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

[OhioChick]

Source: 11alive.com

4:38 AM, Aug 21, 2013

SANDY SPRINGS, Ga. -- 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.

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. But UPS repeatedly cites ObamaCare to explain the decision, adding fuel to the debate over whether it 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.

Read more: http://www.11alive.com/news/article/303460/40/UPS-to-drop-15000-spouses-from-insurance

[geek tragedy]

1. corporate propaganda nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

2. Whether it's "propaganda" or not.

15,000 people are losing health insurance coverage and a lot of those people are going to blame the President. I expect this to be all over the national news tonight. We're losing the PR campaign battle on this, big time!

[geek tragedy]

7. They'll be eligible for state exchanges.

Health care should be shifted from the employer's private insurance policy to the government.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

8. True. But this isn't being communicated.

All people see is 15,000 losing insurance coverage obama obamacare.

[geek tragedy]

10. The government can't prohibit UPS from issuing a press release. nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

12. That's not the point I'm making!

This administration has done a shit job explaining to people how they're going to benefit from this. Of course they can't stop UPS from doing this but they could have an all out media blitz including ads, social networking, canvassing, etc letting people know how they're going to benefit. They have the machine in place, they know how to do it!

The Republicans and corporations are winning the debate just by being the loudest.

[geek tragedy]

15. The administration is pushing it in social media etc.

They're being sabotaged by Republicans at every level of government.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

17. Barely.

You can't blame Republicans for Democratic timidness and inactivity. This is a debate we can win because WE'RE RIGHT. The Republicans are bullies and assholes but they can be taken out if we actually tried. I'm talking an election season sized media blitz here, not a few banner ads.

[kristopher]

25. Why aren't you HELPING then, instead of just criticizing

You seem to be contributing to the problem you are gleefully complaining about.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

30. You have no idea what I do.

Not only did I canvas and work my ass off for Obama but I've done plenty to help spread the word about Obamacare. I work for a nonprofit and help people get coverage everyday. I'm not gleefully complaining I'm begging the Democratic machine and its rich donors to stand up against the Koch brothers and their corporate ilk.

I make 24 grand a year (barely) I don't have 2 million of my own cash to put behind ads, but there are those who do.

I do what I can. Know what you're talking about before you run your mouth off.

[kristopher]

33. I see what you are doing here and it AIN'T GOOD.

Since anyone can claim anything they want on the internet you are known by your action HERE. You are clearly contributing to the problem you are posting about. A cynic might label such an approach as evidence of a concern troll, but I prefer to think you are just confused about what the article actually stated.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

35. Oh, come of it.

This is a board dedicated to politics from a Democratic perspective. I'm discussing strategy. I was making a general statement about Democratic strategy. Agree or disagree but take that "concern troll" nonsense elsewhere (whatever the fuck it means, I'm not even sure it's English).


If you aren't able to have an adult conversation about strategy and what might need to be changed and tweaked a little bit without getting offended maybe you need to leave the glow of your computer screen and take a walk for a bit.


The opinion polls tell the whole story, we're not winning the debate. But it's not because we're not right, it's because we're not trying.

[kristopher]

46. You are doing nothing but spreading FUD.

Your remarks in the context of the content of the OP say it all.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

47. Uh huh.

Apparently its all sunshine and rainbows on your end. The Koch brothers don't exist, Fox News isn't spreading nonsense and the Republicans aren't attacking with every dollar they can get their hands on. I would love to live in your world.

[kristopher]

48. None of those things justify your behavior.

FUD is FUD.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

49. How are you not getting this?

I'm calling on the Democratic Party to combat "FUD" with an all out media and money blitz of Koch Brother proportions!!!!



The fear and uncertainty exists! It's already there!!! I'm proposing WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

[kristopher]

51. No, you are spreading it here under the PRETEXT of calling for action

[ForgoTheConsequence]

52. HAHAHA.

You're paranoid. Get off the internet dude, it's not looking good for you.

