Wall, it's more of a biz reaction to the Feds wanting in on the insurance racket. Employers see the Feds want to take the lead and are saying go ahead. Employers were the backbone of the insured but now they don't have to be so they are saying screw it, we will cut our costs and dump more people who can get insurance from the Feds. In the end, tax payers will pay more to subsidize Obamacare. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is not surprising news at all. Insurance costs are a huge expense for employers and they used to offer it to attract talent. Obamacare makes insurance less of need for biz to attract talent. It'll steam roll from here.....unintended consequence??
0
Wall, it's more of a biz reaction to the Feds wanting in on the insurance racket. Employers see the Feds want to take the lead and are saying go ahead. Employers were the backbone of the insured but now they don't have to be so they are saying screw it, we will cut our costs and dump more people who can get insurance from the Feds. In the end, tax payers will pay more to subsidize Obamacare. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is not surprising news at all. Insurance costs are a huge expense for employers and they used to offer it to attract talent. Obamacare makes insurance less of need for biz to attract talent. It'll steam roll from here.....unintended consequence??
The Teamsters applauded the passage of Obamacare..and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters a 1.3 million member labor group twice endorsed Obama for president...
They represent nearly all of the 12,000+ UPS Freight drivers and dockworkers..and agreed to a contract to receive health insurance without paying for the premiums..so they received what they were cheering for..whats the problem ?
Doesn't affect them slim.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
The Teamsters applauded the passage of Obamacare..and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters a 1.3 million member labor group twice endorsed Obama for president...
They represent nearly all of the 12,000+ UPS Freight drivers and dockworkers..and agreed to a contract to receive health insurance without paying for the premiums..so they received what they were cheering for..whats the problem ?
UPS is acting within the health care law. It requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children but not spouses or domestic partners...if this is a problem change the law..
0
UPS is acting within the health care law. It requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children but not spouses or domestic partners...if this is a problem change the law..
Wall, it's more of a biz reaction to the Feds wanting in on the insurance racket. Employers see the Feds want to take the lead and are saying go ahead. Employers were the backbone of the insured but now they don't have to be so they are saying screw it, we will cut our costs and dump more people who can get insurance from the Feds. In the end, tax payers will pay more to subsidize Obamacare. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is not surprising news at all. Insurance costs are a huge expense for employers and they used to offer it to attract talent. Obamacare makes insurance less of need for biz to attract talent. It'll steam roll from here.....unintended consequence??
Might be true but it shows how UPS approaches the issue versus other corps.
Some corps arent about trying to find every angle they can often at the expense of the employee..and aside from 14's misguided reply, UPS has been hit recently and is probably starting to feel the need to start looking under all rocks to save money and prop up their share price and bonuses.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
Wall, it's more of a biz reaction to the Feds wanting in on the insurance racket. Employers see the Feds want to take the lead and are saying go ahead. Employers were the backbone of the insured but now they don't have to be so they are saying screw it, we will cut our costs and dump more people who can get insurance from the Feds. In the end, tax payers will pay more to subsidize Obamacare. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is not surprising news at all. Insurance costs are a huge expense for employers and they used to offer it to attract talent. Obamacare makes insurance less of need for biz to attract talent. It'll steam roll from here.....unintended consequence??
Might be true but it shows how UPS approaches the issue versus other corps.
Some corps arent about trying to find every angle they can often at the expense of the employee..and aside from 14's misguided reply, UPS has been hit recently and is probably starting to feel the need to start looking under all rocks to save money and prop up their share price and bonuses.
Well... I own a small business- I provide individual coverage for all of my employees- If they want family coverage then they cover the difference in premium-
If one has a spouse with a family plan- I give them an option- I will still provide individual coverage for them- so they will then have 2 policies- Or- they can go with their spouses plan and I give them an increase in their hourly pay- All have opted for their spouses plan and the "raise"-
0
Well... I own a small business- I provide individual coverage for all of my employees- If they want family coverage then they cover the difference in premium-
If one has a spouse with a family plan- I give them an option- I will still provide individual coverage for them- so they will then have 2 policies- Or- they can go with their spouses plan and I give them an increase in their hourly pay- All have opted for their spouses plan and the "raise"-
Wall, What if the UPS plan is superior to anything the spouse could purchase? Is that not an issue?
Maybe there was less hassle and red tape when only one insurance company represented the family?
Well sure it is an issue. Let's say I work at UPS and my wife works at Pepsi. Her Pepsi plan is $150 a month and my UPS plan can insure her at $100 a month. Now I get to pay $50 more a month because of this stupid "Affordable Care Act" and people like Wall Street get to pretend this isn't all happening because of the stupid "Affordable Care Act"
Hey, remember when the President assured us the average family would save $2,500 on their health insurance due to this stupid law?
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Wall, What if the UPS plan is superior to anything the spouse could purchase? Is that not an issue?
Maybe there was less hassle and red tape when only one insurance company represented the family?
