Actors Equity Drops Health Coverage For Older Actors- Page 2

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 2:17pm

If this was supposed to be a cost cutting measure why did they allow producers and their dependents the ability to be covered, at the same time they were booting older actors, and stage managers.

The Equity Council Member's who sit on the Health Trust Fund, Board of Trustees should have their feet held to the fire over this. The decision to do this had to be a unanimous vote, which means that AEA members voted against the best interest of their fellow longtime equity members.

The next time elections roll around, you can bet that I will not be voting for a single member who sat on the Board of Trustees, during this period. And I would encourage others to do the same. If this is the kind of representation they're giving us...then they need to be booted out. And the sooner the better.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 2:28pm

Just a guy:

Isn't the change actually in the best interests of the membership? It reduces the trust's costs which benefits the covered membership while guaranteeing that no one will be dropped unless they have access to coverage in an exchange. The effect is to lay off the high risk population on the marketplace, instead of having the trust absorb that risk. Change is not always bad, and complaining is not always the right path.

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 2:36pm

"This can't be true because Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

Gotham, the implied assumption in that statement assumed your employer/government agency/union continues to offer that plan and you continue to meet the eligibility requirements to participate. No President has the power to mandate that an individual company or union continue to offer a specific carrier's plan if they choose to make changes. A company can decide to switch its primary medical coverage from CIGNA to Aetna. No President is going to tell them they can't. Please tell me your comment was made as a result of smugness, cause the only other option is ignorance.

As far as this move by AEA is concerned, it is mirroring what has been happening across many other industries and unions for the past 10 years. As has been pointed out, this change doesn't affect those still active, just those who haven't worked or worked enough to qualify for some time but were still on the plan. The baby boomer generation has aged and the cost of providing to that large group what is generally referred to as "retiree medical" has skyrocketed. Many health care funds are being pushed towards insolvency by the increasing costs and fiduciarily, they can't allow that to happen (or at least they shouldn't) so they have to make changes. Many companies have eliminated or scaled back this benefit for similar reasons. The expectation many people have had that if you worked for a company or were in a union 10-20 years, you could stay on their medical plans for the rest of your life is just simply no longer going to be valid going forward. At least with Obamacare, there is a reasonable even if not identical option that is now available.

Updated On: 10/28/14 at 02:36 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 2:45pm

fisherman-

just to add a point-this was never retiree health insurance: it was a self pay plan that allowed those who were no longer eligible to pay the full premium for coverage themself. That was a meaningful benefit pre-ACA, because many people could not buy coverage at a reasonable price, especially if they had a pre-existing condition. With the ACA, there are no pre-existing conditions and everyone has access to the market place through exchanges in most markets. And if they don't have access they can continue to self pay their way into the plan.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 2:48pm

"If this is the kind of representation they're giving us...then they need to be booted out. And the sooner the better."

This relatively small group was costing an extraordinary amount of money to an organization with negative cash flow. Keeping this policy in place could ultimately cause more drastic cuts and loss of enrollment. What other options does Equity League have?

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 2:56pm

"just to add a point-this was never retiree health insurance"

Understood Hogan. In that it allowed older actors who were no longer working to keep their coverage, it functioned in that regard similarly to retiree medical in other industries but as you point out is different in that it is not designed for retirement but rather for anyone of any age who no longer qualifies for coverage. It basically functions like COBRA except it continued well beyond the end of the mandated COBRA period.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 4:26pm

Goth, did you really think that when Obama said "you can keep your plan" he meant that suddenly, and for the first time ever, with the advent of the ACA, every single person would invariably be able to keep whatever health plan he or she had for the rest of his or her lifetime irrespective of whether the healthplan changed or went out of business, or the person's life or job changed?

is that really what you thought he meant? Is that really what any sane person thought he meant?



Updated On: 10/28/14 at 04:26 PM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 4:51pm

Of course it is Henrik, why else would he be saying the same thing over and over again for months? As soon as Goth has been proven wrong, he stops participating in the thread. Every single time.

"He "mis-spoke"? What a lame excuse. If a Republican tried that, they would be hounded until they resigned from office."

Yeah? George W was illiterate, couldn't put two thoughts together, and was only elected because of Daddy G. He completely screwed our country in a million different ways, and President Obama has spent six years de-tangling his mess. I get it, you think he's the wrong age, wrong color, and wrong party. So much so that the GOP thinks they can interrupt him when he's speaking at the House and wag their fingers in his face. But, of course this isn't about the Affordable Care Act, even though you want it to be so badly.





What has Obama done? Updated On: 10/29/14 at 04:51 PM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 5:17pm

"This relatively small group was costing an extraordinary amount of money to an organization with negative cash flow. Keeping this policy in place could ultimately cause more drastic cuts and loss of enrollment. What other options does Equity League have?"

