3M to dump retirees from medical coverage

[RadiomanATL]

I love it. That's one way to get around those pesky state laws protecting American citizens.

People in other states are no longer American citizens?

Also, I need to be protected from Alabama and Florida insurance companies?

You're a tool.

 

[code1211]

it's already to late to back track, with big top 100 companies saying they can't afford health care thousands of smaller ones will view it also as a bottom line enhancer.

Public option is all but here already, Obama will cram that one down in his second term.

God willing, his second term will be crammed up somewhere else.

 

[code1211]

what happened to you can keep your plan and doctors?

It went the same way as this Quote from Nancy Pelosi: "You're costs will never go up and your benefits will never go down."

A swindle wrapping a lie wrapping a theft.

 

[code1211]

MPR:

In a memo to employees, 3M said the reform law's changes should dramatically improve the individual insurance available to workers who retire before age 65 and their dependents.

In effect, 3M is telling its employees the company won't provide them with health insurance after retirement. But 3M says it will help them pay the cost of getting insurance in the private marketplace -- whether it's a commercial health plan for early retirees or Medicare supplement coverage for those over 65. 3M says under health reform, those options will be at least as good as what the company provides now.

3M confirmed the memo's information, but did not provide any further comment.

Economist Paul Fronstin, who directs the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute, says 3M is probably the first big company to announce such changes. But he expects more companies will follow, because the new law limits how much premiums can vary based on age and other factors, such as pre-existing medical conditions.

"Employers are looking at that and saying, 'Why do I need to be offering this benefit anymore when my retirees can go out and get something that's actually better for them than what I'm offering," said Fronstin. "They can get something better than what I'm offering them and pay more, or they can buy something that's less comprehensive than what I've been offering and pay less."

3M will replace its current retiree medical plan with a health reimbursement arrangement, where 3M will put money into a retirees individual account. For retirees who are eligible for Medicare, that change will begin in 2013. For retirees under age 65, those changes won't take effect until 2015, a year after news health insurance exchanges will be up and running.

The exchanges will function a bit like online travel sites -- instead of comparing non-stop flights and car rental prices, individuals and small groups will compare health care benefits.

I still remember when greater individual choice and empowerment were things conservatives professed to like. Seems like a very long time ago now.

The ability to choose whether you will need to make a choice is the first choice and that has been removed. 3M had to make this choice due to the new, real future which dictates vastly increased costs and stable funds to pay them.

The insured former employees will now be forced to make choices they don't want to make. They would have preferred to stay with the promised care but the Big 0 has eliminated that option. Their preferred choice is eliminated.

They are like refugees in a flood. They would have preferred to have stayed in a nice warm and dry home. The home is now gone so they have a choice of swimming to or riding in a row boat to a strange and threatening refuge.

Some choice...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ObamaCare needs to die and be replaced with something along the lines of the Whole Foods recommendations

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." —Margaret Thatcher

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program...

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million...."

Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

I love it. That's one way to get around those pesky state laws protecting American citizens.

Why does the right wing think only about companies? Remember when Americans thought about each other? Oh, that's right. We call that "socialism". Bad. Right wing motto: Every man for himself. Burn baby, burn.

Right!

Caught us! Because people who live in US states aren't US citizens!

You're so ******* smart RDean!

How do you manage to embarrass yourself and make more of a total asshole of yourself with each post?

It's amazing, I suspect you were a jackass in your last incarnation. It would explain a lot

 

[iamwhatiseem]

3M??
You have any idea how many companies are getting out of the healthcare business?

Government ran healthcare is something that IS going to happen...all by itself.

 

[Greenbeard]

People in other states are no longer American citizens?

Also, I need to be protected from Alabama and Florida insurance companies?

You're a tool.

Do you really think Florida should be able to enforce its state health insurance laws inside Georgia, even when those conflict with Georgia state law? For that matter, do you think Florida has the resources to enforce its insurance laws in Georgia (and 48 other states)?

The reality is that those suggestions are designed to cut costs by shifting our system away from treating the sick. It's that simple. No serious health care scholar has ever endorsed those proposals because, frankly, they're perverse. Generally they're offered by unserious persons (generally those who don't understand their implications), although I suppose for some ill will can't be ruled out.

The ability to choose whether you will need to make a choice is the first choice and that has been removed.

When did this become a freshman philosophy seminar? These employees will, in several years, be getting their benefits in the form of a private account set up by the company that they can then take into the exchanges to select any plan offered in the state (as opposed to a single plan or a small set of plans selected by the company). I'm sorry if enabling them to put company money toward any plan offered in the state--as opposed to some subset selected for them--doesn't meet your very bizarre definition of choice. You guys will really contort yourselves into some crazy shapes, won't you?

