Shit has hit the fan over on WeddingWire...

glasgowtolondon · March 2016

I don't really go over there too much but since yesterday was a lazy day watching Jessica Jones and eating popcorn, it was prime lurking time. Checked back today since my interest was piqued. Holy shit, so much wrong in such a small space of time!

https://www.weddingwire.com/wedding-forums/apparently-am-late-to-this-awesomeness/69c6a0b6faeaf023.html?page=1

CN: WW chicks get into it over the ethics of Hobby Lobby. One regular user tells a story about being raped at 17 and needing to use Plan B (I assume is the morning after pill in the US). Some indirect slut shaming ensues, but palpable enough that she must have felt like shit. Some c**tbucket threatens to hit her/general users (comment was deleted), but nothing happens to her. Reg that confessed about her rape tells her to fuck off (also now deleted) and is banned for 3wks. Regular users go mental at the injustice and set up their own forum somewhere else.

By the sounds of things WW recently changed their TOS to make it into a bullshit WB, like we need another one.

Eta: @kvruns made the excellent point that WW sounds like the wedding woes ladies were all kicking off!

kvruns · March 2016

Ok I saw WW (didn't look at the link) and was like wait I was on Wedding Woes last night and didn't see anything. Wedding Wire. doh! grabbing popcorn

glasgowtolondon · March 2016

Ha, I didn't even think of that! Edited for clarity.

thisismynickname2 · March 2016

Wow.... just.... wow.

I'm sitting here thinking, hmm, let sleeping dogs lie, or comment? Since we're in an election year, I'll comment.
Y'all probably remember I'm Libertarian so I'm face-palming all the people saying, "An employer can't tell their employee what birth control they can and can't use!" Well... I don't think employers should provide health insurance at all. This would solve the whole freedom of religion / entitlement to health care problem.
Employers only provide health insurance dating back to the Depression. Costs of care were going up, and employers providing an automatic risk pool helped a lot with setting up insurance. Now this country is conditioned to believe that employers providing access to care is a right. If healthcare is a right, you shouldn't be working to get it, period. Insurance companies have provided insurance directly to individuals for a long time and now with the ACA individuals can get more affordable plans. I'd love to see the day come where employers aren't responsible for this at all, use the costs of premiums to increase dollars in paychecks, and stop coming between individuals and their health choices.

sparklepants41 · March 2016

Darn it all! I clicked on the link and grabbed my popcorn, but the thread is locked!

Edited because I clearly need more coffee. The thread is locked for commenting (which I can't do anyway because I'm not a member), but all eight glorious drama-licious pages are available for reading!

kvruns · March 2016

thisismynickname said:

I'd love to see the day come where employers aren't responsible for this at all, use the costs of premiums to increase dollars in paychecks, and stop coming between individuals and their health choices.

But then I wouldn't have a job lol

kvruns · March 2016

sparklepants41 said:

Darn it all! I clicked on the link and grabbed my popcorn, but the thread is locked!

Edited because I clearly need more coffee. The thread is locked for commenting (which I can't do anyway because I'm not a member), but all eight glorious drama-licious pages are available for reading!

it would be way better if they had a quote feature because it drove me crazy with the hidden posts I couldn't figure out!

thisismynickname2 · March 2016

kvruns said:

thisismynickname said:

I'd love to see the day come where employers aren't responsible for this at all, use the costs of premiums to increase dollars in paychecks, and stop coming between individuals and their health choices.

But then I wouldn't have a job lol

Transfer of duties; instead of HR handling insurance, the insurance companies would probably need more employees to keep up with individual applicants ;-)

glasgowtolondon · March 2016

"If healthcare is a right, you shouldn't be working to get it, period."

Totally agree. God bless the NH-fucking-S.

Yeah, if only they could quote! There are a few more where they are all up in arms:

https://www.weddingwire.com/wedding-forums/ww-mods-you-got-some-splainin-to-do/729281a3a002fa58.html

Actually just tried to find the other one but seems it has been hidden by the powers that be. Boo!

kvruns · March 2016

thisismynickname said:

kvruns said:

thisismynickname said:

I'd love to see the day come where employers aren't responsible for this at all, use the costs of premiums to increase dollars in paychecks, and stop coming between individuals and their health choices.

But then I wouldn't have a job lol

Transfer of duties; instead of HR handling insurance, the insurance companies would probably need more employees to keep up with individual applicants ;-)

I work for a health insurance broker so we'd all be out of work. Working for an insurance carrier sounds like torture hehe

charlotte989875 · March 2016

"This thread is why I need feminism" comment.

Yes, yes it is.

banana468 · March 2016

My own tangent - I hate how the current healthcare process works.

