14
   

Which Companies have dropped their insurance plans so far?

 
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  6  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 04:33 pm
After inquiring with Trader Joe's I received this interesting reply
Hello Steve,

Thank you for writing to us. It's possible you have been misled, at least to some degree, by the headlines in some articles regarding our reasons for implementing the ACA in January. We'd like to take this opportunity to clarify some facts.
For over 77% of our Crew Members there is absolutely no change to their healthcare coverage provided by Trader Joe's.

The ACA brings a new potential player into the arena for the acquisition of health care. Stated quite simply, the law is centered on providing low cost options to people who do not make a lot of money. Somewhat by definition, the law provides those people a pretty good deal for insurance...a deal that can't be matched by us-or any company. However, an individual employee (we call them Crew Member) is only able to receive the tax credit from the exchanges under the act if we do not offer them insurance under our company plan.

Perhaps an example will help. A Crew Member called in the other day and was quite unhappy that she was being dropped from our coverage unless she worked more hours. She is a single mom with one child who makes $18 per hour and works about 25 hours per week. We ran the numbers for her. She currently pays $166.50 per month for her coverage with Trader Joe's. Because of the tax credits under the ACA she can go to an exchange and purchase insurance that is almost identical to our plan for $69.59 per month. Accordingly, by going to the exchange she will save $1,175 each year...and that is before counting the $500 we will give her in January.
While we understand her fear of change, at her income level this is a big benefit that we will help her achieve.

Clearly, there are others who will go to the exchanges and will be required to pay more. That is usually because they have other income and typically a spouse who had a job with no benefits and they do not qualify for the subsidies under the ACA. One example of that we had yesterday was the male Crew Member who worked an average of 20 hours per week but had a spouse who is a contract consultant who makes more than $200,000 per year. The Crew Member worked for the medical benefits and unfortunately for them they are likely to have to pay more because of their real income.
We understand how important healthcare coverage is to our Crew Members and we are pleased to be able to provide and support this program.

We do hope this information helps, and we appreciate your interest in Trader Joe's.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 06:33 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
blueveinedthrobber wrote:

For over 77% of our Crew Members there is absolutely no change to their healthcare coverage provided by Trader Joe's.


I wish they had stated why there would be no change to their coverage. Cynical little me considers the possibility that 77% might be ineligible for coverage anyway.
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 08:37 am
@roger,
I don't think so but I emailed them back.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 11:21 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
You're probably right. These thoughts come from just a few people and business that were very deceptive in their way of stating facts.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 09:16 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
BOOKMARK.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 08:52 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Yeah, Baldimo, Joe's totally right. Obamacare has impeccable Republican credentials. It was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, the ultraright think tank. It was implemented by Mutt Romney when he was our detested former governor, the one thing he did right, which he subsequently disowned in one of his monumental flipflops, until he sort of owned it again, before he rejected it again. It is, however, working out pretty well in MA. We;ve got the fewest uninsured of any state.

Of course, if the right wing ever dropped its ideological blinders for a nanosecond and looked at the real world, they would find that every other first world country and most second world ones as well has some form of single-payer medical system. EVERY SINGLE ONE, EVERY ONE, costs around HALF as much per capita as our mess, provides better patient satisfaction, produces better public health metrics, has longer life expectancies, and has a better doctor-patient ratio. Something like sixty percent of all personal bankruptcies in the US are due to catastrophic health expenses, and about sixty percent of those are people who HAVE health insurance, whose companies ration what they will pay for and leave them out in the cold (when you talk about rationing health care, it's not Obama that does it--it's the PRIVATE health system we suffer under). That doesn't happen in single-payer countries. This is not airy-fairy fantasy, it's the way the real world has actually run for the past 50 years, or in the case of Germany, the last hundred and fity almost. It's been proven. It works. Just get off the case of Obamacare and let it work.


You do understand that Obamacare is not a single payer healthcare initiative, right?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 08:56 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Don't conservatives think this is a good thing? After all, what's the difference between a company giving checks to workers to buy health insurance and, say, the government handing out vouchers to parents to pay for private school? It's all about choice and the power of the marketplace, right? Isn't that the sort of thing that conservatives want?


Is there a handbook out there with this stuff in it? I'd sure like to know what I am supposed to think before I actually think it. Sure would make my life easier.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 09:04 am
Will Your Employer Drop Coverage Under Obamacare?

The promise from President Obama was straightforward enough: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away," he said.

That was four years ago, during the build-up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Today, just months before several major provisions of the law take full-effect, many Americans still aren't sure whether to believe him.

And for good reason. Wildly conflicting predictions are being reported almost daily.

Last month, the consulting firm Towers Watson released a survey in which 98 percent of employers reported they will keep "active medical plans for 2014 and 2015." But as the conservative Heritage Foundation points out, the same study found that 92 percent of employers said they would likely change their health insurance options by 2018, the year the law's "Cadillac" tax on high-cost plans takes effect, with 47 percent saying they "anticipated significant or transformative change."

Meanwhile, a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers found that in Massachusetts -- where the model for the federal plan was enacted seven years ago -- employer-sponsored coverage rose rather than fell. "The number of people covered by insurance through the workplace increased by about 1 percentage point, running counter to the rest of the nation, which saw employer-based insurance decline by 5.7 percentage points," the report said.

But will that hold true on a national scale? Maybe not. Many companies are heavily considering forcing retirees and part-time workers onto the exchanges after the ACA kicks in, according to a survey by the National Business Group on Health.