[kristopher]

54. I'm fine.

You are behaving in classic "concern troll" fashion and you are spreading FUD about Obamacare.

The record of your behavior is written above.

PS: We're done.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

57. You're not fine.

You can't discuss policy without acting like an adult and you immediately resort to calling people liars if they have a different opinion. That's not a good thing Kris, and it reflects poorly on you.



I hate to tell you this but in the real world you have to play hardball and that takes money. Democratic donors and big money dems need to step up.








A final point. Personally attacking me (you came after me first) and then saying "we're done" when you feel like you're losing the debate (which is evident by the constant repetition of the same accusation) is a very asshole-ish move.

[Psephos]

95. Kristopher, you sound like a false flag disruptor to me. n/t

[heaven05]

68. you

are wrong.

[TekGryphon]

73. Oh God, get the hell off it

How dare you call him a "concern troll" for pointing out the obvious.

If you want to stick your head in the mud and pretend that there's absolutely no problem in the corporations and corporate media teaming up to distort the healthcare debate - fine. But don't insult other members with thinly veiled allusions that they're "concern trolls" or "plants" or "site infiltrators".

That's disgusting.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. The president is everywhere spitting out a spleen, traveling all over the country

Where are the other Democrats? Where are you? On a message board, complaining about the president. Where are the Democrats? Why aren't they out there helping the president? Uniting behind him? Helping him sell this message? Why aren't you attacking them? He's out there by himself!! With Bill Clinton!!

[Safetykitten]

42. Yes, why are you not doing...well...uh...uh....

Just telling us all here at DU what a clusterfuck this thing would be does not count. Now help us that called people like you stupid to fix what we said was perfect in the first place!

[TekGryphon]

74. How you're being accused of being a "concern troll" or a "plant"...

... for this post is exactly why it's getting impossible to have discussions around here.

I fully expect to stumble upon a fight over someone claiming the sky is blue.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

77. Thanks.

I don't understand where the attack came from. In no way was I trying to spread right wing nonsense or say Obamacare is bad, I just don't think the party is pushing back hard enough. I think some people don't take criticism (even if it's constructive) well.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. Who controls the media? All I see are Republicans everywhere. What if the Dems

ARE out there but the media isn't showing them? What if we don't see the speeches because the Republicans and the corporations are buying up all the airtime? Is it still Obama's fault and his fault alone? What if Obama has no friends in the media...and you know this to be true. Is it his fault?

[gopiscrap]

28. I agree

[treestar]

114. They do have a media blitz

This is the kind of thing that will work. These individuals will go and sign up. In a way UPS is helping, since those people would be complacently covered otherwise.

Getting it away from employers is going to be a good thing.

[hack89]

16. If people actually read the press release and the news story they wouldn't think that

the story says that 15,000 spouses will get insurance from their own employers. No one is losing health insurance.

[former9thward]

124. There is a reason the sponse is on the UPS plan.

Their own employer's insurance is probably shit.

[LanternWaste]

66. Quite possibly because the very people who should be communicating this...

"But this isn't being communicated...."

Quite possibly because the very people who should be communicating this are instead throwing their hands up in the air, yelling "we're losing the PR battle!!!"

[ForgoTheConsequence]

80. Was that a swipe at me?

?

[jberryhill]

103. "because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere."

These are spouses with full time jobs at employers for which they are eligible for coverage because it is mandated that their employer provide it to them.

It's right in the story:

because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere.

[Squinch]

109. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Here's the answer, kids. This is a NON ISSUE.

[jberryhill]

110. We had two previous threads on this bullshit

Nobody is losing health insurance.

Because of the employer mandates, the number of employed spouses eligible for coverage at their own employer is increased. Also, because of the uniform coverages required under ACA, then couples don't have to worry about new coverage and pre-existing conditions, caps, and so on.

[former9thward]

125. The employer mandates have been waived.

The reason they are on the UPS plan is that probably their employer's plan is shit.

