General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPlease help me with an ACA question.
I got an angry call from my parents today (both democrats, marginally). My dads job stopped offering spousal health coverage about 5 years ago and instead opted to start paying an extra 200 dollars a month that the employee (my dad) could use or that the employee could use to shop for insurance for his family. Today my father learned from HR that the company will still provide that extra 200 dollars a month but it can no longer be used for anything other than care for the employee, it can't be used to pay for spousal health insurance. The letter very clearly (and snottily) blames this on "Obamacare". How are they getting away with this bullshit? And what could their reasoning be? 200 dollars extra a month for health insurance doesn't seem like a lot, but my parents aren't exactly rich.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)Was that it didn't foresee how vindictive and callous employers could be.
Fridays Child
(23,998 posts)...makes no sense, at all. The ACA should have been named "HICWA" for the "Healthcare Insurance Company Welfare Act."
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)That's the simple truth.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)Please re-read what I wrote.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Look, I've seen nothing but rises in premiums AND cuts to spouses over 15 years.
Both are cuts to the coverage that a dollar buys.
What is happening you the plan you describe could have happened without ACA being in play.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)Again please re-read what I wrote.
They're still giving him that 200 dollars a month but they told him it cannot be used to buy health insurance for his wife (my mom). What difference does it matter what he does with that money? It doesn't add up unless they're just trying to prevent them from shopping in the exchanges.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)it should have been a given they would use ACA to cut even more
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)They're dictating how certain money can be spent. That's the complaint! I don't want canned responses about health insurance prices, I know them all. This is a different issue.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)soooooooo much better
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)So what it was able to do as the alternative was to say, "OK, go ahead with your bullshit practices, but you're going to have some competition come 2014."
As a compromise from the ideal, it's really pretty clever: You can't just go tell companies to freeze rates, not in this political climate, not in our current system, not with this Congress.
So what we have instead is competition, new markets that must abide by the guidelines re preexisting conditions and affordability.
The old plans and old rules and companies month to month shit policies? Go for it, assholes.
But see if you can compete with better cheaper fairer plans that meet ACA requirements.
We could have seen this coming and probably did, but what could we have done about it?
Skittles
(152,967 posts)but I'm still hoping it succeeds
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)To care how its spent?
DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)Your father has medical insurance through his employer but yet his employer still provides an additional $200 a month for him to buy more insurance coverage for himself? Is that $2,400 reported as income?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)I have the paper in front of me now.
It says:
"The company is still going to give us $200 per month for medicine, co-pays, deductibles, dental, and vision. You will not be able to use the company's 200 per month towards the health insurance premiums of your spouse child."
They were using that 200 dollars to pay for the majority of my mothers monthly healthcare premium.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)And if so, which, and if not what other basis it is being provided?
Lex
(34,108 posts)At all. What part of the ACA does the employer cite? None, I bet.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)elleng
(130,156 posts)sounds like Koch-sponsored b.s. attempt at 'blackmail' to me.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)Is that the insurance company made them put it in there to prevent the employee from taking that money to the exchanges and maybe going with a competing company.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)It has nothing to do with the law. Most employees won't spend $2,400 a month towards their medical care and the remainder goes back to the company.
goldent
(1,582 posts)as to whether this can be treated as taxable income or not. The law is very complicated in this area, with new rules every year. If this money is pre-tax, there are restrictions on how it can be spent. I don't know what effect ACA would have on this, but it would not be surprising if it changed some things.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I think the employer, or some staff person, is a right wing, Limbaugh loving ahole. I don't think ACA prohibits that and there is no way anyone could tell. Sad thing is, some fool may forgo acquiring insurance for spouse.