Actors Equity Drops Health Coverage For Older Actors — Page 3

"And no, the reference to vesting is not dishonest just because you are misreading it. "

LOL seriously, so vested doesn't mean vested, because you say it doesn't mean vested, even though the term vested is used multiple times?

You can call it a tempest in a teapot, all you want. But the fact remains there are hundreds of people who will be losing the coverage that they were "vested" in through years of work.

And vested did mean that they were vested into a specific plan...they were vested into the plans that the Health Trust Fund offered. And now they are NOT!

The Trust Fund shouldn't use a word like "vested"...and then get defensive, when people ask them to live up to its definition.



Definitions of Vested

---

ok justaguy, it is obvious you do not want to understand but for the benefit of others...

to say one is vested prompts the further inquiry "vested in what?"

you have decided vested means in the trust's plan. That is where you are wrong. A self pay person had access to health care before. They have access to health care coverage after the change. They remain guaranteed in that. What you want-insane and unreasonable as it may be-is to demand that the trust provide access to coverage in the manner that costs it the most, without regard to whether that in any way benefits the former participant. That is foolish, and inures to the detriment of the thousands of people covered under the plan. But go on railing about it if you wish: it is emblematic of what has happened to political discourse in this country. Are you a tea party member? If not, you should look into it as your mode of analysis is right up their alley.

"This is 100% false. They remain guaranteed to have access to health coverage."

Not false, they are no longer guaranteed to have the health coverage that they were supposedly vested in.

"You are trying to suggest that they have a right to the exact same coverage as currently in force in the trust: "

No, I'm suggesting that they were vested into the same coverage that everyone else has under the current Trust Fund plan, if that coverage changes for everyone then it will change for them too.

"what you want is to cause the trust to spend as much money as possible, despite logic and common sense, and that is just fundamentally perverse."

What I want is the Trust Fund to honor the definition of Vested! Either they were vested or they weren't. If they weren't they should have never, ever used the term. It's misleading and dishonest.

---

"you are just making crap up to argue with yourself at this point. I think it is clear to everyone else that no one will be disadvantaged by this modification, and that the only explanation for your position is to make things as difficult and expensive as possible notwithstanding the absence of any benefit-something that absolutely harms every single beneficiary under the trust. "

Feel free to feel, however you want about my opinion. But, I did not make up, the Trust Fund's statement about what being VESTED BEYOND COBRA meant. They did that themselves.

You might want to actually check in with the people who are affected by this, to see if they feel they're being disadvantaged. But, I'm sure you'll simply dismiss them, as not knowing what they're talking about, too.

---

Updated On: 10/29/14 at 12:56 PM

"Thank God for the exchanges-- that should help those who are dropped."

Technically, the existence of the exchanges was a major part of the decision to drop their coverage, since they would be able to get continued coverage.

The FACTS:
- The Trustees of the Equity-League Health Trust Fund (ELHTF) made the decision to ‘DUMP’ 336 ‘Vested Beyond COBRA’ AEA Members from their CIGNA PPO plan.

- To date, eligibility for ‘Vested Beyond COBRA’ status was achieved when an AEA actor accrued ten years of work credits. This qualified the actors for Pension and access to health insurance. This access to health insurance was on the condition that the actors pay their own insurance premiums on time and was ‘for their lifetime.’

- The Trustees on the Board of ELHTF are in two groups. One group represents the actors, Equity; and the other group represents the producers, League…hence, Equity-League Health Trust Fund.

- Making changes in the policies: Each group has a single collective vote. Any changes in policy must have agreement from both the Equity and the League sides.

- If the Equity vote had been ‘NO’ then none of this would have happened.

- Our union president/Nick Wyman, is one of the Trustees who voted FOR this change. He refused to explain his decision at the recent AEA East Regional Membership Meeting saying he was unable to talk about the decision.

- The only explanation given to date by the Trustees for this decision has been to say that the 336 Vested AEA Members were ‘not cost effective’ as a group.

- Here are the Net Assets reported for years 2006 through 2012 from the ELHTF’s form 990 tax returns.
Net Assets Beginning of Year End of Year
2006 36,428,605 53,252,687
2007 53,252,687 63,894,024
2008 63,894,024 68,647,845
2009 68,647,845 79,137,989
2010 79,137,989 94,350,296
2011 94,350,296 102,086,938
2012 102,086,938 114,001,706

In spite of the 336 Vested/AEA Members being participants in this group insurance policy, the ELHTF’s assets have continued to grow by millions of dollars each year.

What the 336 Vested AEA Dumpees/participants are losing:
1) The ability to keep their doctor of choice as the CIGNA PPO plan allows participants to access ‘out of network’ doctors. Many of these ‘older’ actors have managed their personal health conditions with specialists. None of the ACA/NY State marketplace insurance plans allow ‘out’ of network’ doctors for their participants.

2) The CIGNA PPO policy provides nationally networked health insurance coverage. None of the ACA/NY State marketplace insurance plans are nationally networked. Translation: Pursuing work or working outside of NY State means NOT having access to your health insurance; restricted employment opportunities.

- Paying less for insurance or finding financial assistance for the cost isn’t better if you are losing the policy that gives you the ability to maintain your health with the specialists/doctors of your choice.
Restricted employment opportunity is never a good idea.

- ALL AEA Members going forward will no longer be able to earn ‘Vested Status’ to self-pay their premiums ‘for their lifetime’…this decision has ELIMINATED that possibility, that future health security for ALL AEA Members!

THE REAL QUESTIONS:
- What is the motivation behind this decision that ‘DUMPS’ 336 ‘Vested AEA Members’ from their earned ability to self-pay their own insurance premiums until age 65 when they would transfer to Medicare?

- What are the real reasons for this change in policy?

- Why are the AEA elected leaders who are also Trustees of ELHTF refusing to discuss the details, as to why they made this decision?

- Why do the AEA elected leader/Trustees think ELIMINATING ‘Vested Status’ for ALL AEA Members access to health insurance is a good decision for the future of our membership?

- Where are the voices of AEA’s entire elected leadership/councilors when it comes to informing our membership of this change and in speaking out on this loss of benefits for ALL of our AEA membership?

"The point that many of you are missing is that people's choice has been taken away."

But your misguided notion is that people ever had this choice to begin with. They never did, and the ACA has only improved their ability to stay insured once market forces decide to remove that safety net.

You may be right that they don't want to change insurance, hope to retain their existing doctors, etc., but that isn't surprising or relevant.

I do like that anti-Obama discussions will even take the anti-free market opinion, though. By any means necessary, eh?

"You don't think a person wanting to keep their doctor is relevant?"

I'm sure it is relevant to those people, sure. But aside from trotting out your favorite Obama quote, is there any proof they will be unable to do that? Or are you just being speculatively outraged because something might happen?

So, we need to assume the negative until we know otherwise? Got it.

I switched insurance plans 3X in the past 3 years (the last one due to ACA phasing out my previous plan), and have kept the same doctor the whole time. The weird loophole I found was picking the carrier my doctor used when i selected the new insurance online. It was fairly straightforward.

Updated On: 11/3/14 at 11:58 AM