Skip to main content

Every American should be tired of taking the brunt of an economic downturn they were not responsible for. Every American should be tired of seeing record corporate profits as wages stagnate or fall.

UPS just announced that it will be dropping working spouses who can get insurance from their own employers. In defense of UPS on this particular stance, paying for the working spouses’ benefits is tantamount to UPS subsidizing the spouses’ employers who forfeits the cost of insuring that spouse. That  isn’t fair. In a fair world, since family plans are less expensive than individual plans generally, both companies should be responsible for the cost of the family plan. This is another clear reason for Medicare for all, a single payer system that removes the employer from the health insurance business.

That said, the reality is that this is not new. UPS dishonestly attributes their action to Obamacare when it is likely a cost saving action they would have undertaken as health care costs rose with or without Obamacare. The act of attributing it to Obamacare is evil as it attempts to blame and foment a hatred for a law based on a lie even as the law in the aggregate helps millions of Americans and save lives.

It is a fact that

As a percentage of national income, corporate profits stood at 14.2 percent in the third quarter of 2012, the largest share at any time since 1950, while the portion of income that went to employees was 61.7 percent, near its lowest point since 1966. In recent years, the shift has accelerated during the slow recovery that followed the financial crisis and ensuing recession of 2008 and 2009, said Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays.

Corporate earnings have risen at an annualized rate of 20.1 percent since the end of 2008, he said, but disposable income inched ahead by 1.4 percent annually over the same period, after adjusting for inflation.

“There hasn’t been a period in the last 50 years where these trends have been so pronounced,” Mr. Maki said. [Source]

Those corporate profits were not earned by the shareholders of these companies or their overpaid corporate executives. They were earned on the backs of employees that are more productive and without any opportunity for pay increases because of a concerted oversupply of labor in America. Corporations take more from the middle class yet balk at paying a little bit more to afford them health insurance. They balk at paying a wage their employees can live on.

A few days ago NBC did a much skewed piece stating Obamacare would cause the reduction in hours for many employees as employers try to avoid paying for health insurance. Never did they entertain that a small increase in product prices while painless to most would allow health insurance and better wages for its employees. Companies raise prices for their profits and rarely for humanity, their employees.

Sadly this means the American taxpayers subsidize all employers that pay wages that keep folks poor. They also subsidize all those employers not insuring their workers. There is no free ride. Every corporation operating solely out of corporate greed does it on the back of the middle class, the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer pays the health cost for those corporations who won’t insure their workers. The taxpayer pays for the food stamps and subsidies for the Wal-Marts, Subways, and other employers paying poor wages.

Americans must stop buying into the narrative of appeasing corporate greed in order to get the crumbs left over for their labor. Americans most assert their worth and demand their share of the economy.



LIKE My Facebook PageVisit My Blog: EgbertoWillies.com

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This was obvious before Obamacare. (2+ / 0-)

    It's partly why the public option was so popular.  Gigantic missed opportunity, probably forever.

    •  Yep, the big corps (1+ / 0-)

      have been doing this for a long while. The ACA is just forcing people to buy crappy policies that aren't going to actually help with much of anything if someone actually gets sick. A huge giveaway to the insurance companies without a public option. Medicare for all is the obvious answer but that would kill insurance companies as they now exist. Can't have that.

      ~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

      by Kristina40 on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 09:28:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ACA requires that at least 80% or 85% of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gustynpip

        insurance premium dollars (individual and small business or large compa ny) be spent on actual healthcare.  So ACA prevents the type of insurance company giveaway you refer to.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 05:06:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I believe it was diaried here (0+ / 0-)

          that their way around that is billing for constant phone calls to the doctors offices to discuss patient care. It counts towards actual healthcare from what I read.

          ~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

          by Kristina40 on Sat Aug 24, 2013 at 09:07:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you have a primary source for this? (0+ / 0-)

            such as a link to HHS.gov or the ACA itself?

            There are many false statement from the right and left on ACA.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Sat Aug 24, 2013 at 12:55:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Uh yeah, (0+ / 0-)

    Would this be happening if the ACA wasn't law? I doubt it.
    I'm sure the people losing their benefits will blame it on corporate greed. Especially when their companies blatantly pin it on the ACA.

    This is the natural result of what's contained within the ACA.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 09:29:14 AM PDT

    •  Please explain further. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheLizardKing
      This is the natural result of what's contained within the ACA.
      tks.

      "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

      by EdMass on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 09:43:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a predictable result of the ACA. (4+ / 0-)

        1.  For profit businesses are about making a profit.

        2. If a business hires a 50th full-time employee, that one additional employee makes every single employee significantly more expensive.  That's a clear financial incentive not to hire that 50th full-time employee, but to see how you can work around it.

        3. If a person works a 30th hour in a week, that 30th hour makes the other 29 hours significantly more expensive.  So, there's an incentive to keep the hours at 29 or less.

        Seriously, how anyone failed to see the perverse financial incentives in this bill is beyond me.  

        The only people who can't see the perverse financial incentives are the people who fail to acknowledge that the purpose of a for-profit business is to make a profit.  

        •  Yes, this wasn't rocket science (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, Valar Morghulis

          It was routinely pointed out in the run up to the ACA that establishing cut off's like the amount of hours and number of employees would lead to companies adjusting how they did business.

          I'm not sure how it's credible to claim otherwise.

          Look, I tried to be reasonable...

          by campionrules on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 10:02:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  C'mon just say it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil

            We f'd up a fundamental on the re-writing of how health care is administered/provided.

            We have to get ahead of this.  It is obvious.  One might even conjecture that there would be the dreaded "bi-partisan" support to fix it before it's to late?

            "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

            by EdMass on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 10:09:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  What? This applies to thousands of full time (0+ / 0-)

          workers at UPS. They are not cutting hours or reducing workforce. The ACA does not affect them. They are simply saying that if your spouse is eligible for insurance from his/her employer we won't provide it.

          Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

          by Gary Norton on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 11:39:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  UPS not the first (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tampaedski, gustynpip

    Delphi, my husbands employer instituted this at least eight years ago. Long, long, long before OBAMACARE.
    It is greed.....notice UPS is doing it to salaried...they know better than to mess with Union employees. This is why everyone needs a union.

  •  How ACA may be driving UPS to this policy. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    closerange, gustynpip

    For an employee where ACA requires the employer to subsidize insurance or pay a $2000 fine, the employer does not need to pay that fine if the employee gets health insurance from a source other than an exchange.

    By UPS adopting the policy not to provide insurance for employee spouses who can get insurance from their employer, UPS stops enabling the spouses' company from not paying a fine or providing a health insurance subsidy.

    If anything this UPS policy makes it more difficult for companies to avoid their responsibility to pay a significant portion of employee health insurance.  I would argue this result is a positive feature of ACA and not a failure.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 05:19:55 PM PDT

  •  Obama care is part of the problem of greed (0+ / 0-)

    The only people who will gain anything from this mess written by the lobbyists is the insurance companies. I don't have $150+ a month to throw away on insurance that is "bare bones coverage.

    Soldiers and veterans are the reason we are able to argue about issues and to live in a free country. Let's not let their blood be wasted. Remember all gave some and some gave all. Honor their sacrifices.

    by Somegaveall on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:54:11 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site