this as an excuse to drop all those costly spouse and child plans.

[rdharma]

25. Look at the ALEC's list of Private Enterprise Council Members

And tell me that the UPS "needs" the ACA! They are buddies of the Koch Bros and have the same agenda.

Private Enterprise Council Members

Mr. Jeff Bond
PhRMA

Ms. Sano Blocker
Energy Future Holdings

Mr. Robert Jones
Pfizer Inc.

Mr. Kenneth Lane
Diageo North America, Inc.

Mr. Billy Leahy
AT&T

Mr. Kelly Mader
Peabody Energy

Mr. Michael Morgan
Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC

Mr. Daniel Smith
Altria Client Services

Ms. Cynthia Bergman
Exxon Mobil Corporation

Mr. Roland Spies
State Farm Insurance Companies

Mr. Pat Thomas
United Parcel Service

Mr. Bob Williams
State Budget Solutions

[Safetykitten]

33. And this type of information and stacked deck is a suprise now.

[rdharma]

44. I'm surprised they have the cohones to blame their dropping coverage on the ACA

But I probably shouldn't be. Because disgusting Republican corporatists have no shame!

[Jesus Malverde]

40. Interesting

I haven't been reading too deep about ALEC.

I'll do my research.

thanks!

[rdharma]

48. ALEC's member list is a "Who's Who" of Republican scumbaggery

Keep your blood pressure meds and a barf bag handy while researching.

[Safetykitten]

58. Yes, this group came into existence about four hours ago. No ACA imput at all.

[Safetykitten]

18. LIES! Lies I tell you! It's all a lie and propaganda.

*running in circles screaming* It is not true! This is not what the ACA was supposed to do, so therefore it's a lie! And it's someone else's fault! It's the...company! They are doing it. How DARE they take advantage of ACA! They were not supposed to do this! And besides...it's a LIE!

[NOVA_Dem]

21. Corporations love the idea of single payer. The object is to get healthcare off their books.

Companies are going to start dumping people onto the exchanges so fast it will make everyone's head spin. This is "profit" that companies in countries with single payer are enjoying.

[Quantess]

67. That's a novel idea.

I have not heard that one before.

[NOVA_Dem]

68. Walmart and Fast Food companies already use the gov't to subsidize their salaries and healthcare..

I'm sure they can't wait to dump everyone on the exchanges or single payer if they get the chance. German and Japanese automakers have an advantage over American companies b/c they don't have to factor in healthcare costs for their employees.

[Quantess]

73. I meant "corporations love the idea of single payer" was a novel idea.

Is it a problem in europe and other first world countries, because I have not heard anything of the sort.
Not having to pay health care costs for employees, though, is a plus for businesses & corporations.

But I don't think corporations have a lot to exploit with single-payer.
I think it has more to do with the insurance companies holding on like a tapeworm to it's host.

[NOVA_Dem]

74. Of course healthcare companies would hate it but all the other companies would love it.

That's why we need the public option to compete with these shitty healthcare companies.

[Quantess]

75. Definitely. (no text)

[rdharma]

30. You got that right!

UPS is one of ALEC's Private Enterprise Council Members.

When they aren't trying to destroy and take over the USPS, they're trying to destroy the ACA and unions.

[House of Roberts]

4. Only applies to non-union employees.

Are those only white collar, or does that include non-union blue collar workers too?

I never had a job that paid my wife's insurance. I had to pay out of pocket for a family plan to cover her and the kids. Then it got to where I had to pay part of the premiums on my own policy.

[DJ13]

5. If the employee now has to buy outside coverage do they get a raise to pay for it?

[snappyturtle]

7. LOL....of course not that would undo the added profits for

shoving spouses off the cliff. imho

[dkf]

8. That's if the wife has coverage. But I guess if not employer covered she can go to the exchanges.

Well if they want everyone on the exchanges they are getting their wish.

[jberryhill]

29. That's not even a fair read of what UPS is saying

They are, not as a consequence of the ACA, saying that they aren't going to pay for insurance for spouses whose employer is mandated to provide coverage for them.