[mikekohr]

130. UPS was a corporate sponser of the Contract on America, they shield taxes in Bermuda, UPSPAC one of

biggest PAC's in DC gives overwhelmingly to Republicans.

In 1993 I filed a complaint with the FEC over their tactics of extorting contributions from their supervisors for their PAC. They fought it for 4 years before paying an $8,000.00 fine.

They have repeatedly been fined and lost lawsuits for making their drivers work through lunch.

They "stack the applicant pool" to discriminate against older people in hiring.

Their upper management called union members and Democrats communists in closed door meetings.

I worked there for 16.5 years. Their color is brown because they are full of right-wing shit.

[24601]

84. Didn't the President specifically promise words to the effect that that everyone could keep

their existing health care if that's what they wanted?

I'll go out on a limb and speculate that he didn't read the ACA before (or after) he signed it.

[geek tragedy]

89. He didn't promise that everyone's employer wouldn't screw them. nt

[jberryhill]

102. They'll be eligible for their employer's insurance

We had a thread on this already.

The ones being dropped by UPS are spouses who are eligible for coverage through THEIR employer.

[FarPoint]

108. You are absolutely correct..

Health Insurance needs to leave the employer's domaine....

[justamama83]

129. They should not need to go to state exchanges

If you read the article- it states that the 15,000 are able to get coverage elsewhere. This means that they have access to an employer plan. My company has charged extra - about 1k/year for the last 3 or 4 years for the spouse to be on their insurance rather then through the spouse's own employer provided plan. They have notified us that next year they would discontinue providing spousal insurance - so very similar to what UPS is doing but this would not effect anyone who does not have any other option.

[gopiscrap]

132. welcome to DU

[hack89]

11. "15,000 working spouses eligible for coverage by their own employers"

they are not losing insurance. The spouses will get it through their companies.

[blackspade]

59. The problem is that this will cost families money.

In some cases a lot of it.
For example: If I am employed at UPS and I have 2 kids and a spouse, I will have a family plan.
If UPS kicks one of the spouses off the plan, that family now has to pay a family rate plus an individual plan.
That will hit many families very hard.

[elehhhhna]

111. truefact - if my hubs fortune 500 employer forces me on my 40-person employers plan

I will have way worse coverage for way more money. Way worse, way more.

[notadmblnd]

67. I would think that they already have it through their own companies

and they are covered 2x by being on their spouses insurance also. When my husband was alive we both had insurance through the two companies we worked for. He had BCBS and I had an HMO that I can't recall the name of now.

When we had our son in 1993, the hospital asked for both of our insurance cards as I was covered on his BCBS policy also. After he died and I stopped working to raise our son, I lost my HMO, but I still had/have coverage on his BCBS policy. I am lucky, as long as I do not remarry, I will have health insurance via my husband's employer till the day I die. Our son will be covered until he is 26 thanks to Obama care.

[Safetykitten]

39. Oh no...how could that be? Don't they know it's *fill in company* fault.

Nobody could of possibly foreseen this. It was completely unknown. A unknown known, or is it the other way around?

Happy go lucky I got mine Democrats will soon be on the bad end of the stick as this thing inches closer and closer to their Costco/Amazon/what me worry world.

[JTFrog]

90. Oh FFS.

Yea, because Obamacare is going to create idiocracy.

Is this seriously Democratic Underground? Are we really condemning Democrats (Happy go lucky I got mine Democrats) who were lucky enough to be able to put their kids on their health insurance plans as the bad evil folks who are urging us toward idiocracy? The folks who are getting free preventative care like colonoscopies and mammograms? The ones with kids that have preexisting conditions who can't get turned down anymore, and by 2014, neither can the adults.

