Darden: We have to cancel health insurance for 1000 part-timers because of Obamacare

[Justice]

> http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/21/darden-we-have-to-cancel-health-insurance-for-1000-part-timers-because-of-obamacare/ any


Darden says that its policy has been to provide health insurance for PT workers working over 30 hours a week. However, about 1000 PT workers below 30 hours a week continued to be covered (apparently out of the goodness of the company's heart).

A few days ago, Darden threw these 1000 workers off the company healthcare and told them to go to the exchanges. It claims it is unable to offer insurance to these
workers any more and blames the ACA.

What you glean from the story and the company's press release is that it offered "limited" health insurance and now cannot continue it because it does not meet the ACA minimum requirements. The story doesn't add up because it did not provide different coverage to this group of workers before - they had the same coverage as the workers with more than 30 hours. What is really happening is that the company is deciding not to provide the ACA-approved coverage to this group of 1000 workers.

One of the workers is a family member, with decades of time at the company. No notice, no suggestion that they start working over 30 hours.

The exchanges may work for some - but not in a state where there is little competition on the exchange. The insurance is unaffordable. Big problem.

[Mass]

11. Sure, as insurance companies are not able to sell worthless contracts anymore.

It would be interesting to see how much the contract covered and how much workers paid for it (including company part if any).

[Sgent]

25. Yes but usually "limited"

plans are not catastrophic in nature -- they are usually plans that cover 3-4 office visits a year, minor injuries, and have 25,000 - 50,000 maximum annual (or lifetime) payouts.

Those plans can no longer be called "health insurance" under the ACA -- and that's a good thing.

[moriah]

39. And single-income families.

Have two friends who have posted on FB, both of them have spouses that work in state government (one in the schools, one for DHS). Premiums are higher than 9.5% of family income for family coverage, and premiums went up this year (what I keep reminding folks is that premiums went up every year I had insurance). But they're lower than that for the worker only, so it's "affordable".

Then they aren't eligible for subsidies, when they're under 400% of the poverty line.

[moriah]

47. I put "affordable" in quotes because that's what the legislation deems it as...

... based on the worker's premium, not on the family premium. When they're trying to insure a family, it causes the well-known "family glitch".

A family of four on a teacher's salary in Arkansas makes about $40-45k. That's well into subsidy range. The plans on the exchange, with subsidies, are cheaper than what they would have to pay with their company insurance to insure the family. In Arkansas the teachers were not able to negotiate a good rate at all, and there was an emergency session to try to allocate more funding when the premiums went up by 50% this year. (Something stank about that IMHO because state employees have the same benefits but the negotiated rate for that group was much less -- though still making family coverage more than 9.5% of the worker's salary.)

They won't have to pay penalties, but they're left out in the cold insofar as having the access they should based on their incomes alone to affordable health care.

Edit to add: just to clarify, I'm very much for the ACA -- Arkansas accepted the Medicaid expansion, and I'll be "getting mine". I'm determined to speak up for those who are left out in the cold, and I'm glad we're discussing the areas that need modification so that it is truly providing affordable coverage for everyone.

[kelliekat44]

40. If workers contributed shouldn't they see an increase in their pay checks since no more

contributions will be necessary? Once they see the pay increase perhaps they will be able to get better coverage and qualify for subsidies.

[Mass]

41. They should.

[Caretha]

17. Bottom line

this insurance company looses 1000 piss poor policies it was collecting premiums on every month. Boohoo

[Caretha]

49. Scuse me

I'm a single woman over 60. Insurance quoted to me, which of course I could not afford was $903 per month. Now my insurance is $246 per month.

No one cried or worried about me. My daughter has a 4 plex in Oakland, small but quaint. She charges $950 per month. Maybe they need to downsize.

Edited to add:

PS: I'm so tired of hearing the friend of my mother-in-law's neighbors uncle's friend stories I could puke. Talk about yourself or it ain't true.

[Caretha]

52. You are definitely lost

in California or where I'm not sure, but take your "friend of a friend" story elsewhere.

When you want to talk about you ....we'll see

Otherwise everything you say is heresy.

[Squinch]

54. I think what is beginning to emerge with these "I had great cheap coverage and now I

have to pay a lot" stories is generally in line with that CBS story. The one with the woman who said she had coverage for $50 and now was going to have to pay $500 (or some such.)

The true facts of that case were these: The insurance she used to have paid absolutely nothing. No hospitalization, no prescriptions, no office visits, nothing. She would get something like $50 toward hospitalization. The new plan that she thought was $500 was actually around $200 with tax breaks. This plan was about 4% of her income, and it covered basically everything with a reasonable deductible and copays. It also took the burden off the taxpayer if she should have an illness or accident.

She could, equally, choose to take the $95 penalty for remaining without insurance. She would be just as well off as she was with her old plan that paid for nothing and she'd have about $500 extra in her pocket at the end of the year.

No one will be paying more than 9.5% of income out of pocket maximum. That's with some catastrophic event, you still won't pay more than 9.5% out of pocket.

So yes, there are some who will be less well off. But it is beginning to look like it will be far fewer than we are being led to believe.

[Squinch]

62. What is the 8% figure you are referring to? I didn't mention 8% about anything.

[wellstone dem]

2. If Darden would give the workers the money they used to pay to insurance companies

The workers then could use it to buy insurance on the exchange. Without this, it is just Darden using ACA to justify its actions, which will put more money it is own pockets and less in the workers pockets.