Well sure it is an issue. Let's say I work at UPS and my wife works at Pepsi. Her Pepsi plan is $150 a month and my UPS plan can insure her at $100 a month. Now I get to pay $50 more a month because of this stupid "Affordable Care Act" and people like Wall Street get to pretend this isn't all happening because of the stupid "Affordable Care Act"
Hey, remember when the President assured us the average family would save $2,500 on their health insurance due to this stupid law?
WASHINGTON -- Signaling a growing rift between some unions and the White House over the Affordable Care Act, the Nevada State AFL-CIO passed a stinging resolution Wednesday that criticized the administration for its handling of their concerns with the health care reform law. The resolution claims the law could end up "destroying" the unions' multi-employer health plans if the administration doesn't come up with a regulatory fix.
"[O]ur union members and their families originally offered strong political and moral support for the promise of the Affordable Care Act because it would expand health care coverage for more Americans," the resolution read. But when it came to dealing with the unions' concerns, "the Administration has postured on proposals to address the problem, but no proposal to date will actually solve the problem. Our health plans only get worse."
WASHINGTON -- Signaling a growing rift between some unions and the White House over the Affordable Care Act, the Nevada State AFL-CIO passed a stinging resolution Wednesday that criticized the administration for its handling of their concerns with the health care reform law. The resolution claims the law could end up "destroying" the unions' multi-employer health plans if the administration doesn't come up with a regulatory fix.
"[O]ur union members and their families originally offered strong political and moral support for the promise of the Affordable Care Act because it would expand health care coverage for more Americans," the resolution read. But when it came to dealing with the unions' concerns, "the Administration has postured on proposals to address the problem, but no proposal to date will actually solve the problem. Our health plans only get worse."
Some corps arent about trying to find every angle they can often at the expense of the employee..and aside from 14's misguided reply, UPS has been hit recently and is probably starting to feel the need to start looking under all rocks to save money and prop up their share price and bonuses.
This is not "looking under rocks" it is going to save UPS $60 million a year.
Further, it isn't some grand insight by pointing out that UPS is doing this to save money. UPS (and all the other examples provided) readily admit they are doing this to save money. Which is the entire point critics are making, in that - ObamaCare makes insurance more expensive.
We told you so.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Some corps arent about trying to find every angle they can often at the expense of the employee..and aside from 14's misguided reply, UPS has been hit recently and is probably starting to feel the need to start looking under all rocks to save money and prop up their share price and bonuses.
This is not "looking under rocks" it is going to save UPS $60 million a year.
Further, it isn't some grand insight by pointing out that UPS is doing this to save money. UPS (and all the other examples provided) readily admit they are doing this to save money. Which is the entire point critics are making, in that - ObamaCare makes insurance more expensive.
The University of Virginia said Wednesday that it will stop offering health insurance to some employees' spouses because of rising costs under ObamaCare.
The university said the Affordable Care Act will add $7.3 million to its healthcare costs next year. It indicated that it could face additional costs in the future because of the law's tax on especially generous insurance policies.
In an effort to cut costs, UVA's healthcare benefits will no longer be available to some employees' spouses.
Couldn't happen to a nicer group. They supported Obama & ObamaCare full on.
Good for them.
0
The University of Virginia said Wednesday that it will stop offering health insurance to some employees' spouses because of rising costs under ObamaCare.
The university said the Affordable Care Act will add $7.3 million to its healthcare costs next year. It indicated that it could face additional costs in the future because of the law's tax on especially generous insurance policies.
In an effort to cut costs, UVA's healthcare benefits will no longer be available to some employees' spouses.
U.P.S. is one of the biggest companies so far to drop spousal coverage for some segment of its work force, and its announcement was viewed by some as a harbinger of a broader trend in employers’ restrictions on health care benefits.
Large employers like Xerox and Teva Pharmaceuticals already impose surcharges for spousal coverage. And some cities, like Terre Haute, Ind., decided to follow what many of its private corporations were doing, by adopting a “spousal carve-out” so that working spouses would not be covered under its health plans.
The limits on coverage are occurring as some cities and companies are also considering changes to coverage for retirees under 65 and not eligible for Medicare, who might be shifted to the health insurance exchanges being established in states under the Obama health care law.
While the percentage of employers adopting changes in policies like U.P.S.’s new limits remains in the single digits, it is growing. According to a corporate survey by Mercer, a consulting firm, 6 percent of companies with 500 or more employees excluded coverage for spouses in 2012 if their spouses could obtain coverage through their own employer. That is double the percentage in 2008, Mercer found.
Mercer’s survey also found that 6 percent of employers required a surcharge for workers who keep their spouses on their health coverage even though their spouses could obtain coverage from their own employer. A Towers Watson survey found that 33 percent of large employers said they would impose such a surcharge by 2015.
U.P.S. is one of the biggest companies so far to drop spousal coverage for some segment of its work force, and its announcement was viewed by some as a harbinger of a broader trend in employers’ restrictions on health care benefits.