When supposed Democrats who can't stand anything Obama does start echoing the batshit crazy far right who can't stand anything Obama does, we are in far greater danger of seeing idiocracy come to fruition. How people cannot see that a public option is already being created giving us the path to Universal Healthcare is just beyond me. I've actually looked at the programs being setup in different states. It's a fucking hell of a lot better than the "if you get sick you die" plan that the other controlling party of this country has offered. And folks can scream for third party candidates all day and night long and the results would just hurt the chances of the one party that has actually been trying to make life better for Americans.

Yea, it says Democratic Underground up there in the address bar. But I sure have to look up and check several times a day lately.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

94. Please learn about Obamacare. Learn about the law, then complain

about the PR battle...

Insurance is no longer tied to employment. These people can now join either the state or the federal health care exchanges. And guess what? It's STILL Obamacare.

Of course, the Corporate Media is only going to focusing on these bullshit stories. Doesn't surprise me and shouldn't surprise you.

[former9thward]

96. It is still tied to employment.

If your employer offers health insurance you are not eligible for the exchanges.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

97. WRONG!!! No!! You can go on the exchanges YOURSELF and buy your own

insurance!! Had nothing to do with your employer.

Please read and learn the law!!

That is simply not true. The exchanges are available. In states where there are no exchanges set up, consumers have the abilities to use the federal exchanges to "go shopping" for insurance options, and if they need it--apply for subsidies.

Here's a good conversation on NPR about this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec13/healthfaq_09-18.html

And for the facts, consult the website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview#affordable-coverage

[former9thward]

100. You aren't eligible for the tax credit.

Besides, if your employer offers you coverage, you probably won’t qualify for a tax credit unless your share of the premium (for the lowest-cost plan for individual coverage offered by your employer) is more than 9.5 percent of your modified adjusted gross income, Ms. Quincy explained. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/your-money/health-insurance/a-guide-to-the-new-health-insurance-exchanges.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

For the uninsured or those who don’t get their coverage through work, a key component of the Affordable Care Act will take effect on October 1, when the new Health Insurance Marketplace open for business, allowing millions of Americans to comparison shop for a variety of quality, affordable plans that best meet their health care needs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

115. You can use the subsidies to buy insurance. It's not tied to whether you are employed or not.

If an employer has 50 employees or more, you must cover your employees.
If an employer has 50 employees or less, you do not have to provide for those employees, but you are eligible to apply for credits.

But a key argument that Obama made over and over and over again is that people were losing their insurance coverage when they got laid off, or changed employers or left employment for whatever reason.

NOW, one can leave employment and retain the insurance they already have if they like it. They can--as an individual--go on the Health Care Marketplace (called "The Health Care Exchanges&quot and "go shopping" for another plan if they want to at an affordable, competitive price.

This is a key aspect of the ACA--they will not lose coverage just because they are laid off or lose their jobs or change jobs. They can participate in the exchange.

I work for the federal government. I can either stick with the insurance that I already have; or, I can go and participate in the new exchanges come October 1; OR, I can opt out of the entire system and seek private insurance. None of that is tied to my employment.

This article explains it the best, citing CBO report. The most important take-away: most people who currently are insured through work-based insurance will maintain what they already have. But for businesses who drop employee insurance, those employees do have the option of purchasing health insurance on their own through the Health Insurance Marketplace or "exchanges".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/health-care-reform-will-m_n_1348137.html

[XRubicon]

123. It says because they are eligible for other coverage

They are spouses that prob work and are offered med coverage by their employer. They dont need to go to exchanges.

[Skittles]

127. put your head up your ass and you will think differently, Forgo

yes INDEED

[rdharma]

9. You got that right!

"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."

D. Scott Davis (UPS CEO) is a Republican POS!

Check this out: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/scott-davis.asp?cycle=08

[Safetykitten]

40. And it will be only UPS that will do this. Yes indeedy, only them.

[SugarShack]

105. traditional employer coverage was over long ago. Hubby's private job makes added family to pay full

amount. The company contributes nothing to spouse and family, on the employee. It will be cheaper for me to go to an exchange. I will get a subsidy, like an employee would through work. I can't wait!