[brush]

20. BINGO!

You hit it on the head. The companies are just using the ACA as an excuse to pocket more money.

Those policies they were providing out of the "goodness of their hearts" can easily be bested on the ACA exchange with better coverage and for less than what the "generous" company was paying their insurance company.

So many of these greedy companies are doing this and blaming Obamacare.

[Squinch]

55. That should have been written into the law.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. If X amount of money is insufficient to purchase a policy

for a bulk purchaser such as Darden I doubt that same amount will mean much to the individual buyer. I also doubt Darden is cancelling out of spite. They were previously not required to offer these policies; they did it as an incentive to their employees.

[Brigid]

3. And I have to boycott Darden restaurants.

[ourfuneral]

4. Darden doesn't HAVE to do it

Darden's greed compels it.

[Chan790]

5. I have to not eat in your crappy restaurants.

A list of Darden Restaurant chains:

• Red Lobster
• Olive Garden
• LongHorn Steakhouse
• Bahama Breeze
• Seasons 52
• The Capital Grille
• Eddie V's
• Yard House

Seriously, you should have watched the beat-job Americans put on Papa John's for denying insurance to their employees and learned your lesson. You didn't.

[Iris]

6. Yeah - they won't be hard to avoid. n/t

[Mass]

9. Thanks for the link. This will make it easier to boycott them.

[indepat]

21. The boycott has spread to this household with vengeance

[davekriss]

61. I wouldn't be caught dead in any of those restaurants

I refuse to eat in chain restaurants where the menu is designed by the board room.

[Mass]

7. hotair? If I wanted to read hotair, I would go to freerepublic.com

[geek tragedy]

10. they're decloaking like crazy. nt

[Coexist]

19. thank you - why would someone post that crap here? nt

[Squinch]

56. Hmmmm...I wonder!...Why would that be?....

[geek tragedy]

8. Another rightwing hit piece on the ACA.

The trolls aren't even trying to hide it-- they're citing Republican websites like hotair.com (owned by Michelle Malkin).

[steve2470]

12. BS !!! Worst case scenario is that their EPS takes a one time hit.....

"Have to" = We don't want to take any hit to EPS or stock price or profits or management bonuses etc etc etc

[mucifer]

13. Greed pure and simple.

[Mass]

14. Here is a link from another source for those who, like me, have no interest reading hotair

Interesting. They never covered workers below 30 hours to start with. What they are talking about are people who had access to a very limited insurance contract.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-cfb-restaurants-1021-20131021,0,7889556.story
http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/some-darden-employees-lose-insurance

Truth is that these workers will most likely be better off with exchange contracts which will cover them adequately. Also, it is very unclear that Darden paid anything for these workers. They allowed them to stay on the plan, which was a limited plan, but we do not know at what cost.

[madrchsod]

23. yup..i do`t either

both links tell a different tale than the bullshit from hot air and other right wing sites.

[Mass]

38. We do not disagree, but the OP alleges that the company dropped their PT workers

They never had insurance to start with.

[thelordofhell]

15. So they're using their savings of not paying for their healthcare by raising wages??

**chirp**chirp**chirp**chirp**

[madfloridian]

16. Hot Air founded by Michelle Malkin

"History

Hot Air was launched on April 24, 2006, with Michelle Malkin as founder/CEO. Since then, the site has become one of the largest right-of-center blogs on the Internet. Here’s the very first post that appeared at Hot Air–posted at 4:15am after bleary-eyed preparations and an intense team effort to launch the site. Here were Michelle’s reflections on the site’s six-month anniversary.

In 2010, HotAir was acquired and became part of the Townhall/HotAir network alongside Townhall.com and Townhall Magazine in a network of conservative websites with over four million monthly readers."

http://hotair.com/about/

[kestrel91316]

18. Cancelling crappy insurance so they can go buy decent insurance on the exchanges

and probably get a huge subsidy is a plus for those employees.

The sooner we separate medical care from employment status, the better.

[madrchsod]

22. right wing bullshit talking points

jesus h christ i remember when posts linked to right wing sites got pulled.

[Loudly]

26. Thanks Darden. So Medicare availability for all?

We just need to fund it. Any suggestions?

[Loudly]

32. I only knew some of that.

Thanks for setting me straight.

[Loudly]

35. You're just playing the hand dealt us.

I am trying to see past it to the real prize.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. I wish I patronized their corporate swill dispensaries so I could boycott them.

[Arkana]

43. They don't "have" to do anything.

They're doing something they'd have done with or without the ACA, except its presence provides a convenient fig leaf.

[LisaLynne]

44. Exactly. nt

[KamaAina]

46. What's next? Banning breastfeeding?

Or smoking? Or pit bulls?

Or... closing the Times Square Olive Garden?

[Ian David]

51. Does this FINALLY end the Olive Garden debate? Fuck these guys. n/t

[BainsBane]

53. The exemption for part time workers is a problem

That needs to be changed.

[madrchsod]

59. i had insurance like that crap darden was giving their employees

did`t pay for jackshit on any medical treatment. hospital bills..lol!

[stopbush]

60. Ultimately, capitalism will win out.

Some enterprising company will accept smaller profit margins and come up with plans that are both affordable and ACA compliant. The insurance companies who are busy trying to figure out how to keep their profit margins at 30% will go extinct.

Just another benefit of Obamacare.