My own example: I was on DH's health insurance as his company offered better care and it was cost effective to be on it as a family coverage option. He works for a large gov. contractor and the benefits package was one of the things that they used to entice workers to join them vs. other competitors.

Fast forward from 2003 when he was hired to 2015. The package has changed. Now if you have a spouse who "has access to healthcare" then you will be assessed an additional surcharge of $1300 on top of the deductions taken out of your paycheck. In addition, there is no longer a low deductible option. It's all HD.

So what is "access to healthcare" as all of us in the state have access based on the exchanges? No - it's tied to whether or not you have a spouse that works. So DH who is working with two kids and a working spouse would have an additional $1300 out of his paycheck to go on the HD plan.

His friend with a stay at home wife and 3 kids gets all people covered with no surcharge and they've been working at the same company for nearly an identical amount of time.

Now the benefits that they used to entice college graduates are no long equal among their own workers of similar experience. And now as a result, it's costing us more money as we calculated that I should go on my own insurance as offered by my employer. Luckily so far all my physicians still accept the new plan so I'm not paying out of pocket.

I would much rather see a system that doesn't tie my health insurance to employment. And I'd rather see a plan that charges in a way that makes sense.

thisismynickname2 · March 2016

Yeah, Banana, my husband's insurance would charge him extra to have me on his coverage because my employer provides coverage. It costs the employer to provide health insurance, obviously, so I'm guessing the attitude is, "If you can get it through some other employer, make them pay for it, not us." So in the case of employees with SAH spouses, they can't get it from another employer, so the breadwinner's company takes on that cost as a "benefit" to that employee. I'm guessing they don't see the point of giving a "benefit" to someone who already has access to a benefit.

Take a shot every time we use the word benefit.

kvruns · March 2016

banana468 said:

My own tangent - I hate how the current healthcare process works.

My own example: I was on DH's health insurance as his company offered better care and it was cost effective to be on it as a family coverage option. He works for a large gov. contractor and the benefits package was one of the things that they used to entice workers to join them vs. other competitors.

Fast forward from 2003 when he was hired to 2015. The package has changed. Now if you have a spouse who "has access to healthcare" then you will be assessed an additional surcharge of $1300 on top of the deductions taken out of your paycheck. In addition, there is no longer a low deductible option. It's all HD.

So what is "access to healthcare" as all of us in the state have access based on the exchanges? No - it's tied to whether or not you have a spouse that works. So DH who is working with two kids and a working spouse would have an additional $1300 out of his paycheck to go on the HD plan.

His friend with a stay at home wife and 3 kids gets all people covered with no surcharge and they've been working at the same company for nearly an identical amount of time.

Now the benefits that they used to entice college graduates are no long equal among their own workers of similar experience. And now as a result, it's costing us more money as we calculated that I should go on my own insurance as offered by my employer. Luckily so far all my physicians still accept the new plan so I'm not paying out of pocket.

I would much rather see a system that doesn't tie my health insurance to employment. And I'd rather see a plan that charges in a way that makes sense.

Yea the clarification has to be made that a spousal surcharge (like you have) and a spousal carve out (where a spouse can't be on the plan if he/she has job based insurance) that it isn't just access to insurance but it is access to job-based insurance coverage. The bolded is exactly why it exists - an employer wants to save money by putting one of these in place because they feel like if a spouse has access to job-based coverage then the spouse's own employer should be subsidizing its own employee's coverage.

You also see a trend of employee-only coverage being heavily subsidized (not just to meet ACA affordability rules, but just in general) and then if you add a spouse or children it is not subsidized much, if at all. Therefore creating the same thing of telling people if you have access to other subsidized coverage you should take it or you will pay out the nose.

None of this to say that it doesn't suck and it certainly affects people and in many cases just doesn't seem fair but it is the new reality.

banana468 · March 2016

I completely understand the *why* behind the process.

But now I think that the employer is now offering a different class of benefits to people in the same group. My hunch is that it can open the door to fraud - what if DH wasn't honest? And what if the SAH wife suddenly started her own business or worked in something like consulting where the insurance wasn't provided but she had a seriously lucrative career? Congratulations large government contractor - you're now creating classes of employees within your own organization. I'd rather you simply create the same cost to all employees regardless of their spouse's employments status.

I have my own other issues with them but this one is a stand out since it's relatively recent.

And all of this is to say that you can have a variety of complaints with how health coverage works, what we all consider a 'benefit' and what we think we're supposed to be entitled to.

kvruns · March 2016

banana468 said:

I completely understand the *why* behind the process.