[Safetykitten]

34. They will not be on UPS rolls 2014. Correct?

[WCGreen]

23. There is a strong case for that...

I am sure if anyone tried they would succeed. The decrease, via the amount deducted from the employees pay check for the spouses medical insurance, in health costs to the company is legally the employees.

[jberryhill]

28. Key phrase - "eligible for other insurance"

What they are doing is cutting off spouses who have declined THEIR employer's insurance to be a spouse on the UPS employee insurance.

It is not a consequence of the ACA. It is a cost cutting measure by UPS, since full time employed spouses with other employers will have mandated coverage through THEIR employer.

[Safetykitten]

35. Oh, and that's a 60 million dollar saving. Got it.

[jberryhill]

36. It's just shifting that cost onto the spouse's employer

[Safetykitten]

56. And then they "other"....

[jberryhill]

60. Ingles, por favor

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. Yes, if they are a stockholder in a health insurance company that will pay dividends.

[WCGreen]

76. If money was deducted from a paycheck for medical coverage they should have to

give it back since via higher take home pay.

[msongs]

9. UPS is a price gouger in just about every way. not surprised to hear this nt

[Robb]

10. The non-union employees this applies to should join their union.

"Problem" solved.

[TheKentuckian]

16. They can't. They are considered management even if they to are part time or anything else.

[Safetykitten]

37. Sometimes I like fantasy scenarios also.

[malaise]

11. Good

I just dropped them

[pnwmom]

12. The corp is lying. This has nothing to do with the ACA. Companies have always been

free to do this kind of thing, free to cut back their benefits and free not to offer anything at all.

But under the ACA, if an employer doesn't offer a policy, or offers only a bare bones policy not meeting the coverage requirements of the ACA, an employee can buy a policy off an exchange, and usually with tax subsidies to help with the payment.

[Skeeter Barnes]

13. Anything bad that happens to UPS management puts a smile on my face.

[joeglow3]

19. Many "management" positions pay well below "non-management" jobs

People view "management" as the top 5 executives in a company. That is FAAAAR from reality.

[Skeeter Barnes]

26. I'm quite familiar with how things work at UPS.

As much or probably more so than you.

[joeglow3]

42. Bull shit

I am a corporate tax accountant. I guaran-fucking-tee they have a corporate tax department and those people are making amounts comparable to corporate tax accountants at every other company. And many of these people are making less than non-management jobs.

However, by all means, show me how they pay double what every other tax department in the nation does. I will send my resume over.

[Skeeter Barnes]

45. When did I ever say anything about how much somebody makes? "Bull shit". Get lost, creep.

[joeglow3]

49. So you take joy in a pennyless person losing benefits

Speaks volumes.

[Skeeter Barnes]

52. I take joy in the misfortune of people that hate Unions and work against them every day.

They are now seeing what their loyalty to the company gets them. It is unfortunate for them but they made their decision to harass and try to fire Teamsters on a daily basis so I don't feel any pity for them. Hopefully they will learn a lesson from this.

[joeglow3]

62. EVERY SINGLE PERSON there harassed and/or tried to fire Teamsters?

I haven't seen stereotyping like that since Fuzzy Zoeller.

[Skeeter Barnes]

63. Well if they didn't do that then I was obviously not referring to them. I was specific in my

statement - "people who hate Unions" so you know exactly who I was referring to. Now, I'm pretty much done with your little concern troll act here.

"I am a corporate tax accountant" Well lah dee fucking dah! Who can argue with that?

[joeglow3]

64. You said "Anything bad that happens to UPS management puts a smile on my face."

[Skeeter Barnes]

65. Even after you barged in hollering "Bull shit" and throwing around your lofty credentials,

(as if that proves anything) I was kind enough to clarify my position for you. Then you disregard my clarification and carry on concern trolling.

I've tried my best to be civilized with you despite your shitty attitude and your pathetic attention whoring attempts to shame me but I stand by my words.

People that do hateful, dishonest things to my Union Brothers better not come crying to me when they get some of their own medicine from the boss.