[antigop]

106. You sure you will be eligible for a subsidy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101653603

Under the ACA, tax credits to offset the cost of purchasing insurance on the individual market are generally available to employees and their dependents who have a household income of less than $92,200 (400 percent of the current federal poverty line) and who are not offered "affordable" coverage through an employer. Affordable coverage is understood be to coverage that does not exceed 9.5 percent of household income.

But costs attributable to whose coverage cannot exceed 9.5 percent of household income? If the Administration defines affordability for tax credit purposes in the same way it defined the scope of required affordability for purposes of the employer mandate, then it will only look at whether a worker's individual insurance cost is no more than 9.5 percent of household income, regardless of how much more expensive the family plan offered by the employer may be.

In that interpretation, the affordability of a worker's "self-only" coverage would render that worker's dependents ineligible for tax credits.

According to Cheryl Fish-Parcham, deputy director of health policy at Families USA, a patient advocacy group in Washington, if the Administration goes that route, millions of dependents could be stuck "in limbo" between an offer of employer-sponsored coverage that they can't afford and insurance on the individual market, for which they will not be eligible for subsidies.

"That could put families in a very bad position," Fish-Parcham said. "Many families may decide not to buy insurance at all because neither option is affordable for them."

[murielm99]

3. People should get together and find ways to sue.

Have some class action lawsuits. Some creative lawyer could find a way. Health care is a right.

[hack89]

13. Nobody is losing insurance here

15,000 working spouses eligible for coverage by their own employers

UPS is saying these spouses have to go to their own companies for health insurance.

[Safetykitten]

41. So hubby/wife working there gets it, now go find your family stuff elsewhere and by the way...

it will be oh so affordable.

Have fun!

[hack89]

43. "The health law requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children"

as you were saying.

[tridim]

55. Dude, what is your fucking point?

You can only be wrong so many times before everyone starts to wonder why you even bother posting here.

Please quit lying about Obamacare.

[moonlady0623]

61. ok....

In my past life as an employee of a giant corporation, it was always thus. Husband has employee coverage, wife has employee coverage, one of them pays the extra for the kids, or they split it. If husband's employer does not provide insurance, he's under wife's coverage.

This was all determined by the giant corporation, not the government. At the risk of invoking those who cannot allow the lines to be blurred, may I say I would rather not give the government decision making power in every aspect of my life. This program worked.

SO my point is: this is nothing new, nor is it a tragedy.

[marsis]

21. We're a great, wealthy and powerful nation.

I believe we owe it to ourselves that all citizens be covered on medical care.
However, where do you get that it is a "right"?

[murielm99]

24. The National Economic and Social Rights Initiative,

http://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-health-and-health-care

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Amnesty International
and others.

You DON'T think it is a right? Are you sure you are in the right place?

[moonlady0623]

63. That's all very nice and feel good but it's not remotely practical

Particularly when healthcare in this country is profit-driven.

[gopiscrap]

31. I for one feel that Universal Health Care is a right

[moonlady0623]

69. Just curious,

how does a country pay for that when all its money goes to the military industrial complex, bloated salaries and benefits for the congress, and a number of other things?

I frequently debate politics with a Tea Party loved one, and it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to defend any additions to social programs - and I do believe in social programs - when he asks how such a program would be paid for. I am increasingly finding that the whole IT"S THE DEMOCRATS!!! IT"S THE REPUBLICANS!!!! reasoning is just blowing smoke.

Until we all decide to IGNORE the PARTY LINES and think outside those boxes - and decide that

UNITED WE STAND
DIVIDED WE FALL

and open our eyes to see that we are being fed information to maintain - actually to increase - the status quo of US VS THEM, we are being led down the path of tyranny.