And yet...they added producers and their dependents to the plan. How can that be cost effective? Why add people who were never a part of the plan to begin with, while eliminating those who have been promised since joining the union that they would be able to pay for coverage after COBRA? It's not as if they are getting this coverage for free. They are paying fairly substantial premiums to stay on the plan.

The whole thing was handled really poorly. To not inform the entire membership of what was going on until after the fact, reeks!

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 6:13pm

Justaguy-adding the producers has nothing to do with this, nor is there any reason to think producers are a high risk pool in any event. Please actually focus on the facts of this instead of just reacting. The raison d'être for providing self-pay access post COBRA no longer exists in states with an exchange marketplace. So to get worked up about this as you seem to be is equivalent to kvetching that Equity no longer offers discounted western union telegrams to members because the technology has evolved past that. THere is no logical reason for the covered population to subsidize the self-pay population when the ACA facilitates laying that risk on the exchanges-the whole idea behind the ACA and a notion that every union in the country has eagerly endorsed.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 6:32pm

"Justaguy-adding the producers has nothing to do with this, nor is there any reason to think producers are a high risk pool in any event. "

You can't claim you're attempting cost effectiveness...by cutting people from the plan on one side, while adding them on the other.

What's cost effective about adding the producers and their dependents to a plan that is supposedly in trouble??

"THere is no logical reason for the covered population to subsidize the self-pay population when the ACA facilitates laying that risk on the exchanges-the whole idea behind the ACA and a notion that every union in the country has eagerly endorsed."

Then there is no logical reason to add the producers and their dependents either. They have the same access to ACA that those who have now been kicked off the plan have.

Updated On: 10/28/14 at 06:32 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 9:03pm

First of all, as I said before, you are confounding two separate decisions by the trustees. If you want to attack the producer decision, fine, but it has nothing to do with this decision.

Second, as a general proposition, adding people to a plan enhances liquidity, and is a desirable thing. So in answer to your question, it IS cost effective to add lives to the plan, so long as they are a neutral population. The inclusion of the post-COBRA folks, however, is not, because they are an adversely selected population that is high risk (and the data shows the risk was real). It is Insurance 101 that you want to lay off a risk like that on the broadest pool possible, which in this case is the exchange market.

Thus, the bottom line is that the producer group is desirable, the post_COBRA group is not. Indeed, the latter is a group no one would willingly insure, which is why, pre-ACA, they were being covered. But now that there IS an alternative, thanks to the ACA, there is no sensible reason the trust would continue to suffer this risk and cost. Again, it has NOTHING to do with the producers and what options are available to them. Please try to understand that.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 11:27pm

So are we to assume that the only producers and their dependents who were added to the plan, were in their 20's 30's and part of the "neutral" population? I'd love to see a break down of the producer demographic.


You seem to be speaking with inside information on this? More so, than what the average Equity member has. You're not a councillor or a trustee by any chance, are you?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 1:02am

First, the trust would have had the demographic information, and we need not assume everyone was in their 20s-30s, but simply that they are a neutral population, as contrasted with the highly adverse selection of the post-COBRA people.

I have no information other than what was in the same link you have access to in this thread, and basic knowledge of how health plans work. I hold no position of any kind related to this.

It still seems you refuse to appreciate that this is a positive thing that you are spinning negative as a kneejerk reaction. You seem determined to have that reaction so enjoy.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 9:06am

It's not a positive thing for the actors who will not be able to take work out of state, because their Health Insurance won't follow them. It's not a positive thing to have to make a decision, whether to work, hoping to get insurance weeks or to not work and have insurance. It's not a positive thing, to be told that you're "vested" and then be told "just kidding".

The trustees have put hundreds of Equity Members in the position of having to decide, if it's worth the risk to try and find work out of state, over staying in state and having health insurance.

If this were such a positive thing. One would think that the Trustees would have informed the membership well before it happened what was going to take place. As it is right now..there are Equity Members who have no idea, that from this point forward, if you live in a state that has a health insurance exchange, you will not be vested, no matter how many years you've been a working, dues paying member.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 9:29am

I was done with you but thtere is so much in this last post of yours that's ill-informed, it demands a response.

1. Where did you get the idea that working out of state somehow vitiates health coverage? Wrong.

2. Where did you get the idea that working or not working has anything to do with this coverage? Obviously, if you work anywhere, for anyone, in or out of the business, and get employer provided health insurance, you would not continue to pay for your own coverage. But that is true under the extant self pay plan. There is no difference between that and the exchange-based coverage. Again, Wrong.

3. Where did you get the idea anyone was "vested" in the self-pay coverage? I defy you to document that statement, especially because describing a self play plan as vested is an oxymoron. Yep, you guessed it: Wrong.