If any of them want health insurance, let them go on strike for it like all the package handlers and drivers did.

[joeglow3]

66. Or, as a nation and customers, lets demand it of all companies

Instead of a cocky "i got mine" attitude, lets not screw over 75% because of the behavior of 25%.

[Skeeter Barnes]

72. Tell that to management, not me. I've been for single payer for years.

I want everyone to have health care, not insurance.

And next time, you can talk to me like a human being instead of some kind of animal. You start with this "Bull shit" stuff, I'll just put your silly ass on ignore.

[joeglow3]

81. You can put me on ignore

You clearly showed a complete lack of empathy for the INDIVIDUALS affected in deference to the monolithic "management" and expressed glee. When I pointed this out, you stuck to your "management" position and claimed it was based on a superior knowledge of the interworkings of the company. I pointed out that hundreds/thousands of white collar workers have no beef with organized labor and are just working for a paycheck that, in many instances, is less than that of the blue collar workers (i.e. you are lumping these poor working class people in with "management" and expressed glee). It wasn't until this point that you backtracked and said you are only gleeful towards the individuals who opposed labor.

Thus, I correctly called bull shit when it was flung.

[Skeeter Barnes]

82. When did I mention workers at other companies?

What's with this "hundreds of thousands of white collar workers"? I never said a word about them. See, you're having to make up all this other shit that I never said so you can have something to carry on about. And that's not the first time you've done it in this conversation. You came in ranting about what people make like I said they all make big money when I hadn't said the first thing about what anybody makes.

You made shit up and criticized that and then pretended that your status as a corporate tax accountant (not impressed) means you know more about the attitudes of UPS management than somebody who has worked there for years, has dealt with them in disciplinary interviews and has sat in on local and regional grievance panels. I've seen how they are day in and day out so your claim to know more than me about this company and how their management behaves towards their employees is absurd. Again, I'm talking specifically about UPS management and those are the only people I've referred to in any of my comments, not all these other people you've dishonestly drug into this on your own to make martyrs out of.

And a clarification is not backtracking. I already said I stood by everything I've said so that's an admission that I'm not taking anything back.

Your carrying on about other workers I never mentioned and moral grandstanding over this is really strange. WTF do you really care if I like UPS management or not? If you knew half the dishonest, underhanded shit they try to pull on honest, hardworking people, you wouldn't even try to make an issue of my comments.

But you still seem so desperate to put on this silly, trumped up display. Weird.

[liberal_at_heart]

14. wait what? They require employers to cover employees and children but not spouses? Why did they

write the law that way?

[kenny blankenship]

15. First they came for the pensions, then they exported jobs, now they are coming for your benefits.

Obamacare is just part of the progression begun in 1980.

[Safetykitten]

20. ...

[FarCenter]

22. most likely they are cutting costs to make sure they don't have a "cadillac" plan

[HangOnKids]

31. Cadillac plan?

Never heard of such a thing. What is that?

[FarCenter]

50. "Cadillac" plans are plans exceeding cost limits above which employers pay a penalty

Americans with so-called "Cadillac" employer-sponsored health plans may feel pinched soon because employers fear the impact of a fresh wave of government taxes on them, The Fiscal Times reported.

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers will have to pay an excise tax on plans that cost more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family. An employer would have to pay a 40 percent tax on the cost each plan above those levels.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Obamacare-employer-plan-Cadillac/2013/08/16/id/520742

[HangOnKids]

53. Newsmax? Really?

That is your source? Do you read them often?

[Safetykitten]

55. Do you even understand the basics of the ACA?

[HangOnKids]

57. Well yes Kitten I do

Did I post something against the ACA? No I did not. Why are you asking me this?

[FarCenter]

59. If you don't like that source, use Google yourself...

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) imposes an annual excise tax on plans with premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for a family (not including vision and dental benefits) starting in 2018.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_insurance_plan

Although the tax does not start until 2018, employers say they have to start now to meet the deadline and they are doing whatever they can to bring down the cost of their plans. Under the law, an employer or health insurer offering a plan that costs more than $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family would typically pay a 40 percent excise tax on the amount exceeding the threshold.

