teamcare question

[Mugarolla]

And you came so close but... TeamCare wasn't failing.

Hoffa himself said it was "unsustainable." Now that he got an influx of new members, he changed his mind.

 

[Inthegame]

Hoffa himself said it was "unsustainable." Now that he got an influx of new members, he changed his mind.

No he didn't. Reread the letter. He put three distinct conditions for unsustainability and TeamCare doesn't fit the conditions.
Anyway you said TeamCare was "failing" and that's simply false. TeamCare, even before the additional UPS inclusion, was increasing reserves.

 

[Mugarolla]

No he didn't. Reread the letter. He put three distinct conditions for unsustainability and TeamCare doesn't fit the conditions.
Anyway you said TeamCare was "failing" and that's simply false. TeamCare, even before the additional UPS inclusion, was increasing reserves.

This is what he said.

"And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies."

Take it for what its worth.

 

[brownmonster]

This is what he said.

"And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies."

Take it for what its worth.

Speculation. Does Teamcare not use one of the big insurance companies to administer the plan? My Union insurance uses Humana.

 

[Man Of Brown]

Speculation. Does Teamcare not use one of the big insurance companies to administer the plan? My Union insurance uses Humana.

I've also seen blue cross/shield and Aetna. These companies provide the network and handle claims. But the union isn't paying monthly premiums and such like normal plan. They are self insured with a third party admin. Many large companies are self insured.

 

[Brownslave688]

You do not lose your coverage when you go on vacation.

This has been happening in 688. Someone probably moved a vacation and got paid the original week it was planned for. Therefore showing zero reports that week.

Here's the thing though in 688 we are to be covered if we only work 1 day a month not 1 day a week. There are tons of grievances over this right now.

 

[Inthegame]

This is what he said.

"And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies."

Take it for what its worth.

As I clearly stated TeamCare doesn't fit ALL the conditions pointed out in the letter. You've chosen to ignore that and posted the only condition affecting TeamCare which incidentally is the easiest condition to meet as the tax declines and sunsets in three years.
At the risk of continuing to beat this dead horse, this infamous letter was jointed signed by union leaders who have hundreds of Taft Hartley Plans available to their members. All will be uniquely impacted from seriously to marginally depending on their funding and coverage levels. TeamCare is in the team picture of the least impacted because of their negotiated contributions.
Of course Hoffa signed the letter as subsidies for Taft Hartleys should have been included in the ACA as increased funds make these plans even more attractive going forward as costs to employers lessen, making negotiations easier. But employers never easily negotiate contributions to trust funds so very little changes.
In any case, back to your original point, TeamCare was not failing.

 

[Brownslave688]

Why in the world would any Local agree to allow teamcare wording on medical coverage like there is pertaining to days off and losing coverage

Teamcare is nationwide its not the local. Local 688 is to have coverage of working only 1 day a month.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

And here is why it is an issue. Teamcare gets paid weekly. If you take a week off without pay, or are laid off, there is no weekly payment to Teamcare so they do not want to cover you for "free".

How stupid is it to cancel your coverage for a week here, or a week there. Hoffa never mentioned a word about this to us.

This isn't something new.

Anyone that has been covered by Central States (before), knows this. So does your Local.

Freight members from YRC have to work 3 days a week to maintain their coverage.


Scheduled vacation, is compensable time.... so you would be covered.



-Bug-

 

[Brownslave688]

This isn't something new.

Anyone that has been covered by Central States (before), knows this. So does your Local.

Freight members from YRC have to work 3 days a week to maintain their coverage.


Scheduled vacation, is compensable time.... so you would be covered.



-Bug-

I don't want to sound like a broken record but 688 is the only local in the country that gets paid monthly.

You work 1 day out of the month and ups puts a full months health and pension funds in. Just like you worked everyday. If the money is being put in on your behalf you should be covered. This was never an issue under central states.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I don't want to sound like a broken record but 688 is the only local in the country that gets paid monthly.

You work 1 day out of the month and ups puts a full months health and pension funds in. Just like you worked everyday. If the money is being put in on your behalf you should be covered. This was never an issue under central states.

There were Locals in the Central Region that had the company plan. (mine was one)

It was the same way. You only had to "hit the clock" once a month, to be covered.



-Bug-

 

[Bubblehead]

In any case, back to your original point, TeamCare was not failing.

Let's get back to that.
While TeamCare was not failing (yet), is it not true that approximately 2/3 of the people in the plan were retirees, with those numbers trending toward the bad?
Certainly this is not a healthy trend for any such fund.
After all, isn't it a crude but accurate assertion that young healthy people subsidize the elder in most healthcare plans, including the ACA?
Sort of a ponzi if you will.
Is it not also true, without the remainder of UPS being infused into the plan, this trend was forcasted to worsen?
Before the infusion of members, what was the long term actuarial forecast for the fund?
Are these numbers accessible to us?
Can anybody provide a link or agency that can produce these numbers?

 

[BigUnionGuy]

While TeamCare was not failing (yet), is it not true that approximately 2/3 of the people in the plan were retirees, with those numbers trending toward the bad?

Are you confusing the Central States Pension Fund....

With the Health and Welfare Fund ?