 

[uscitizen]

LMAO, you folks think this is new stuff? Many companies have been set up this way for 20 years or more.

Sheesh let the pundits play you like a fiddle.

 

[RadiomanATL]

People in other states are no longer American citizens?

Also, I need to be protected from Alabama and Florida insurance companies?

You're a tool.

Do you really think Florida should be able to enforce its state health insurance laws inside Georgia, even when those conflict with Georgia state law? For that matter, do you think Florida has the resources to enforce its insurance laws in Georgia (and 48 other states)?

The reality is that those suggestions are designed to cut costs by shifting our system away from treating the sick. It's that simple. No serious health care scholar has ever endorsed those proposals because, frankly, they're perverse. Generally they're offered by unserious persons (generally those who don't understand their implications), although I suppose for some ill will can't be ruled out.

The ability to choose whether you will need to make a choice is the first choice and that has been removed.

When did this become a freshman philosophy seminar? These employees will, in several years, be getting their benefits in the form of a private account set up by the company that they can then take into the exchanges to select any plan offered in the state (as opposed to a single plan or a small set of plans selected by the company). I'm sorry if enabling them to put company money toward any plan offered in the state--as opposed to some subset selected for them--doesn't meet your very bizarre definition of choice. You guys will really contort yourselves into some crazy shapes, won't you?

Who said anything about states enforcing their laws in other states? Not me.

 

[Care4all]

3M Co. citing new federal health laws, said Monday it won’t cover retirees with its corporate health-insurance plan starting in 2013.

Instead, the company will direct retirees to Medicare-backed insurance programs, and will provide reimbursement for that coverage. It’ll also reimburse retirees who are too young for Medicare; the company didn’t provide further details.

The company made the changes known in a memo to employees Friday; news of the move was reported in The Wall Street Journal and confirmed Monday by 3M spokeswoman Jackie Berry

3m has 23,000 retirees, many of them likely to be living in Minnesota. They’re also likely to vote in the upcoming midterms, perhaps even more likely now than ever. That won’t be good news for House Democrats in the Minnesota delegation hoping to win a new term in four weeks.

3M to dump retirees from medical coverage Hot Air

Wow. AARP really did sell out their members. Wonder how much they will be profiting at the end of the day.

but isn't this what republicans are pushing?
isn't this actually BETTER for 'the free market''? with individuals being able to pick the best insurance plan for themselves at the best price possible? instead of ones company forcing their 1 or 2 generic health care plans that the Company has chosen?

3m says they are giving their retirees the choice to pick what they want in an insurance plan and ARE GOING TO REIMBURSE/PAY for it?

 

[Greenbeard]

Who said anything about states enforcing their laws in other states? Not me.

That's what "Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable." means. At least the way it's constructed by conservatives today.

Insurers locate in a "primary state." Their products are subject to the laws governing that primary state (which is why they'd have an incentive to 1) choose a state with lax laws or 2) be enticed by states willing to let them rewrite the state insurance laws in exchange for headquartering there and bringing much-needed jobs with them). They can then sell their insurance products in any other state ("secondary states") but those products are still subject only to the laws of the primary state. Thus the point of the exercise is to grant federal authority to states to effectively deregulate each other by empowering them to make end runs around each other's laws. That's why they call it a race to the bottom.

However, enforcement responsibility still falls to the primary state ("‘IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (b), with respect to specific individual health insurance coverage the primary State for such coverage has sole jurisdiction to enforce the primary State’s covered laws in the primary State and any secondary State."). Which means that every state becomes responsible for enforcing its laws in every other state (or at least those in which its insurers are operating).

If you weren't endorsing the standard Republican across-state-lines proposal, apologies. And if you were, you should probably look into it a bit more.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Who said anything about states enforcing their laws in other states? Not me.

That's what "Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable." means. At least the way it's constructed by conservatives today.

Insurers locate in a "primary state." Their products are subject to the laws governing that primary state (which is why they'd have an incentive to 1) choose a state with lax laws or 2) be enticed by states willing to let them rewrite the state insurance laws in exchange for headquartering there and bringing much-needed jobs with them). They can then sell their insurance products in any other state ("secondary states") but those products are still subject only to the laws of the primary state. Thus the point of the exercise is to grant federal authority to states to effectively deregulate each other by empowering them to make end runs around each other's laws. That's why they call it a race to the bottom.

