On the march to single payer
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. […]
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.
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.
Gee, I hope none of those spouses get cancer, because then Obama would be a murderer just like Mitt.
No, UPS would –because they chose greed over people in need.
OBAMAPHONE!
That’s the beauty of fascism. The private sector gets all the responsibilities and blame but no power.
OBAMAPHONE! Indeed!
UPS is just selfish. I mean, if those fat-cat executives trimmed their salaries by 50%, they could easily pay for spousal coverage.
#magicalthinking
Taking pay away from top execs and their aides in private sector = Fair and long overdue.
Taking pay away from top execs and their aides in public sector = “Brain drain!” and executive action exemptions from national legislation
Feature/Bug?
If you need “the best and the brightest” in the public sector, that tells you the public sector is doing something it shouldn’t be doing.
Such as “paying more for critical skills”? (With the guy what has the money deciding whether it is actually “critical”… see also the CEO of “Young America’s Foundation”, who makes more than Obama’s official salary.)
( I won’t get into the dozens of liberal organizations that do the same thing, but it is common enough that Aaron Sorkin lampshaded it in “The American President”, and – as much as I despise the man and everything he stands for – even I won’t argue that George Soros doesn’t have the right to decide how he spends his own money.)
Private money can be spent however the holder wants. Public money needs to be spent with enormous discretion (not that I’m claiming this will ever be true, just how it should be).
Oh, I’m agreeing with you. That was my point. If people have some innate urge to help their fellow man by trying to run their lives (even if by proxy through a malleable boss who doesn’t have time to read all the briefing papers), they should be willing to sacrifice for fulfilling that urge by giving something up. That was what our Founders had in mind when they got their fellow farmers and merchants to give up their livelihoods to go represent their neighbors.
In Texas, the legislators only get paid part time, and severely limited staff, but I’d bet that they are the equal of any DC twerps in similar situations.
The moment we started having full-time politicians was the moment that the fuse was lit, because when you get paid for having a job, you feel guilty enough to want to look busy whenever the boss is looking, and the only way legislators can look busy is to hold lots of meetings and pass lots of new laws, which means they will glom onto anyone with a CAUSE.
Private sector gets to pay more, because they not only expect results, they (sometimes) get them. Any yahoo off the street can push a broom, but it takes a specific skill set to run a complicated and interconnected organization at a profit. I only wish we had someone like that running for President…
I was agreeing with you in my own poorly-phrased way.