“I’m actually much more focused on the Cadillac tax in 2018 than on 2014,” Steve First, a benefits executive at Pfizer, said at a recent meeting of employers. “For us, 2018 is a challenge.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/business/cadillac-tax-health-insurance.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[HangOnKids]

61. I did use Goggle I was asking why you used that source

The other sources are just as RW as the first. You seem to think that quoting a "benefits" director at Pfizer is nicer? Sorry, not interested in their bullshit.

[groundloop]

24. I think a few are misunderstanding this - spouses won't be covered only if eligible elsewhere

That's been a fairly common thing the past few years, to not cover spouses (or at least to add a hefty spousal surcharge) if they're eligible for coverage elsewhere. IMO that's another reason we need universal healthcare.

What's really irritating about this is that the companies involved are blaming the affordable care act for this decision, it's really nothing but a cost-cutting move on their part.

[dkf]

27. But is anyone not covered if they can go to the exchanges?

[jberryhill]

32. Anyone can buy health insurance without the exchanges

That's not what the plain meaning of "eligible" is in this context.

They are cutting off spouses who are eligible to be insured by THEIR employer.

Everyone has always been "eligible" to buy insurance. But reading it that way is just silly.

If you read it the way you are trying to read it, then UPS would be cutting off ALL spouses because they can ALL buy it elsewhere.

But notice that UPS is not cutting off ALL spouses. So it is clear you are not reading the word "eligible" in proper context, in view of other stated facts (i.e. that not all spouses are being cut off - only ones "eligible" for other insurance).

[SoCalDem]

41. Exactly.. Few people are old enough to recall that once upon a time

(and not really that long ago) MOST people did NOT have the type of insurance we have now come to expect as "normal".

Company paid benefits that extend into the employee's home (medical benefits) were there to KEEP that employee super-happy and less likely to go find a different job.. They were intended to "take care of" that employee's wife & kids when it came to medical coverage because the model they used was based on a stay-ay-home/low-paid-part-time-job Mom who had NO ACCESS to her own coverage.

As more and more Moms worked their way up the ladder into better jobs that offered coverage, companies started to modify their coverage options.

When our first son was born, MY job's insurance was primary...my husband's was secondary, so the 80% mine covered came first, and HIS paid the other 20%.. At that time WE paid nothing out of pocket..even for the coverage.. Try that now

As miserable as things are now, it IS still the only path to single-payer/universal coverage for all. As more and more white collar workers "lose" coverage with employers (who never should be in charge of our health care to start with), we will eventually morph into what we should have been since the 60's....

It will be painful as it happens, but after we Boomers are gone, I think it will happen ...

[Skeeter Barnes]

38. They spend billions to track their employees with telematics but justify this by claiming

it will save UPS 60 million. That's chump change to a company that rakes in billions every year but you'd never know it listening to them.

They waste more time and money conducting disciplinary interviews and trying to fire people than they spend providing service to the customer.

[Puzzledtraveller]

39. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

Hey, I start training for HBE and expanded medicaid next mont. We are preparing for a blitz, a portion of who we expect to be people recently dropped from dependent coverage and those whos employers reduced hours kicking them out of coverage.

[Safetykitten]

54. No Way!

[Posteritatis]

70. Treating their employees like their parcels; at least they're consistent. (nt)

[mcar]

71. My former employer did this three years ago

My SO had to go on his employer's insurance. Ridiculous of UPS to cite Obamacare since it's obviously happened before.

[Generic Brad]

77. My wife's employer tried to pull that crap on me earlier this year

They dropped me without warning and I went without insurance for 3 months. Her union had to step in and threaten a class action law suit before it got reinstated retroactively.

[Shibainu]

78. Contract time

UPS is currently in negotiations for 13 supplemental contracts as well as UPS Freights contract. They are not going to portray themselves as cash flush

[Riftaxe]

79. They can now pay the tax for the priviledge of dying

Perhaps some things might have been better off thought out a bit better.

[Kingofalldems]

80. So what's your plan?