3M Says Up to 23,000 Seniors May Lose Coverage Thanks to Obamacare
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 4, 2010, 12:13 PM
Last Wedneday Barack Obama told a group of Iowans that they would not lose their health care due to Obamacare.
He also promised this during his campaign.
Of course, this wasn’t true.
Former White House Spokesperson Dana Perino reacted to this blatant lie on Greta Van Susteren’s show.
Several top U.S. corporations already announced they would likely drop employee health insurance coverage in light of what they see as the inevitable consequence of ObamaCare–skyrocketing costs.
3M announced this week Obamacare may force up to 23,000 3M retirees out of their currrent health care plans.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
3M Co. confirmed it would eventually stop offering its health-insurance plan to retirees, citing the federal health overhaul as a factor.
The changes won’t start to phase in until 2013. But they show how companies are beginning to respond to the new law, which should make it easier for people in their 50s and early-60s to find affordable policies on their own. While thousands of employers are tapping new funds from the law to keep retiree plans, 3M illustrates that others may not opt to retain such plans over the next few years
The St. Paul, Minn., manufacturing conglomerate notified employees on Friday that it would change retiree benefits both for those who are too young to qualify for Medicare and for those who qualify for the Medicare program. Both groups will get an unspecified health reimbursement instead of having access to a company-sponsored health plan.
The maker of Post-it notes and Scotch tape said it made the announcement now to give retirees a chance to explore different options during this year’s benefit-enrollment period, according to a 3M memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. A 3M spokeswoman, Jacqueline Berry, confirmed the contents of the memo.
“As you know, the recently enacted health care reform law has fundamentally changed the health care insurance market,” the memo said. “Health care options in the marketplace have improved, and readily available individual insurance plans in the Medicare marketplace provide benefits more tailored to retirees’ personal needs often at lower costs than what they pay for retiree medical coverage through 3M.
“In addition, health care reform has made it more difficult for employers like 3M to provide a plan that will remain competitive,” the memo said. The White House says retiree-only plans are largely exempt from new health insurance regulations under the law.
The company didn’t specify how many workers would be impacted. It currently has 23,000 U.S. retirees.
So, it really comes as no surprise that only 38% of seniors support Obama.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 91 Comments
Bill Fabrizio commented:
“So, it really comes as no surprise that only 38% of seniors support Obama”.
This is probably the same 38% that is totally dependent on the federal government for their sustenance!
GrayRider commented:
Why anyone, particularly seniors and the youth, the two groups hardest hit by Obama’s marxist confiscate and spend into oblivion policies support him at all is a mystery. I suppose it just goes to show how liberalism melts the mind away from any analytical thought, deductive reasoning and rationality.
antilbr commented:
23,000 seniors from 3M lose their healthcare insurance this month…..50,000 3M employees lose their jobs next month….just another day in Obamaland and his trickle up economy
a former democrat commented:
wow, 38% of seniors still support this marxist loser?
surprised that % number is that high, wait until DeathCare really kicks in.
TXBitty commented:
Yeah, kind of like, you can keep your doctor too.
http://www.khou.com/news/health/Doctors-charging-increased-fees-to-lower-number-of-patients-104162804.html
Granny commented:
Bill FabrizioNo Gravatar
October 4th, 2010 | 12:18 pm | #1
“So, it really comes as no surprise that only 38% of seniors support Obama”.
This is probably the same 38% that is totally dependent on the federal government for their sustenance!
_______
Who are you kidding? The proportion of seniors that is totally dependent on the feds are hurting most of all! I suspect that 38% are the liberals with enough cash on hand and assets that TheWon’s actions that are hurting everyone else really don’t affect them.
DocScience commented:
My former employer was self-insured for employer healthcare, a practice specifically banned by Obamacare.
A good rule of thumb is that if Obama says A, the real truth is NOT A.
SandyfromChesterfield commented:
The White House says retiree-only plans are largely exempt from new health insurance regulations under the law? White House also said you could get insurance for children with pre-existing conditions. BECAUSE OF THAT MANDATE I cannot get insurance for my health 17 year old that does not have a pre-existing condition. THE STATE OF MISSOURI IS NO LONGER ISSUING CHILD-ONLY INSURANCE COVERAGE as of two weeks ago. Since insurance companies now have to insure children with pre-existing conditions they are refusing to issue children only policies. I called the MO department of insurance and she said no one is issuing these policies anymore. I am not asking for a government subsidy, I just want to purchase insurance and no one will sell it to me!