4. Where did you get the idea that there is a risk in finding work out of state vis a vis this coverage? Wrong.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of just about everything connected with this. One last time I urge you to become informed instead of freaking out out of ignorance. As I said, this is a positive thing, and only lack of understanding is breeding your hostility to it. If you are an AEA member who is eligible for health coverage, this change will definitely inure to your benefit. If you are currently self-paying into the plan, you will have access to coverage through the exchanges or the status quo will remain for you. There is no downside here so long as you understand and are not fueled by a lack of understanding of the dynamics of this. One more time: please inform yourself before having your kneejerk kvetch.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 9:51am

Hogans, just want to thank you for being a voice of reason on this thread.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 9:53am

Yes, Hogan. The article presents this issue in a clearly biased tone with a misleading headline; especially unhelpful when it is being shared on social media.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 10:11am

1. Where did you get the idea that working out of state somehow vitiates health coverage? Wrong.


Because it does, not all health plans are recognized outside of the state in which they are issued.

2. Where did you get the idea that working or not working has anything to do with this coverage? Obviously, if you work anywhere, for anyone, in or out of the business, and get employer provided health insurance, you would not continue to pay for your own coverage. But that is true under the extant self pay plan. There is no difference between that and the exchange-based coverage. Again, Wrong.

Wrong. Working out of state, in a regional theater would give you weeks toward the Union plan. If your ACA health plan that you have, does not cover you when you're out of the state, then the only option you have, is to work out of state, with no health coverage, or pass up the job, because you don't want to lose the coverage that you do have.

3) Where did you get the idea anyone was "vested" in the self-pay coverage? I defy you to document that statement, especially because describing a self play plan as vested is an oxymoron. Yep, you guessed it: Wrong.

Not wrong...the link below will take you to a statement that the Health Trust fund issued, about being Vested Beyond Cobra.

4) Where did you get the idea that there is a risk in finding work out of state vis a vis this coverage? Wrong.

There's a risk involved when working out of state with out insurance coverage. If the insurance you have does not cover you while your are out of state.






VESTED BEYOND COBRA

Updated On: 10/29/14 at 10:11 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 10:26am

The tragedy is that, by crying wolf on this non-issue, justaguy will have no credibility in addressing the execution of the policy. Yet making sure the trustees conscientiously administer the special circumstance provision is important. Change is not bad ipso facto, and nothing good comes of staking out a position based on ignorance. (And yes I know that's how much of our politics sadly (mal)functions today.)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 10:36am

It is illegal to preclude health coverage when you are out of state. This is precisely what the ACA addresses. Everything you say about out of state work is flat out wrong.

The Self-pay plan is not vested because by definition it is not an employer provided benefit. It was provided to those who had been vested in the plan as active employees. I can understand how what you linked would be confusing. The bottom line is that everyone is still being guaranteed access to health care; what is changing is how it is made accessible. Even those eligible for health coverage have no guarantee that it will be any specific plan. As you undoubtedly know, plans and benefits change, and that is what is happening here. The only difference is that here there is no coverage being changed-just the means of access. Please please please stop kneejerking. It's sad. Focus on reality. It helps.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 10:56am

Well, this has turned out to be a great thread, filled with helpful information and healthy debate. I am sharing it with the older-actor friends of mine who were alarmed by this news, since they normally avoid this chatboard as if you could get ebola from it.

Thanks, Hogan AND JustAGuy!

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 10:59am

"It is illegal to preclude health coverage when you are out of state. This is precisely what the ACA addresses. Everything you say about out of state work is flat out wrong. "

That is simply not true. There are many health care plans that do not offer coverage out of state. A simple google search will reveal that.

"The Self-pay plan is not vested because by definition it is not an employer provided benefit. It was provided to those who had been vested in the plan as active employees. I can understand how what you linked would be confusing"

So..."vested" doesn't really mean "vested"...even though they used the word "vested" and they talk about have 10 years of "vesting" under the pension plan?

That's not confusing...that's dishonest.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 11:19am

justaguy, you just really want to get worked up about something. tempest in a teapot and all that. you don't know what you are talking about and when confronted shift to complaining about something else.

There are HMO plans that have limited geographical coverage, but in order to get worked up you have to assume that someone who is thinking about going to a regional theatre would choose such a plan, and of course you also neglect to recognize that the unavailability of a plan with national coverage for a person would leave the self pay plan in force.

And no, the reference to vesting is not dishonest just because you are misreading it. Indeed, you either have not read, or have misread, every pertinent piece of information in this thread. Vesting triggers access to the self pay plan; it does not in the least mean that you are vested in a specific plan-that is not what vesting means, and you cannot make it mean that by fiat.

My final prayer is that you get out of attack mode and into learning mode; it'll be good for your blood pressure. But I have my doubts you want the facts; you seem to enjoy freaking out way too much.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 11:36am

I'm really don't think your concerns are persuasive, JustaGuy.

For example, my friend, a union member, who was recently on a leave from her job had the choice between Cobra and ACA. She did extensive research on her options - she lives in Jersey - and concluded that an ACA plan that was comparable to the benefits she received under Cobra was less expensive than Cobra.

Now, perhaps that's not representative, but I kind of doubt it as Cobra is not known as being a big value.