UPS cuts spousal coverage - blames Obamacare

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Aug 21, 2013.

  1. PSGator66

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,297
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +674
  2. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    :laugh::laugh::laugh:

    Freaking teamsters.
  3. HallGator

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    43,340
    Likes Received:
    895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,429
    While bad cutting back is bad it is not as bad as cutting it out entirely which is the conclusion you could draw if you only read the title of the thread.


  4. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    Is it legal to add nearly 30,000 new pages to Obama-scam?
  5. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,675
    Likes Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,588
    If you're referring to regulations, yes, without question. In fact it is the normal process for pretty much anything remotely complex the federal government does and Congress would be too bogged down in implementation details to do anything at all without it happening.

    Legislators aren't technical experts in everything (or really even much of anything) that they deal with, so they hold hearings to get enough of a background to vote on a broad regulatory framework and then delegate authority to agency subject matter experts to implement it.
  6. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    :no::no::no:

    It's not legal. It's like rewriting a contract after you sign it.
  7. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,675
    Likes Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,588
    Maybe not in Rickland, but in the US it absolutely is.

    See, e.g, (amongst many, many others) Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 371-73 (1989) (emphasis added, all modifications in original)

  8. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    That can be overturned or ruled not to be a precedent in the case of a new entitlement if it gets back to this SCOTUS.

    Plus these new pages fundamentally changes the original law.

    Is the congress changing the ACA law? Or is Obama and his friends changing the law?

  9. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,675
    Likes Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,588
    I guess it in theory could, but there is a very near-zero chance of the Supreme Court overruling the idea of broad categorical regulatory authority governed by a legislative "intelligible principle." Why? Because nearly nothing works without it. Nearly everything any administrative agency has ever done disappears if you cut into that in a meaningful way, and there's lots you don't want to have suddenly disappear (i.e., pretty much everything the FDA has ever done to ensure the safety of drugs and medical devices under broad statutory authority, for example).

    Heck, the Massachussetts v. EPA case in 2007 didn't even question whether the delegation of powers to the EPA in the Clean Air Act violated the non-delegation doctrine, in fact they held that the EPA had not only the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, they had a duty to do so. And if anything the Court is more liberal now than it was in 2007.

    If you're counting on the Court suddenly reversing a century of precedent on non-delegation in Agency cases to suddenly reach the "Rick law" of "every detail has to be in the bill and an agency can't fill in details within an intelligble statutory framework" you're setting yourself up for monumental dissappointment.
  10. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,783
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,853
    Wouldn't it be more precise to say that massive bloating of federal oversight into all sorts of areas it was never designed nor intended to go wouldn't work without it? And that, once consecrated by an unfortunately too-willing Court, perhaps itself too of a statist/technocratic progressive bent, there is just no uprooting it?

    The very sight of a printed copy of the CFR sort of mocks the proposition behind our proposition nation.

    Which is all to say, that it is legal makes it no less of a traveshamockery and disasterbacle.
  11. asuragator

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,081
    Again rick with the regulatory misunderstanding? Ben explains it pretty clearly and it's not just a matter of opinion but a matter of fact on how things operate.
  12. DaveFla

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,380
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +979
    I told you so.......
  13. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,943
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +146
    According to the linked article, which is extremely slanted by the way, only 92% of companies will be offering spousal coverage. And one more point, the companies that will be dropping spousal coverage will be dropping it for those spouses who can obtain coverage from their own employers. Stay-at-home wives or househusbands need not worry about losing their coverage.

    In other words, if a spouse cannot obtain coverage from his/her employer the company will still offer spousal coverage.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    You must have missed the part that explicitly said that changes must be made by the congress. I wonder which Senators/congressman are involved in the 30,000 new pages being added?

    That ACA law cannot function as it was written... since when is it a matter of simple procedure to fundamentally change written laws without due process and/or Congressional oversight?
  15. gtr2x

    gtr2x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    11,576
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +576
    Exactly, another misleading headline jumped on by people with predetermined opinions. Also, the change only applies to a small percentage of their employees. One of the ladies who works for me has coverage thru her husband who works for UPS and nothing is changing for her.
    I like FedEx s response, pretty smart PR move.
  16. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,675
    Likes Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,588
    Well to the degree that they require implementation by an Agency, NO law can function as it is written without at the very least implementation regs (because without regs setting forth how an agency adminsiters and enforces it, it can't be administered or enforced).

    That's sort of the entire way it works, Congress establishes a broad framework, intentionally leaves a bunch of blanks as to how details will work when implemented, and designates what agency is in charge of filling in the blanks...

    If you think voluminous detailed regulations are unique to the ACA, take a look at the regulations promulgated under any major piece of legislation. Heck if you really want to be blown away, look at the Treasury Regulations (Treas. Regs.). They're what implement the Internal Revenue Code and are so voluminous that they are referred to with a separate citation system from any other federal regulations.
  17. rpmGator

    rpmGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,695
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +573
    Still waiting on the debt crisis sky to fall.

    What will be the new panty wad after this one has passed.
  18. uftaipan

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,170
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Kabul, Afghanistan
    Ratings Received:
    +1,331
    UPS should tread lightly. It's racist thoughtcrime to criticize the "Affordable Care Act."

Share This Page