UPS, Citing ObamaCare, Won’t Insure Spouses Of 15,000 Employees

Many analysts downplay the Affordable Care Act’s effect on companies such as UPS, noting that the move is part of a long-term trend of shrinking corporate medical benefits. But the shipping giant repeatedly cites the act to explain the decision, adding fuel to the debate over whether the law erodes traditional employer coverage.

...

The company told white-collar workers two months ago that 15,000 working spouses eligible for coverage at their own employers would be excluded from the UPS plan in 2014. The Fortune 100 firm expects the move, which applies to non-union U.S. workers only, to save about $60 million a year, said company spokesman Andy McGowan.

UPS becomes one of the highest-profile employers yet to bar working spouses from the company plan. Many firms already require employees to pay a surcharge for working-spouse medical coverage, but some are taking the next step by declining to include them at all, consultants say.

“They are simply saying to the spouse outright, ‘If you have coverage somewhere else you are not eligible here,’” said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker. “We don’t see a lot of that out there, but more than we used to.”

This year 4 percent of large employers surveyed by consultants Towers Watson excluded spouses if they had similar coverage where they work. Another 8 percent planned such a change for 2014, according to the survey.

https://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/August/21/Insurance-For-Working-Spouses-At-UPS.aspx

I'm sure the HHS will come up with some genius plan to "fix" this.

Don't worry, the Obama cheerleaders at CNBC called this a "quirk"

Just imagine saying this to your boss: "Don't offer me health insurance benefits."

Those apparently bizarre words might actually end up being uttered next year because of a quirk in Obamacare that could financially penalize a number of workers and their families.

That quirk means that for some people, it will be more economical to have an employer not offer health insurance subsidies for them and their families—and for the entire family to then instead be able to buy insurance with government subsidies on the Obamacare state health exchanges.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/100972664

Gee, who told the people at CNBC, repeatedly, that ObamaCare will drive up insurance costs and fewer people will have employer sponsored insurance coverage as a result of ObamaCare?

Oh, and next year, Obamacare requires employers to pay $65 per person covered on a plan.

By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act. This year, companies have to pay $1 or $2 “per life” covered on their plans, a sum that jumps to $65 in 2014.

The Hamilton school district has told its substitute teachers they will be limited to working a maximum of four days a week in the coming school year because of the federal health reform law’s future requirement that full-time employees be provided with health insurance.

A memo mailed to the substitutes in late June said that the restriction resulted from a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that will require employers to provide affordable health insurance for full-time employees and their dependents. Full-time is defined as an average of 30 or more hours per week.

https://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/08/hamilton_school_district_substitute_teachers_limited_to_4_day_work_week_because_of_health_care_refor.html

ObamaCare:

1. Federal health spending increases by $1.8 trillion (it will be more) through 2022.

2. People losing income/;wages (jobs next)

3. People losing employer sponsored health insurance

4. 30 million still uninsured by 2022.

That is what you get when: A) you put Democrats in charge and b) You pass a bill and read it afterwards.

This is the worst legislation that has been signed into law in modern American history.

So in other words, you can't bring yourself to criticize any aspect of what is Obama's signature legislative achievement, then?

I'm not sure how you can misunderstand this story.

Oh, and it is the government's fault, entirely, that this is happening.

Companies have increasingly employed various tactics to get spouses off their plans. The city of Anacortes, Wash., pays employees a bonus if spouses get coverage elsewhere, said human resources director Emily Schuh. This year Xerox went the opposite way, charging employees who enroll working spouses a $1,000 annual penalty, which rises to $1,500 next year, a spokesman said.

Now employers are mimicking the city of Richmond, Ind., which excluded working spouses from its health plan starting in January. Essentially, the problem was that too many people were taking them up on the offer of insurance.

"We have all these (employers) around us who are not covering working spouses," said Richmond human resources director Sue Roberson. "You almost have to do it out of self-defense."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/20/ups-spouses-health-insurance/2651713/

A completely fact-free and laughable response.

Though it is fun to watch you pretend UPS, which earned $807 million last year on revenue of $54.1 billion, is "struggling"

Again, you're funny, dude.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Oklahoma lawsuit hits the Supreme Court. Their suit claims that the Federal govt cannot offer any subsidies to those states that refused to set up the insurance exchange. Since the states refused, it fell to the Feds to run a FEDERAL run exchange. The ACA specifically says the subsidies are available only to those in the state run exchanges.

If OK wins, then 34 states will not be subject to the ACA mandate. Employers will not be subject to the fine and people will not be able to get a subsidy from the Feds. The IRS has re-written that portion of the language of the law to include Fed run exchanges to be eligible for the subsidy. Can the IRS do this? We'll find out.

Corporations (that is plural) clearly articulate a law's impact and your response is to make stuff up.

Here is the robotic response to the UPS story by the HHS:

“The health care law will make health insurance more affordable, strengthen small businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers,” said Joanne Peters, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

You're making stuff up.

Except isn't just UPS saying this.

Other examples were provided, including city governments.

Which is why I said corporations.

I'm saying your responses to criticims of ObamaCare about to "nuh-uh" and you make stuff up.

Nothing you've posted indicates you know anything about the financials of UPS, but of course you're onces again looking to change the subject, since you can't bring yourself to blame the government for anything and/or you don't know what you're talking about.

That's what I'm saying.

A growing number of companies are looking to clamp down on rising health care costs by dumping coverage for their employees' working spouses.

Others are requiring their workers to pay extra money to cover a spouse who could get health insurance elsewhere. And some may even consider making employees pay the full cost of insuring their children.

The moves are viewed as low-hanging fruit for companies that are expecting higher costs next year under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

...

Excela Health, the owner of three hospitals in Westmoreland County, told employees this month that it would no longer provide health coverage to spouses who are offered insurance from their own employer, starting Jan. 1.

“Many businesses are moving to employee-only coverage when a spouse's employer also provides benefits,” Excela spokeswoman Robin Jennings said.

More employers are taking a look at the strategy because Obamacare doesn't specify that family health plans cover spouses, said James McTiernan, health care consultant with Triad Gallagher, a Downtown benefits firm.

https://triblive.com/business/headlines/4560092-74/health-spouses-costs#axzz2cUz891dr'

If only these companies would stop mentioning ObamaCare we could all pretend they are lying.