I still come to Democratic Underground from time to time searching for a real debate. When I find folks taking off on tangents unrelated to reality, such as this one - the practice of requiring a spouse with access to an employee health care option to not be covered on their plan - I lose hope that some balance will ever be found. Of course UPS put out a statement to make it sound like something completely normal was BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE!!! Good grief. Step one: stop believing everything you read as the TRUTH. Follow the source/follow the $$$$$. Reality is subjective, after all.

[DeSwiss]

85. +1000

got it

[warrant46]

128. Yes, the Road to Hell

Is being paved by a 1% of wealthy narcissists that have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams by lying and obfuscating the facts.

They want it all and they apparently are well on their way to fulfilling their wishes.

[branford]

36. Sue UPS for what?

I'm a civil trial attorney, and I cannot see any causes of action against UPS unless they abrogated the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, which does not appear to be the case in this instance.

Even if courts determined that health care was a constitutionally protected right, it would not necessarily follow that UPS would be required to provide health insurance to the spouses of its employees. Any relief would need to be directed to the government.

The PPACA also does not require that employers provide coverage to spouses of employees, and children are covered until age 26. Additionally, employers need not subsidize the coverage provided to employees, and are even free not to provide any coverage if they are willing to incur the very modest penalty under the law.

If you want things to be different, you must change the law. More importantly, as is evident from the slow and awkward roll-out of the PPACA and Republican obstructionism in Congress, you need to find the funding to pay for your legislative priorities.

As Republicans control the House, and the law is definitely not popular, I am not optimistic.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Fortunately, ObamaCare will be able to pick up the slack.

The fucking assholes may just as well have been planning to cut back anyway, which is EXACTLY why we need the ACA.

[NYC_SKP]

45. Wife worked for FedEx.

Not my wife anymore but the two companies definitely worked under different models.

[jtuck004]

50. "people would likely quit" Highly unlikely In today's job marke, or for the next decadet. n/t

[hack89]

44. The spouses employers will "pick up the slack"

those 15,000 spouses are being cut because they work for companies that are required by law to provide health insurance.

[louis-t]

5. And repugs are cheering.

[Blue_Tires]

6. Seriously? I thought UPS were all Teamsters?

[Cryptoad]

14. I think that means

that they can not compete with ACA for affordable insurance. Funny how they can determine that since no Employers ACA Rates have been released?

[Treant]

19. Maybe they're seeing the Individual Rates?

I can see some projections for mine when I join the Exchange. Since I'm set to save about $350 per month for superior coverage if all holds as shown, it would be dumb not to.

Maybe they see the handwriting on the wall?

I kind of don't see this as a bad thing, it kicks the ball one more tiny step toward single-payer.

[Cryptoad]

34. Yea,,,,I think ACA

is design so that it and Medicare will morph into a single payer!

[gopiscrap]

18. Fucking business assholes shouldn't be allowed to do this

but then again, we shouldn't even be having this discussion. We should have a universal single payer system. But our priorities are all fucked up. We give tax breaks to big business and the rich and we waste our resources on a weapons and items of destruction.

[rdharma]

20. Fugging REPUBLICAN business a-holes!

Check out D. Scott Davis' (UUPS CEO) political contributions!

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/scott-davis.asp?cycle=08

[gopiscrap]

27. Yup I knew that

the problem is that nobody listens come election time.

[DissidentVoice]

22. This is a signal

As if any were needed, that we need SINGLE PAYER!

[RC]

113. Single Payer is not Obama Care.

This is DU, so we must not have any other health care plan other than Obama Care.

Making noises about Single Payer, Universal Health Care is like shouting into the wind and is almost as effective. Wait a few more years for the glow to fade from this latest misdirection, and it will. Hopefully the Republicans will have imploded by then and we can get some reality back into our government. Then we can try again for Single Payer.

[DissidentVoice]

120. Bollocks!

What it's going to take is a literal revolution - people REFUSING to pay the extortionate costs of health care.

No way will all the collection agencies/courts be able to keep up with it all.

The non-system will collapse (as it should have long ago) and a NEW one can be built in its place.