However, enforcement responsibility still falls to the primary state ("‘IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (b), with respect to specific individual health insurance coverage the primary State for such coverage has sole jurisdiction to enforce the primary State’s covered laws in the primary State and any secondary State."). Which means that every state becomes responsible for enforcing its laws in every other state (or at least those in which its insurers are operating).

If you weren't endorsing the standard Republican across-state-lines proposal, apologies. And if you were, you should probably look into it a bit more.

And if the plan conforms to the state that they are selling it in, no problem.

We do it with motor vehicles, and other products. I see no valid reason why it couldn't be done with health insurance.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

3M Co. citing new federal health laws, said Monday it won’t cover retirees with its corporate health-insurance plan starting in 2013.

Instead, the company will direct retirees to Medicare-backed insurance programs, and will provide reimbursement for that coverage. It’ll also reimburse retirees who are too young for Medicare; the company didn’t provide further details.

The company made the changes known in a memo to employees Friday; news of the move was reported in The Wall Street Journal and confirmed Monday by 3M spokeswoman Jackie Berry

3m has 23,000 retirees, many of them likely to be living in Minnesota. They’re also likely to vote in the upcoming midterms, perhaps even more likely now than ever. That won’t be good news for House Democrats in the Minnesota delegation hoping to win a new term in four weeks.

3M to dump retirees from medical coverage Hot Air

Wow. AARP really did sell out their members. Wonder how much they will be profiting at the end of the day.

but isn't this what republicans are pushing?
isn't this actually BETTER for 'the free market''? with individuals being able to pick the best insurance plan for themselves at the best price possible? instead of ones company forcing their 1 or 2 generic health care plans that the Company has chosen?

3m says they are giving their retirees the choice to pick what they want in an insurance plan and ARE GOING TO REIMBURSE/PAY for it?

They are doing it because it is cheaper.
Our corporate HQ has an entire staff that do nothing but process healthcare stuff for the employees. They spend enormous money on printing/mailing required notices/legal mumbo jumbo etc. etc. - I would say that they spend at minimum $50 per employee per year just mailing out small print.
And then there is the cost of the insurance itself. Most employees have no idea that there company likely spends at least $1500 a month on their healthcare. - And this is why companies are getting out in droves...it is no longer realistic to keep paying this in a country where consumers choose cheap over everything else.

 

[Greenbeard]

And if the plan conforms to the state that they are selling it in, no problem.

What policy change are you asking for? Health insurers can already sell their products in a state, provided they're licensed in that state and their products are in compliance with state law.

 

[RadiomanATL]

And if the plan conforms to the state that they are selling it in, no problem.

What policy change are you asking for? Health insurers can already sell their products in a state, provided they're licensed in that state and their products are in compliance with state law.

A standardized federal law across state lines that allows for easier selling of the products across state lines.

 

[boedicca]

3M Co. citing new federal health laws, said Monday it won’t cover retirees with its corporate health-insurance plan starting in 2013.

Instead, the company will direct retirees to Medicare-backed insurance programs, and will provide reimbursement for that coverage. It’ll also reimburse retirees who are too young for Medicare; the company didn’t provide further details.

The company made the changes known in a memo to employees Friday; news of the move was reported in The Wall Street Journal and confirmed Monday by 3M spokeswoman Jackie Berry

3m has 23,000 retirees, many of them likely to be living in Minnesota. They’re also likely to vote in the upcoming midterms, perhaps even more likely now than ever. That won’t be good news for House Democrats in the Minnesota delegation hoping to win a new term in four weeks.

3M to dump retirees from medical coverage Hot Air

Wow. AARP really did sell out their members. Wonder how much they will be profiting at the end of the day.

In high tech speak: This isn't a Bug, it's a Feature of ObamaCare.

Such cancellations were the plan all along to get the country to a Single Payer British NHS style program.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, if I lived in a state that requires all policies to cover male breast implants, would I have the ability to buy a policy that didn't cover it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And why does ObamaCare eliminate Medical Savings Accounts?

And why does ObamaCare require reporting of purchases over $600 to the IRS?

 

[boedicca]

So, if I lived in a state that requires all policies to cover male breast implants, would I have the ability to buy a policy that didn't cover it?

No.

This is why ObamaCare will bend the cost curve up. It requires tons-o-stuff that many people neither want nor need.

 

[boedicca]

And why does ObamaCare eliminate Medical Savings Accounts?

And why does ObamaCare require reporting of purchases over $600 to the IRS?

Easy.

Because it has nothing to do with improving our Health Care System and everything to do with expanding the size and scope of Government in our economy and private lives.