You can. Just put your paperwork to go to management.I used to work for another union outfit that put you into the company insurance and 2% match 401k if you opted out of the union. Wish it was like that here.
You can. Just put your paperwork to go to management.I used to work for another union outfit that put you into the company insurance and 2% match 401k if you opted out of the union. Wish it was like that here.
Are you nuts??? Do you have an iota of the value of your insurance plan that your spouse or partner (not that there's anything wrong with that) and your kids can also enjoy FOR FREE?!!!I used to work for another union outfit that put you into the company insurance and 2% match 401k if you opted out of the union. Wish it was like that here.
Re-read, thoroughly.Are you nuts??? Do you have an iota of the value of your insurance plan that your spouse or partner (not that there's anything wrong with that) and your kids can also enjoy FOR FREE?!!!
The company plan sucks and a 2% 401k match. You must be joking!!
You might want to check the Affordable Care Act before you say it's wrong with opting out of coverage if you are going to call something inaccurate. As far as healthcare companies, I mentioned that the poster should check their Local because there are numerous companies involved when dealing with UPS.Based on your assumption, employers legally could not allow employees to opt out of medical coverage. States may have have some ty legislation as such, but the federal government does not.
I am in the west and have Aetna.
Your post is wholly inaccurate.
Yes! that would cut down on the freeloading in RTF statesI used to work for another union outfit that put you into the company insurance and 2% match 401k if you opted out of the union. Wish it was like that here.
This statement here...You might want to check the Affordable Care Act before you say it's wrong with opting out of coverage if you are going to call something inaccurate. As far as healthcare companies, I mentioned that the poster should check their Local because there are numerous companies involved when dealing with UPS.
...would mean that employers could not allow employees to opt out of insurance coverage. That is not the case, that is inaccurate. You might wanna check the ACA before you start talking more brothers and sisters into unnecessarily spending money on healthcare.I believe the law says that she has to take benefits if they offered at her work place but she can use yours as her secondary coverage.
Our health fund required your spouse take coverage at their job if it was offered at 5% of their gross or less. Should I sue the fund? Thanks in advance.This statement here...
...would mean that employers could not allow employees to opt out of insurance coverage. That is not the case, that is inaccurate. You might wanna check the ACA before you start talking more brothers and sisters into unnecessarily spending money on healthcare.
How tf does that even relate to my post?Our health fund required your spouse take coverage at their job if it was offered at 5% of their gross or less. Should I sue the fund? Thanks in advance.
Well I struggled to decipher your post but it seemed you referred to employers not allowing employees to opt out of coverage as innacurate. Our fund did not allow it. Maybe I read your post wrong. Sorry if I was confused.How tf does that even relate to my post?
Not much to decipher, if you follow the thread back, it's pretty straightforward.Well I struggled to decipher your post but it seemed you referred to employers not allowing employees to opt out of coverage as innacurate. Our fund did not allow it. Maybe I read your post wrong. Sorry if I was confused.
And as I said our fund required it.Not much to decipher, if you follow the thread back, it's pretty straightforward.
@BrownMonk stated that he understood the ACA required employees, by law, to take insurance coverage if offered by their employer. I noted that by that standard, employers would legally not be allowed to let employees to opt out of coverage. There is no federal requirement to accept insurance coverage from your employer if offered. State legislation may say something about it, or in your case, your fund may have language on it, but there is no federal requirement for a spouse to accept insurance from their employer.
Right, your fund, not federal law.And as I said our fund required it.
I see. So I should sue them because it was not a federal law? Got it.Right, your fund, not federal law.
I have no idea what you're getting at. Sue whomever you want, it's your money.I see. So I should sue them because it was not a federal law? Got it.
Just trying to follow your "logic".I have no idea what you're getting at. Sue whomever you want, it's your money.
Suing your fund is irrelevant to the conversation. I'm not disputing that your fund had that policy, or that state laws may require that. I feel like you're misinterpreting the point.Just trying to follow your "logic".