And just last month, UPS announced that it will stop offering coverage to the spouses of 15,000 workers because they will be able to find coverage elsewhere. The company wrote in a memo to employees that 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."

Whichever way it goes, the stakes are high, as analysis published Monday in the journal Health Affairs points out. Tom Buchmueller, a professor of risk management and insurance at the University of Michigan, explains why in four simple bullet points:

"The [health reform] provisions affecting employers directly ... all increase the likelihood that firms will offer coverage."

But if that doesn't happen, "a reduction in employer coverage might increase federal outlays if it led to more workers' receiving premium tax credits in the exchanges or enrolling in Medicaid."

"If the employers that dropped coverage had relatively less healthy workers, that change would worsen the exchange risk pool and drive up average premiums as a result."

"Finally, the Affordable Care Act was presented to the American public as a reform that would not seriously disrupt existing employer-sponsored coverage. To the approximately 170 million Americans who have such coverage and are for the most part satisfied with it, a large-scale dropping of coverage by employers would be an unwelcome surprise."

So what's Buchmueller's prediction? When it comes to large firms, very little will change, he said. For smaller firms, all bets are off. To find out why, the NewsHour spoke with Buchmueller late last week.

Interview can be found at link. It's interesting.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 09:44 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Is there a handbook out there with this stuff in it? I'd sure like to know what I am supposed to think before I actually think it. Sure would make my life easier.

Think whatever you like. Are you saying that you don't like the fact that companies are paying their employees to buy health insurance on the exchanges than providing health insurance themselves? If not, why not?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 10:28 am
Quote:
in general, Americans oppose defunding Obamacare by a plurality of 44 percent to 38 percent.

Opposition to defunding increases sharply when the issue of shutting down the government and defaulting is included. In that case, Americans oppose defunding 59 percent to 19 percent,


Keep screwing around with Obamacare at your great political peril, tea partyites.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 07:43 pm
@MontereyJack,
Cherrypicking biased surveys

I can cite a survey that shows the majority of uninsured Americans believe that Obamacare will make their lives worse.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Sep, 2013 01:00 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cherrypicking biased surveys

I can cite a survey that shows the majority of uninsured Americans believe that Obamacare will make their lives worse.

It's amazing, in my opinion, when someone, who is uninsured, thinks that health insurance would make his life (sic!) worse.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Sep, 2013 05:51 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Finn said he "could" show such a survey, but he chose not to. I have no idea if such a survey exists or not, but I can understand the rationale. Folks who live paycheck to paycheck without insurance pray they never get sick. When they do their only option (currently) is to find a clinic or an emergency room. Clinics are far and few between, so it usually means a trip to the ER.

Under the new law premiums of up to 9.5% of your income is considered "affordable". The law was intended to expand Medicaid eligibility so that people living paycheck to paycheck without insurance would qualify for Medicaid. Unfortunately, many states have chosen not to do that. Medicaid is a state-run program, supplemented by the Feds. The states determine their own eligibility limits - some of which decided not to take the candy offered by the Feds to pay for the first three years of increased costs. So, you're left with a group of people who are looking at 9.5% of their income being deemed "affordable" when they're already trying to get by on what they earn.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Sep, 2013 05:56 am
@JPB,
What happens after 3 years? Who foots the bill for the insurance after that? I'm sure those states that didn't move forward with the exchanges are going to be better off after the 3 years then the states that used them. If they Fed's are only helping with the first 3 years, who picks up the tab after that?
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Sep, 2013 06:06 am
@Baldimo,
The states do, of course, which is why those states (primarily red states who don't like to pay for social services of any kind) have chosen not to join the program. It's a philosophical difference on the proper role of government. Should the Feds support the cost of every American (single payer), should it fall to the states, or is it not a role of government at all? People differ in how they would answer that question. I come down on the side of single payer at the federal level, but I understand that others disagree and they tend to be living in red states.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Sep, 2013 06:14 am
@JPB,
I suppose that I'm caught in our system: visits to an ER/ED/A&E are covered by the (private and/or mandatory) health insurgence here (and ER's in Germany are for medical emergencies; for other medical need, there's always an out-of-hours service by GPs and specialists).

In the mandatory system, we pay 8.2 %, the employer 7.3%.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Sep, 2013 06:27 am
@McGentrix,
If your friend could hire 12 more people and I assume make more money as a result, not doing it because of govt paperwork is a poor excuse. And, I doubt the 'paperwork' is that excessive. Bottom line, workers need health insurance.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Sep, 2013 06:28 am
@Kolyo,
That's true and not Obama's fault.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Sep, 2013 06:29 am
@Baldimo,
If you're talking about the congressman from Arkansas and his 'little' helpers, that is a poor reference.
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Sep, 2013 06:34 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

The states do, of course, which is why those states (primarily red states who don't like to pay for social services of any kind) have chosen not to join the program.


I heard the federal government was going to continue to pick up 90% of the tab.
 

Related Topics

Need a Hardship Exemption! HELP! - Question by Haxxtastic
About Health Insurance - Question by easyinsureme
Major Problems with ObamaCare! - Discussion by Miller
Mental health (in the USA and elsewhere) - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Health Care Compromise - Discussion by livinglava
Do I need a dentist? - Question by nursernfemale
I am SO mad at Obamacare - Discussion by chai2
Looking for good international health insurance - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2020 at 10:44:53