Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
4. You are wrong.
Sun Sep 29, 2013, 10:48 AM
Sep 2013

UPS is not ending their employee insurance. UPS is ending insurance ONLY for employees spouses if their spouses are employed and insurance is provided by the spouse's employer.

What that means is that there is no more double dipping by drs and hospitals.

I remember when my husband was alive, we both worked. He had insurance via GM, I had insurance through my employer. I was covered by both blue cross blue shield and my HMO which was HAP. When I went to the hospital to give birth, they wanted both of our insurers info when either one would have covered the birth.

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
5. they've been putting more of the costs on the employee. However, this was happening long before ACA
Sun Sep 29, 2013, 10:49 AM
Sep 2013
 

bunnies

(15,859 posts)
7. And offering shittier coverage.
Sun Sep 29, 2013, 10:53 AM
Sep 2013

The last job I had wanted $70 a week for what was basically a catastrophic plan. Im convinced companies do this specifically to discourage people from buying into it.

 

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)
14. some form of nationally managed health care had to occur. You may not like ACA
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 06:10 PM
Sep 2013

but in the world economic scene, the U.S. needed to take health care out of the employment picture. That is the end game--just so you know.

Lint Head

(15,064 posts)
9. Corporations are always looking for ways to screw the employee. There would still be child labor
Sun Sep 29, 2013, 12:12 PM
Sep 2013

and people being paid very little if laws had not been past to prevent it in this country. Other countries, who do not have these laws, prove that fact. Large companies have been required to offer some kind of minimum health care option for years. The bigger companies eventually started using their 'golden' health care options as an incentive benefits to employ valued recruits. Now the choice will be up to the person and the insurance company/corporation ass kissing is in jeopardy. Insurance companies love having a captive audience in a large employee corporation. They can offer incentives and lower rates because they get the advantage of more people who pay by withholding from a pay check. High volume pool. Now ACA turns that around to give an individual that choice. The catch is that opting out will cost you from a tax perspective because the burden of paying for the care of someone who has no insurance will now fall on the people who opt out. That is what the Tea Baggers who love Ayn Rand don't like.

We've always had to pay for people who need care and cannot pay their doctor or hospital. The doctors and hospitals pass the increase of rates on to the people who 'do' pay.

Lint Head

(15,064 posts)
11. Thanks! I worked in a cotton mill as a youth and the history they have of subjugating people
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 03:42 AM
Sep 2013

stuck with me. My Father lost a lot of his hearing working in a textile mill his whole adult life. He was born before the depression and suffered the death of his Dad at a young age. He was an FDR Democrat.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
12. Huh? Since when were companies required to provide health insurance in the past?
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 04:12 AM
Sep 2013

Maybe in Hawaii, and certain states but that's not how most states work.

What in the world are you speaking of?

Lint Head

(15,064 posts)
13. If you have ever worked in the Human Resources department of a corporation you would know the law.
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 06:07 PM
Sep 2013

Last edited Mon Sep 30, 2013, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

If you have over a certain amount of employees you are suppose to give them options to get health insurance. The was the result of a 'sale job' from right wing lobbyists to marry corporations to employment. When HMO's came about corporations were required to offer an HMO option. The corporation is not "required" to give it to you. You have the right to refuse it. Please use Google. I cannot hold your hand.

Why do you think Republicans are using the talking point, "Employers are dropping people from their health care plan all over the nation because of ACA."?

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
15. I'm not finding anything that confirms what you are asserting.
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 07:22 PM
Sep 2013

Do you have any link or documentation or even the name of the law?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The ACA had to happen