Large employers like Xerox and Teva Pharmaceuticals already impose surcharges for spousal coverage. And some cities, like Terre Haute, Ind., decided to follow what many of its private corporations were doing, by adopting a “spousal carve-out” so that working spouses would not be covered under its health plans.
The limits on coverage are occurring as some cities and companies are also considering changes to coverage for retirees under 65 and not eligible for Medicare, who might be shifted to the health insurance exchanges being established in states under the Obama health care law.
While the percentage of employers adopting changes in policies like U.P.S.’s new limits remains in the single digits, it is growing. According to a corporate survey by Mercer, a consulting firm, 6 percent of companies with 500 or more employees excluded coverage for spouses in 2012 if their spouses could obtain coverage through their own employer. That is double the percentage in 2008, Mercer found.
Mercer’s survey also found that 6 percent of employers required a surcharge for workers who keep their spouses on their health coverage even though their spouses could obtain coverage from their own employer. A Towers Watson survey found that 33 percent of large employers said they would impose such a surcharge by 2015.
This is not "looking under rocks" it is going to save UPS $60 million a year.
Further, it isn't some grand insight by pointing out that UPS is doing this to save money. UPS (and all the other examples provided) readily admit they are doing this to save money. Which is the entire point critics are making, in that - ObamaCare makes insurance more expensive.
We told you so.
Actually 60M is chump change 14.
How much is 60M relative to their profits..and relative to their revenues?
Its silly chump change for UPS..it makes them look petty and lame.
Just another reason to blame the government instead of goosing premiums like MOST corporations do.
The insurance I have has gone up in premium steadily for the last multi-decades..but the company I get the insurance from isnt grandstanding and blaming Obamacare for having to cut benefits.
Its pathetic..and crying over 60M for profits of 80 B a year is hilarious.
Whats next, blaming Obama for the increase in fuel costs as a reason for missing their profit estimates?
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
This is not "looking under rocks" it is going to save UPS $60 million a year.
Further, it isn't some grand insight by pointing out that UPS is doing this to save money. UPS (and all the other examples provided) readily admit they are doing this to save money. Which is the entire point critics are making, in that - ObamaCare makes insurance more expensive.
We told you so.
Actually 60M is chump change 14.
How much is 60M relative to their profits..and relative to their revenues?
Its silly chump change for UPS..it makes them look petty and lame.
Just another reason to blame the government instead of goosing premiums like MOST corporations do.
The insurance I have has gone up in premium steadily for the last multi-decades..but the company I get the insurance from isnt grandstanding and blaming Obamacare for having to cut benefits.
Its pathetic..and crying over 60M for profits of 80 B a year is hilarious.
Whats next, blaming Obama for the increase in fuel costs as a reason for missing their profit estimates?
Notice that no matter how many examples - UPS, 2 city governments, one large state university, and 4% of large corporations - are given, you repeat this same talking point.
0
Just another reason to blame the government
Notice that no matter how many examples - UPS, 2 city governments, one large state university, and 4% of large corporations - are given, you repeat this same talking point.
Notice that none of this, not one bit, addresses the point.
Which I'm sure is just a funny coincidence.
PS: $60 million is 7.5% of UPS earnings.
Your posts on this topic have been quite illuminating.
60M is what relative to how much they pay in total insurance?
Me thinks 60M is a number pulled out of some mythical magical hat to grandstand.
60M is chump change for a company like that..and yes they are struggling RELATIVE to past performance, I never said they were teetering or in trouble, rather that their profit estimates have struggled in recent quarters...but you knew that since you researched the subject right?
The topic is erroneous, that is why I posted here..you like UPS enjoy finger pointing at the government and hide behind it as an excuse.
UPS did not need to grandstand like that, nor do they need to pull spousal benefits..its weak nickle and dime games.
Notice that none of this, not one bit, addresses the point.
Which I'm sure is just a funny coincidence.
PS: $60 million is 7.5% of UPS earnings.
Your posts on this topic have been quite illuminating.
60M is what relative to how much they pay in total insurance?
Me thinks 60M is a number pulled out of some mythical magical hat to grandstand.
60M is chump change for a company like that..and yes they are struggling RELATIVE to past performance, I never said they were teetering or in trouble, rather that their profit estimates have struggled in recent quarters...but you knew that since you researched the subject right?
The topic is erroneous, that is why I posted here..you like UPS enjoy finger pointing at the government and hide behind it as an excuse.
UPS did not need to grandstand like that, nor do they need to pull spousal benefits..its weak nickle and dime games.
The topic is erroneous, that is why I posted here..you like UPS enjoy finger pointing at the government and hide behind it as an excuse.
Just about anything you've said on this topic is factually false and as has already been pointed out, UPS isn't the only one saying ObamaCare has led to this.
You responding by "they're lying" is comical and ineffective.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
The topic is erroneous, that is why I posted here..you like UPS enjoy finger pointing at the government and hide behind it as an excuse.
Just about anything you've said on this topic is factually false and as has already been pointed out, UPS isn't the only one saying ObamaCare has led to this.
You responding by "they're lying" is comical and ineffective.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
