UPS Hit By ObamaCare: Forced To Alter Insurance Plans

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

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 (NYSE: 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.

 

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

 

Kaiser said the Obama administration would not respond directly to UPS' statements, but said that employer coverage increased when Massachusetts implemented its own version of the health overhaul.

 

"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.

 

Earlier this week, Forever 21 Inc. became the latest national company to cut employee hours to counter the impact of Obamacare, according to Policymic.com.

 

Atlanta-based AAA Parking, a parking garage operator that employs more than 1,600 companywide, moved about half of its 500 full-time hourly employees to part-time status on April 15, in response to the law.

 

http://m.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/08/ups-to-drop-15000-spouses-from.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_atlanta+%28Atlanta+Business+Chronicle%29&r=full

Edited August 21, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

According to Kaiser, UPS (NYSE: 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.

 

So they'll still have insurance, just not through their spouse's employer? Unless I'm misunderstanding this particular point, I don't see the issue here. And truthfully, tying employment to health insurance is absurd to begin with. If the PPACA unintentionally breaks up that kind of union then we'll all be better for it in the long run.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[Jules 98]

Nothing to see here folks.

 

Barack Hussein Obama is looking out for all of our best interests and I am sure he is monitoring the situation to the best of his ability.

 

Feel safe, listen to the government and never worry about anything. They got it all covered.

 

Edited August 21, 2013 by Jules

[blotsfan 2,112]

I like how the sheep is watching fox news while you're saying their viewpoint

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

So they'll still have insurance, just not through their spouse's employer? Unless I'm misunderstanding this particular point, I don't see the issue here. And truthfully, tying employment to health insurance is absurd to begin with. If the PPACA unintentionally breaks up that kind of union then we'll all be better for it in the long run.

 

 

What? If a man has a great job and great insurance... His wife shouldn't be covered under that plan if they have any kind of insurance available to them through their own job? That's absurd. As a husband and wife, isn't that kind of part of the deal? You take care of each other, you do the best you can to support the other one? Yet you think it's appropriate to force them to have different insurances where one spouse will have much greater coverage than the other?

 

Seems counter-productive and people should be able to have whichever insurance they want. That's not possible with the prices skyrocketing thanks to the ACA.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I didn't say she shouldn't be covered. And the government isn't forcing the married coupled to do anything in this situation. That's entirely up to the employer. You really think UPS exhausted every possible avenue before reaching this conclusion? Doubt it.

 

For what it's worth, a family member of mine has worked for FedEx for something like 30 years. He's never had the ability to add his wife to his plan. She gets insurance through her employer. Never heard them complain about it. Probably because they're grateful they have access and can afford it.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I didn't say she shouldn't be covered. And the government isn't forcing the married coupled to do anything in this situation. That's entirely up to the employer. You really think UPS exhausted every possible avenue before reaching this conclusion? Doubt it.

 

For what it's worth, a family member of mine has worked for FedEx for something like 30 years. He's never had the ability to add his wife to his plan. She gets insurance through her employer. Never heard them complain about it. Probably because they're grateful they have access and can afford it.

 

Making prices raise to the point where employers have to make moves like this is forcing their hand, absolutely. You can't keep raping people and expect them to take it forever.

 

It's unfortunate, but the warnings about the ACA are coming to fruition. I am sure UPS won't be the last major company to put these kind of restrictions in their benefit packages.

[Jules 98]

I like how the sheep is watching fox news while you're saying their viewpoint

 

I aim to please blots.

 

Edited August 22, 2013 by Jules

[Jules 98]

Making prices raise to the point where employers have to make moves like this is forcing their hand, absolutely. You can't keep raping people and expect them to take it forever.

It's unfortunate, but the warnings about the ACA are coming to fruition. I am sure UPS won't be the last major company to put these kind of restrictions in their benefit packages.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2013 by Jules

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Making prices raise to the point where employers have to make moves like this is forcing their hand, absolutely. You can't keep raping people and expect them to take it forever.