[Blue State Bandit]

23. Can't expect UPS to cover Med Insurance AND destroy USPS at the same time...

It's one or the other!

[rdharma]

29. I was thinking the same thing.

And Chairman and CEO (Scott Davis) can also give himself a couple of more millions raise.

He's having a hard time making ends meet on his measly $10.8 million.

[rdharma]

26. UPS on ALEC Board of Directors

So this should come as no surprise.

Buddies of the Koch Bros.

[blackspade]

32. UPS managment are lying sacks of shit.

[Safetykitten]

37. Lies! All Lies!

[DreamGypsy]

53. Time for UPS employees to decide on a strike

... to reject the management inventions that rising costs are the reason for reducing benefits.

[woodsprite]

56. Our state insurance plan did this quite awhile ago.

Before "Obamacare" was ever thought of. It sucks because it was well known that they didn't pay well, but the benefits would make up for it. Now, not so much.

I'm one of the lucky ones where both hubby and I are covered by the state plans because of our jobs. It means that it's cheaper for them to cover us under a state "family" plan than it is to cover us as 2 single employees. Most other people are not so lucky. If you have a spouse that works for a non-state entity and has full benefits, the state figures you're covered so they can reduce their payout. Losing a job etc, is considered a "life event", so if your spouse loses their job or benefits, you can enroll back in the state plan at any time and not wait for the open enrollment period.

[mainer]

58. This is exactly why ACA will help American businesses

It's one of the reasons automakers were in support of ACA, and one of the reasons Japanese automakers had such an advantage in the marketplace.

It's why ACA was touted to be good for the economy.

[LannyDeVaney]

60. Article points out it applies only to non-union employees **

**

[Hekate]

62. And these are the *holes the GOP wants to sell the US Postal Service to....

[DallasNE]

64. Typical

There is plenty of evidence that the rate of increase for medical costs have slowed down just from the limited implementation of Obamacare. Besides, it is irresponsible for UPS to claim "costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, have made it increasingly difficult to continue providing the same level of health care benefits" without providing any data to back up the claim. Rather, this just fits the corporate model of take backs on employee benefits like the elimination of paid sick days. This statement reeks of dishonesty on the part of UPS.

[DallasNE]

87. Something On The Rate Of Increase Slowing

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/20/2498391/growth-in-health-care-costs-continues-to-decrease-since-passage-of-obamacare/

[cliffordu]

65. Well, then UPS just lost all my business.

[No Vested Interest]

70. +1 nt

[Fearless]

71. +2

[Indykatie]

72. Dropping Spouses With Insurance Elsewhere is Not A New Strategy

Employers have been doing this for years or adding on a spouse surcharge. UPS is using the cover of Obamacare to make changes they probably planned on making anyway. With tightening budgets, many school systems are also employing this tactic as a way to control rising healthcare costs.

[Rebl]

78. Just curious

about what happens to the spouse if they don't work and depend on their spouse for insurance. Do you know if they are allowed to stay on the spouses insurance?

[cstanleytech]

82. In this specific situation the question is largely moot though

because (assuming I am reading it right) the article says that the spouses being dropped have the ability to get the insurance from their own employer thus UPS doesnt wish to cover them.
Hopefully though this wont cost the people more money though because if it does then that lil loophole needs to be closed so companies cant screw their employees over.

[jberryhill]

104. "because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere."

I swear people don't read anymore.

They are not dropping spouses in the situation you describe.

They are ONLY dropping spouses who have another route for coverage.

[BeyondGeography]

75. ...

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[quadrature]

76. insurance company imperialism ...

fight back.

the struggle continues

[Omaha Steve]

79. Union workers aren't included in this

A contract with the boss means so much. Don't YOU wish you had a union too?

[DeSwiss]

86. ....

[antigop]

107. +++THIS++++ nt

[CFLDem]

133. I loved the teamsters when I worked at UPS

because they protected my insurance and education benefits when the bean counters wanted to rip them away.