Buffalobob commented:
Now a statement from the liberal leaders at AARP. chirp chirp
Granny commented:
Sandy From Chesterfield, #9
This is affecting a large number of children of divorced parents too. Invariably the non-custodial father is ordered to maintain health insurance on the child as part of the child support. If both parents live in the same state this isn’t a problem, but if they don’t the “family plan” insurance the father would otherwise access isn’t valid in the child’s state of residence. In the past this could be solved easily by buying a child-only policy. Not any more.
Bill Fabrizio commented:
Granny #7
Granny said, “Who are you kidding? The proportion of seniors that is totally dependent on the feds are hurting most of all”!
You’re making my point! Total dependence on the federal government is a “drug” which too many are hooked on. Once addicted to the “drug” of big government those who have no other means of support are totally at the mercy of marxist elitists. This drug should be avoided at all cost!
gus commented:
Telling an insurance company that they must cover pre-existing conditions is like selling auto insurance to a drunk as he drives.
averagemelon commented:
My own parents rely entirely on the Feds for their existence. They have the BIGGEST house in the entire town and co-own TWO businesses and I, with four children and ONE job cannot buy insurance for ourselves but they suck up all my money in taxes.
Lightwave commented:
Note the three lowest groups in Obama support.
Non-hispanic Whites
People over the age of 65
Republicans
Guess who will be voting the most in this midterm election?
Hint: it won’t be Liberal, African-American Democrats.
billy sol commented:
there must be some mistake! Clueless Claire said this was going to be the healthcare panacea for the masses. She should know, she CLAIMS she read the bill! And, the senatorette wouldn’t mislead anyone!
billy sol commented:
Seniors, you’re the bullseye on Obama’s target. Mc Caskell lied to you, why would you think Robin Carnahan won’t either . . . . they’re twins, kinda like Boxer, and Feinstein!!l
averagemelon commented:
This country does not seem to understand that if the government PULLED OUT of every aspect of health care and its mandates, insurance companies would actually have to compete for our business and the prices WOULD PLUMMET to reasonable rates for ALL. How do we know? Because we already had it right forty years ago and everything was fine.
Insert government: let the greed wars begin.
No Man commented:
Old people got no reason . . .
Old people got no reason . . .
Old people got no reason . . .
Old people got no reason to live.
Apologies to Randy Newman.
Granny commented:
billy solNo Gravatar
October 4th, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #17
there must be some mistake! Clueless Claire said this was going to be the healthcare panacea for the masses. She should know, she CLAIMS she read the bill! And, the senatorette wouldn’t mislead anyone!
________
NOBODY read that health care bill. It wasn’t even printed until just few hours before the vote. Even a speed reader could not have thoroughly understood the bill before voting on it!
Granny commented:
averagemelonNo Gravatar
October 4th, 2010 | 2:00 pm | #15
My own parents rely entirely on the Feds for their existence. They have the BIGGEST house in the entire town and co-own TWO businesses and I, with four children and ONE job cannot buy insurance for ourselves but they suck up all my money in taxes.
_________
If your parents own the biggest house in town and co-own two businesses, they do not even come close to beginning to rely on the Feds for their existence. You must mean they collect Social Security – which they PAID for over many, many years.
Callipygian1 commented:
Welfare = Well & Fair = Fare Well = Farewell
There’s your 38% that support it…
squeaky commented:
“I can tell you that a mental disability is much easier to get and to keep. Rules are much different than for a Physical disability. Chronic clinical depression can qualify you. You just have tp prove you are being treated and still can’t get it together to hold a job.”
http://unemployed-friends.forumotion.com/north-carolina-f36/social-security-disability-and-unemployment-benefits-t16134.htm#251640
an article recently about the increase in applications for social security disability that increase as the economy worsens. younger applicants who are using depression or bad backs – both difficult for social security to deny.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/13/AR2010091306556.html?wprss=rss_print
zerodtkjoe commented:
Thanks for the info
seanlopez commented:
Good article