-Bug-

 

[Brownslave688]

Are you confusing the Central States Pension Fund....

With the Health and Welfare Fund ?



-Bug-

That seems to happen a lot.

The healthcare fund I believe could run 2-3 years just on reserves.

 

[Mugarolla]

As I clearly stated TeamCare doesn't fit ALL the conditions pointed out in the letter. You've chosen to ignore that and posted the only condition affecting TeamCare which incidentally is the easiest condition to meet as the tax declines and sunsets in three years.
At the risk of continuing to beat this dead horse, this infamous letter was jointed signed by union leaders who have hundreds of Taft Hartley Plans available to their members. All will be uniquely impacted from seriously to marginally depending on their funding and coverage levels. TeamCare is in the team picture of the least impacted because of their negotiated contributions.
Of course Hoffa signed the letter as subsidies for Taft Hartleys should have been included in the ACA as increased funds make these plans even more attractive going forward as costs to employers lessen, making negotiations easier. But employers never easily negotiate contributions to trust funds so very little changes.
In any case, back to your original point, TeamCare was not failing.

Agreed, Teamcare is not failing right now. But Hoffa was looking at the "future" of Teamcare. It is unsustainable, in the "future."

But the influx of new members and money made that "future" look a whole lot better. Hoffa new it and that is why he wanted everyone, or most everyone, in Teamcare.

Now, I'm all for "helping" other members. If Hoffa told us that he needed us in Teamcare to shore up the plan, that would have been a different story. He did not say this. He did tell us that "this" plan mirrored the company plan. He did not tell us about the concessions in this plan compared to the company plan.

I don't know what mirror he was looking at, but he failed to tell us the real truth. Whether he outright lied, or forgot to mention some key facts, either way he got what he wanted at our expense.

 

[Fullhouse]

Here is a dumb question but it needs to asked- Has been employed for longer than a year?

 

[Inthegame]

Let's get back to that.
While TeamCare was not failing (yet), is it not true that approximately 2/3 of the people in the plan were retirees, with those numbers trending toward the bad?
Certainly this is not a healthy trend for any such fund.
After all, isn't it a crude but accurate assertion that young healthy people subsidize the elder in most healthcare plans, including the ACA?
Sort of a ponzi if you will.
Is it not also true, without the remainder of UPS being infused into the plan, this trend was forcasted to worsen?
Before the infusion of members, what was the long term actuarial forecast for the fund?
Are these numbers accessible to us?
Can anybody provide a link or agency that can produce these numbers?

Not sure where you get the 2/3rds retiree number in the H&W plan as post 65 are not covered. Very unlikely early retirees (55-65) outnumber actives by 2-1 and even more unlikely TeamCare could increase reserves as they had been doing in that scenario.

A ponzi has money going out with nothing guaranteed coming in. TeamCare provides HC payments and has backing from contractual obligations funding their expenses, so no it's not a "sort of a ponzi."

 

[Inthegame]

Agreed, Teamcare is not failing right now. But Hoffa was looking at the "future" of Teamcare. It is unsustainable, in the "future."

But the influx of new members and money made that "future" look a whole lot better. Hoffa new it and that is why he wanted everyone, or most everyone, in Teamcare.

Now, I'm all for "helping" other members. If Hoffa told us that he needed us in Teamcare to shore up the plan, that would have been a different story. He did not say this. He did tell us that "this" plan mirrored the company plan. He did not tell us about the concessions in this plan compared to the company plan.

I don't know what mirror he was looking at, but he failed to tell us the real truth. Whether he outright lied, or forgot to mention some key facts, either way he got what he wanted at our expense.

If this was a pension issue with the lifelong benefit obligation you might persuade me, but no one has provided one fact regarding TeamCare's viability without the influx of "new" UPS participants. Indeed the Plan had grown more solvent in recent years.
Remember with the increase in participants and their negotiated contribution rates, comes the increase in claim obligations for those participants.
Pensions pay long into the future with no corresponding contributions. H&W is pay as you go.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Not sure where you get the 2/3rds retiree number in the H&W plan as post 65 are not covered.

Hopefully.... he is not getting information from the "vote no" Facebook page.

Some goofball from PA, was spouting off about this.



-Bug-

 

[Mugarolla]

If this was a pension issue with the lifelong benefit obligation you might persuade me, but no one has provided one fact regarding TeamCare's viability without the influx of "new" UPS participants. Indeed the Plan had grown more solvent in recent years.
Remember with the increase in participants and their negotiated contribution rates, comes the increase in claim obligations for those participants.
Pensions pay long into the future with no corresponding contributions. H&W is pay as you go.

I have not seen any numbers either. I was basing this on Hoffa's letter. Granted, there were 3 things in it, but he summed it up saying that Teamcare is unsustainable.

And new members mean higher claims, but based on rates and claims, insurance companies have a formula. They are only going to give benefits for what they foresee as having money to pay, plus build up a reserve.

So one can guess that the more participants in the plan, the better reserve they need to and can build.

An example would be that the insurance company gets $600 a month from you and only expects to pay out $500 on you in claims in the long run. Now multiply that monthly reserve, per se, by an additional 50,000 participants.

Teamcare now looks extremely viable now, and in the future. If Teamcare did not get those new participants, not so much so.