We threatened to shut down their largest facility and management blinked. And to think without a union our well deserved benefits would be stripped away without a voice in the matter...

[truthisfreedom]

81. Another transparent corporate lie. They did it for more profits. Plain and simple.

Buncha bullshit.

[cstanleytech]

83. " They did it for more profits" Well dohhhhh.

I mean are you really surprised that the people running a company want to make as much profit as they can?
Mind you I am not condoning this if it will hurt the employees but if it doesnt hurt them then I hardly see the problem over the company trying to save money in order to maximize their profits.

[Kablooie]

88. If Obamacare erodes employee insurance the fix is single payer.

The Right's fight against Obamacare may force adoption of single payer in the long run.

[sarcasmo]

91. Kick!

[Loge23]

92. UPS lies

First off, UPS is not changing the benefits of it's union employees who hopefully would shut down the operation if UPS came after them.
They are cutting a benefit to their non-union employees in order to....wait for it.....make more money!

Now regardless of the fact that this move will probably have no effect on the coverage of these spouses (they must be able to be covered at their job, or they won't be cut), the most onerous lie coming out of this is the vicious attack of mis-truths about the ACA - as if there isn't enough of this nonsense already out here in the business community.

UPS made over $1B in after tax net income last quarter - QUARTER!
Their CEO was paid over $10M last year. You can easily, as I did, google this information from numerous sources.

Why shit on their workers? Because they can. Just like the other corporate traitors to the people of this country who call themselves good patriotic Americans.

[Still Sensible]

101. It should be shouted on the rooftops that this has little

to do with the ACA. It is pretty much just a corporate move to reduce their costs. About the only provision I can think of that will likely increase a company's costs is that they can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

[seveneyes]

112. I don't know what the whole story is but I assume the ACA has backup

Any workers who are suddenly told they have to come up with 2x what they have been paying should be getting that money from the government. I can't imagine it working any other way. Especially if this happens to millions of workers. I would think the enforcers of the ACA have those covered that are forced to pay more than they are now.

[kelliekat44]

116. Cousin works for UPS...our family uses the USPS over them. Works just as well and cheaper.

Cousin is single and gets good benefits but working conditions aren't that great. Insurance costs have been rising since before the ACA.

[Brigid]

117. Bullshit. UPS was going to do this anyway.

I can guarantee that. Employers have been chipping away at health coverage for years now.

[alcibiades_mystery]

118. What is the relevant ACA provision that would call for such a move?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

119. Good. This is how it should be ...

... and if ObamaCare/ACA morphs into a single-payer plan, ALL employers could drop ALL employees' health insurance. The companies can still, of course, buy "Cadillac" plans for the executives, but all employees and all non-employees should have access to health care.

Bring on "Socialized Medicine".

[libdem4life]

121. I can't understand why some eloquent Democrat...or 2 or 3 of them...don't contact Harry Reid and

ask permission (as did Cruz...and got it) for "equal time"...and get 21 hours on C-Span to explain the actual law. Charts, bullet points...the benefits. People are uneasy and rightfully so. The Democrats are not getting the press...especially in the light of the 21 hours of "free" advertising for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign. It's very frustrating.

[Pterodactyl]

122. If you're going to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

[olddad56]

126. boycott UPS

[mikekohr]

131. UPS was a corporate sponser of the Contract on America, they shield taxes in Bermuda, UPSPAC one of

biggest PAC's in DC gives overwhelmingly to Republicans.

In 1993 I filed a complaint with the FEC over their tactics of extorting contributions from their supervisors for their PAC. They fought it for 4 years before paying an $8,000.00 fine.

They have repeatedly been fined and lost lawsuits for making their drivers work through lunch.

They "stack the applicant pool" to discriminate against older people in hiring.

Their upper management called union members and Democrats communists in closed door meetings.

I worked there for 16.5 years. Their color is brown because they are full of right-wing shit.