UPS to drop 15,000 spouses from insurance, cites Obamacare

[drivebymedia]

They gratuitously mention 'Obamacare!' because they know that'll get them an irrational flood of cover from the rightwing propaganda machine.

Exactly .....

 

[Leweman]

Well it is because of that 65 dollar a spouse fee from ACA. They should just happily pay that and say thanks Obama? This is a company that actually has to make money. They can't just steal it and then use it to buy votes like the government does.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I love how corporate America pretends that Obamacare is suddenly the reason they 'need' to cut back on employee healthcare benefits.

If obama care was so great this wouldn't happen.

Why should UPS offer healthcare to people who don't work at UPS, and furthermore can get health insurance where they do work?

And what does that have to do with Obamacare?

It is called "Benefits" it all started under FDR when he froze wages, companys couldnt raise wages so they enticed people to join there companys by offering health insurance and it grew into spouses,

 

[Leweman]

Extra Extra!

Read all about it!

U.S. Company does something bad, blames someone else!

That is kinda odd ... usually it's Obama and the Dems that do that.

 

[drivebymedia]

The decision comes as many analysts ... (are) 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 ... to save $60 million a year?

Obviously UPS is a FOX advertiser ....

 

[NYcarbineer]

From the Kaiser article:

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

So where's Obamacare to blame?

Yea this is one big conspiracy to embarrass the King Obama it has nothing to do with Obama care

I welcome your explanation as to why Obamacare should get blamed for this.

Believe it or not, I tend to take the corporation's side on this. Why should a corporation pay for spousal coverage if the spouse doesn't work there, AND is owed coverage where he or she does work?

 

[shintao]

Hmmmm

Whatcha got to say

UPS to drop 15,000 spouses from insurance, cites Obamacare - Atlanta Business Chronicle

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.

Rising medical costs, “combined with the costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, have made it increasingly difficult to continue providing the same level of health care benefits to our employees at an affordable cost,” UPS said in a memo to employees.

According to Kaiser, UPS told white-collar workers two months ago that 15,000 working spouses eligible for coverage by their own employers would be excluded from the UPS plan in 2014.

UPS expects the move, which applies to non-union U.S. workers only, to save about $60 million a year, company spokesman Andy McGowan said.

Whats the problem with that? They will still be covered, UPS will save money, isn't that the capitalist way?

 

[drivebymedia]

Well it is because of that 65 dollar a spouse fee from ACA. They should just happily pay that and say thanks Obama? This is a company that actually has to make money. They can't just steal it and then use it to buy votes like the government does.

You betcha, UPS should thank Obamacare for weeding out the Double Dippers and saving them $60 million a year in the process !

This is just one example how Obamacare will reduce Health Care Costs, while delivering higher profits to employers.

 

[Warrior102]

From the Kaiser article:

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

So where's Obamacare to blame?

Yea this is one big conspiracy to embarrass the King Obama it has nothing to do with Obama care

I welcome your explanation as to why Obamacare should get blamed for this.

Believe it or not, I tend to take the corporation's side on this. Why should a corporation pay for spousal coverage if the spouse doesn't work there, AND is owed coverage where he or she does work?

Seems like these fine Americans don't want your shitty Obamacare...

Shove it ....

[VIDEO] Ted Cruz heckled at Obamacare town hall, calls out ?astroturf? from Obama campaign » The Right Scoop -

 

[Leweman]

From the Kaiser article:

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

So where's Obamacare to blame?

Yea this is one big conspiracy to embarrass the King Obama it has nothing to do with Obama care

I welcome your explanation as to why Obamacare should get blamed for this.

Believe it or not, I tend to take the corporation's side on this. Why should a corporation pay for spousal coverage if the spouse doesn't work there, AND is owed coverage where he or she does work?

65 dollar fee per spouse covered starting in 2014?

 

[Wyatt earp]

From the Kaiser article:

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

So where's Obamacare to blame?

Yea this is one big conspiracy to embarrass the King Obama it has nothing to do with Obama care

I welcome your explanation as to why Obamacare should get blamed for this.

Believe it or not, I tend to take the corporation's side on this. Why should a corporation pay for spousal coverage if the spouse doesn't work there, AND is owed coverage where he or she does work?

