My husbands company had their yearly benefits meeting

[Robyn66]

And after about an hour of telling everyone about how BAD Obamacare was, they said that by 2015 they would no longer be able to afford to provide medical benefits to their employees. Now of course they would never DREAM of trying to influence how ANYONE should vote, but if there was only some way Obamacare could be repealed.......

Just sickening. In our case, I am not the least bit worried because my part time job will be full time within a year so I will be able to be the one providing the benefits. But I feel for the rest of the 300 people in the company that doesn't pay that great to start with. I am assuming that they could join one of the health care exchanges which would be probably better than our coverage now. Even though they SAY we have a Cadillac plan I can tell you its NOTHING to write home about when it costs 70.00 to go to the GP for a sick visit. This company is in Massachusetts but they are a Mining Company based in the mid west.

[hedgehog]

1. We got the message about being a Cadillac plan in our benefits brochure.

My understanding is the the tax based on the cost of the program, not on the benefits package! I wonder how many sweetheart deals there are out there! Supposedly our company is self insured and Blue Cross is the administrator. We had some problem with our coverage, and Blue Cross referred us to another company that administers the policy for Blue Cross!

[SheilaT]

2. There is something incredibly disingenuous about this kind of thing.

First off, the Affordable Health Care Act (I think that's the correct name) should only impact a company's coverage in a positive way.

I have a number of questions here: First of all, exactly what health insurance company is this company's plan with?
Do the executives have a different and better plan?
How much of the cost of premiums does the company pay, compared to the premium cost for the employees?
What are your copays and exactly what is actually covered? (I once read through the documents for the health care coverage through my husband's company, and was horrified at how much was not covered.)

I keep on reading here on DU about individuals getting back a bunch of money because now, the health care companies are required to use I think 80% of the premiums to actually pay for health care coverage, and return any unused monies to their members. In some cases it goes back to the individuals, in others back to the companies that are paying the premiums.

In short, my BS detector suggests that the company is doing this to persuade employees to vote for Romney, but are trying to pretend it's in an indirect way, when in reality they want all the benefits that will accrue to them as owners if Romney is elected.

[Robyn66]

3. Ok here goes :)

Yes, the Affordable Care Act is correct, I put it in my post because that was what my husband's company referred to it as. (very disrespectful)

The plan is with United Health Care, my husband is paid bi weekly, insurance is billed 150/week so 300/pay period. We have a 1000 deductible regular doc visits are 70 and specialists are 140

The company is crazy right wing and is always trying to pressure the employees in to supporting right wing candidates. They even said it was their policy not to recognize same sex marriage or couples and refuses to give them family plan insurance and I don't think that is even legal in Massachusetts since gay marriage is legal.

These people bought the company 3 years ago and it went from a company where they paid 100 percent for our insurance and it was excellent insurance and the owner of the company genuinely cared about their employees and knew them and their families to this major corporation where the employees are just numbers and they are looking for ways to cut costs and screw the employees constantly.

[SheilaT]

4. Makes me wonder if Bain is involved in

the buy out. Unfortunately, the crazy right wing is all alike in this case.

Your insurance costs are unconscionably high. It sounds as if the company has deliberately put the employees into a crappy plan. As for the not giving legally married same sex couples the family plan, if anyone in that company is affected by their refusal to do so, the state should have an Insurance Commissioner or someone like that. Contact that office and see what they say.

[Robyn66]

7. Here is the ultra obnoxious part

They flat out said that in 2015 it will be more cost effective to pay the $2000 fine per employee for not providing medical benefits than providing them.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. Impact to coverage may be positive for the employee

But impact to costs will most likely be negative, at least in the near future, meaning it should be expected that premiums will go up.

[GeorgeGist]

6. They got the 2015 memo.