 

It's unfortunate, but the warnings about the ACA are coming to fruition. I am sure UPS won't be the last major company to put these kind of restrictions in their benefit packages.

 

Health care costs have been on the decline since 2006. The PPACA hasn't changed that. Outside of obvious publicity stunts and political rhetoric, where's the proof that PPACA is causing costs to skyrocket? That "fact" is repeated ad nauseam in political debate and almost always without evidence. Where is it?

 

Moreover, there are some issues with PPACA implementation in many states because many GOP states are blocking the reforms that take place at the state level (most notably the exchanges). States actually trying to implement the legislation and make it work are having great results. Premiums in California are already on the decline due to increased competition from insurers on the exchange. Costs in GOP states, though? They haven't changed or they've increased and it seems to stem primarily from blocked implementation. Which has been the plan with them all along. GOP Governors and legislators are talking up a disaster while they simultaneously CAUSE the disaster. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course it's going to fail if you actively take measures to ensure its failure.

 

PPACA wasn't the first tax increase and regulatory measure that businesses have endured and it certainly won't be the last. Can we stop pretending like it's armageddon for private business?

 

One last thing--for what it's worth, the PPACA is for all intents and purposes the same healthcare reform proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in the early 90s in response to Clinton's proposal of a single-payer system. What has changed since the early 90s that makes this legislation so deadly for the country? Because it was passed by Democrats? Because Republicans opposed it entirely and stand to lose decades of future elections if it's successful? Imagine if Medicare, SS, etc had passed with the same kind of opposition as the PPACA. The GOP wouldn't exist right now. And they haven't even proposed an alternative plan yet! Nothing! All they're basically telling us is "Obamacare is bad. We don't have an alternative. We can't think up a better system of reform. Just trust us that it's bad and we should defund and repeal it."

 

You know what's even worse? The GOP is actively trying to persuade low-income uninsured individuals--the EXACT demographic this legislation was designed to help the most--to NOT participate in the exchanges that will drive costs down. Stop the politics for a minute and think about how fucked up that is. "Hey man, look, I know you don't have insurance. And I know you need that insurance for yourself and your children. And the exchanges are going to make it affordable for you, but I'm asking you not to buy insurance. Do I have a better plan? Well, no... But my political viability depends on you acting against you and your kids best interests. Thanks."

 

F4E, the first two paragraphs are a response to your post. Everything else is me ranting to myself. This post was way longer than I intended but this "debate" surrounding the PPACA is insane on so many levels that it makes my head hurt.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Hold on to your butts, people. Lots of info in this post.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/kentucky-obamacare_n_3801054.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

 

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.

 

The man is impressed. "This beats Obamacare I hope," he mutters to one of the workers.

 

“Do I burst his bubble?” wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn't. If he signs up, it's a win-win, whether he knows he's been ensnared by Obamacare or not.

 

This anecdote is important. People LOVE most of the provisions of the PPACA. What they dislike is the abstraction of the PPACA created by the GOP when the legislation was being drafted and debated. Need proof people love the provisions inside the PPACA? Cool, KFF already did the work:

 

For anyone having trouble understanding that graph, I'll sum it up: >75% of people like the insurance subsidies; 80% like the idea of exchanges; and 88% like the tax credits provided to businesses to assist them in paying for health coverage for their employees. These are the core provisions of the legislation.

 

Basically, people mostly love the PPACA. They just don't know it.

 

And all the claims of businesses shifting to part-time workers due to the PPACA taxes and regulation? Horse hockey. Per FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data):

As you can see from the graph, full-time employment has increased by 5% while part-time employment has increased by only 2%.

 

Need more proof? This one was created by Goldman Sachs.

 

As you can see, part-time employment skyrocketed at the beginning of the recession for obvious reasons. I'm sure you can imagine why. But since the recession? Nothing but decline. So much for that "part-time jobs are skyrocketing to Obamacare" myth.

 

EDIT: Remember when I said the Heritage Foundation essentially proposed what is now the PPACA back in 1993? Boom.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Phailadelphia