See my above post, I left a few companys for better Beniifts and not much more $.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yea this is one big conspiracy to embarrass the King Obama it has nothing to do with Obama care

I welcome your explanation as to why Obamacare should get blamed for this.

Believe it or not, I tend to take the corporation's side on this. Why should a corporation pay for spousal coverage if the spouse doesn't work there, AND is owed coverage where he or she does work?

65 dollar fee per spouse covered starting in 2014?

Good for you for actually looking something up.

Why wouldn't UPS just ask the spouse to pay the fee as a surcharge? Such charges are common for spousal coverage.

 

[Yurt]

From the Kaiser article:

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

So where's Obamacare to blame?

try reading your post again, SLOWLY...especially the part about spouses

 

[Sallow]

Coming from UPS..it's pretty laughable.

They treat their employees like shit until they get into the Union..and they don't pay their parking tickets.

Actually they had pretty good benefits prior to Obamacare. Obamacare ruined that

Oh please.

Pretty good? I guess compared to Somalia..yeah.

In the real world?

Not so much.

When I worked at the Moving company..for no benefits..we had plenty of UPS guys coming over because the working conditions were better.

And at a MOVING COMPANY. WITH NO BENEFITS.

 

[Sallow]

From the Kaiser article:

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

So where's Obamacare to blame?

try reading your post again, SLOWLY...especially the part about spouses

What's changed?

Oh yeah..employers have to cover kids.

 

[Moonglow]

Coming from UPS..it's pretty laughable.

They treat their employees like shit until they get into the Union..and they don't pay their parking tickets.

The fellow that delivers for UPS in my area told me that UPS makes the drivers pay for maint and upkeep of the vehicle.

 

[Care4all]

UPS expects the move, which applies to non-union U.S. workers only, to save about $60 million a year, company spokesman Andy McGowan said.

I wonder if UPS is going to share this $60 MILLION in savings a year with these employees that are losing part of their benefits, or if they are just going to profit from the savings themselves?

Also, see how the non union members are being hurt while their union members are not being cut of this benefit? I guess in this case, it would behoove those who work for UPS to join the Union, if that's how it is truly working out to be?

And I agree with Sallow on how UPS treats their non union employees, not so good at all! Matt worked for them when we first moved up to Massachusetts for my job, because he needed a job, any job, so he went to work there....he was one whooped puppy when he got home! He finally found a job in his career field and man oh man was he a happy camper to leave that UPS job!

 

[Star]

15,000 more victims of the Unaffordable Care Act.

UPS to drop 15,000 spouses from insurance, cites Obamacare - Atlanta Business Chronicle

This is nothing new.
By citing Obamacare UPS is just showing their ODS - about 4% of large companies are already doing this, it's called "the working spouse provision" and what that means is, if your spouse can get insurance thru his or her own employer UPS and 4% (6%percent according to another source) of other companies aren't going to continue give-----give insurance companies a windfall by paying premiums while a spouse is simultaneously getting what amounts to double coverage thru their own employer.

Because of Obamacare many companies have been evaluating their healthcare plans, according to the USATODAY article below, another 13% of companies are considering the working spouse provision.

Seems to me, companies re-evaluating their healthcare costs rather than being lazy and letting the inertia of doing what's been done in the past should be a good thing for helping to control healthcare costs.


UPS Won’t Insure Spouses Of Some Employees

By Jay Hancock
KHN Staff Writer
Aug 21, 2013


Partly blaming the health law, United Parcel Service is set to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere.

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.

Rising medical costs, “combined with the costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, have made it increasingly difficult to continue providing the same level of health care benefits to our employees at an affordable cost,” UPS said in a memo to employees.

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.

“When health-care reform came on the scene a few years ago we definitely saw an uptick in companies wanting to explore a working-spouse provision,” said Steve Noury, national sales director for HMS Employer Solutions, which monitors dependents’ eligibility for corporate benefits. “We have seen [them] over the past two or three years putting those in place.”

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

<snip>
.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

You need to break a few eggs before you can truly enjoy the overall benefits of commie care.......

 

[NYcarbineer]

From the Kaiser article:

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

So where's Obamacare to blame?

try reading your post again, SLOWLY...especially the part about spouses

So you're blaming Obamacare for NOT requiring large employers to cover spouses?

lololol, that's the laugh of the day.