Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/business/ups-to-end-health-benefits-for-spouses-of-some-workers.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...ers.html</a> >>U.P.S., the world’s largest package delivery company, said its decision was prompted in part by “costs associated with” the federal health care law that is commonly called Obamacare. Several health care experts, however, said they believed the company was motivated by a desire to hold down health care costs, rather than because of cost increases under the law.<< What does it say about a country when the government tries to expand healthcare coverage, and business push back in order to make even more money, that the response of many is, "That lousy government!" Of course, as has been noted, there's really no cause and effect between Obamacare and businesses cutting back on their coverage. It just makes for a very convenient excuse for them as they insist they can't afford it. For a Christian nation, we really do have an irrepressible love of money.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer What does it mean? It means that we are foolish to have our employers provide our health insurance coverage.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It really is not an unreasonable decision, but blaming it on Obamacare IS unreasonable. If a spouse has insurance coverage available through their own employer, why should they be expected to assume the costs involved? It really comes down to one business being expected to subsidize another, which really doesn't make much sense.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Businesses are just using Obamacare as an excuse to cut benefits and hours, i.e. expenses, in a way they couldn't before because it would have been a PR nightmare. Are they going to cut insurance but pay their employees the money that they used to use for benefits? Of course not. Are they going to cut benefit expenses and hire more people? No way. They are going to cut benefits and hours and take all the money they are saving and give themselves nice bonuses and give shareholders bigger returns. And that's why you don't let for profit businesses provide something as essential as health care.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It means that we are foolish to have our employers provide our health insurance coverage.<< DING! DING! DING!
Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/starbucks-worker-benefits-obamacare_n_3818870.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...870.html</a> In the meantime, another company is awesome. >>"Other companies have announced that they won't provide coverage for spouses; others are lobbying for the cut-off to be at 40 hours. But Starbucks will continue maintaining benefits for partners and won't use the new law as excuse to cut benefits or lower benefits for its workers," Schultz said in a telephone interview.<< Starbucks, I am guaranteeing you at least two dozen coffee purchases in the Disneyland resort when you open shop. Don't spend it all in one place.
Originally Posted By Labuda Damn, I may have to start drinking hot chocolate or some of their tea regularly... as is, I've only ever even walked into a Starbucks a handful of times since I'm NOT a coffee drinker.