But now I think that the employer is now offering a different class of benefits to people in the same group. My hunch is that it can open the door to fraud - what if DH wasn't honest? And what if the SAH wife suddenly started her own business or worked in something like consulting where the insurance wasn't provided but she had a seriously lucrative career? Congratulations large government contractor - you're now creating classes of employees within your own organization. I'd rather you simply create the same cost to all employees regardless of their spouse's employments status.

I have my own other issues with them but this one is a stand out since it's relatively recent.

And all of this is to say that you can have a variety of complaints with how health coverage works, what we all consider a 'benefit' and what we think we're supposed to be entitled to.

your honesty comment is important. All employers should periodically audit their dependent eligibility. Not just those that have a plan in place to limit spousal coverage but just in general (sometimes people keep "spouses" on even though they are divorced, or would have a bf/gf's child listed as their own, etc). But if no one audits or no one catches it then you are right dishonest people can milk the system while people like you who abide pay the price. Often the application/enrollment form for benefits will include a statement about providing honest information (especially in a surcharge situation) and it is subject to the company's disciplinary process if an employee is found to have lied.

banana468 · March 2016

kvruns said:

banana468 said:

I completely understand the *why* behind the process.

But now I think that the employer is now offering a different class of benefits to people in the same group. My hunch is that it can open the door to fraud - what if DH wasn't honest? And what if the SAH wife suddenly started her own business or worked in something like consulting where the insurance wasn't provided but she had a seriously lucrative career? Congratulations large government contractor - you're now creating classes of employees within your own organization. I'd rather you simply create the same cost to all employees regardless of their spouse's employments status.

I have my own other issues with them but this one is a stand out since it's relatively recent.

And all of this is to say that you can have a variety of complaints with how health coverage works, what we all consider a 'benefit' and what we think we're supposed to be entitled to.

your honesty comment is important. All employers should periodically audit their dependent eligibility. Not just those that have a plan in place to limit spousal coverage but just in general (sometimes people keep "spouses" on even though they are divorced, or would have a bf/gf's child listed as their own, etc). But if no one audits or no one catches it then you are right dishonest people can milk the system while people like you who abide pay the price. Often the application/enrollment form for benefits will include a statement about providing honest information (especially in a surcharge situation) and it is subject to the company's disciplinary process if an employee is found to have lied.

Ugh - they do that too. It totally chapped DH's rumpus when they required him to prove dependent eligibility for our kids when he provided the birth certificates for them already. IMO - the verification process should be stated and done at the time of enrollment. But his company uses a 3rd party business who sells their services on the promise of "saving money".

Our favorite was proving that we're still married. You can prove that you got married but how do you prove that you're still married without saying "Um....there's no court filings?" It was a lot of fun attempting such verification in the first year of our marriage when I was his wife but we hadn't filed our taxes together yet.

And again - all of this to get "benefits".

cupcait927 · March 2016

banana468 said:

I completely understand the *why* behind the process.

But now I think that the employer is now offering a different class of benefits to people in the same group. My hunch is that it can open the door to fraud - what if DH wasn't honest? And what if the SAH wife suddenly started her own business or worked in something like consulting where the insurance wasn't provided but she had a seriously lucrative career? Congratulations large government contractor - you're now creating classes of employees within your own organization. I'd rather you simply create the same cost to all employees regardless of their spouse's employments status.

I have my own other issues with them but this one is a stand out since it's relatively recent.

And all of this is to say that you can have a variety of complaints with how health coverage works, what we all consider a 'benefit' and what we think we're supposed to be entitled to.

@kvruns made a good point - reputable companies will periodically perform dependent audits and many also require their employees to sign off stating that their spouse does not have access to healthcare. However, no system is perfect and you will always come across people who are dishonest and will milk the system. I also work for an insurance broker and have seen some crazy shit.

I could go on and on and on about why employers are offering coverage they way they do now, and why copay plans aren't offered, etc, but I'll refrain. Big picture - costs have exploded and everyone is now struggling to figure out how to keep up.

thisismynickname2 · March 2016

Sidenote on WW, I just went over there to try to defend good etiquette and it's like talking to a wall.
Why bother.

short+sassy · March 2016

One of the weird tweaks I saw with healthcare provided by a company I used to work with was, if I was living with a same sex person, I could add them to my healthcare policy. Like as a spouse, even if we were just roommates. But I couldn't add my live-in b/f (now H), because he was of the opposite sex.

I mean, I guess they had good intentions of trying to include people in same sex relationships who did not have the option to marry their b/f or g/f (this was years ago). So I applauded them for that. But then it makes the potential for silly situations, where I can't add my b/f of five years to my policy, but if we had rented out one of our rooms to a random girl on Craig's List we had just met the week before, I could have added rando girl I barely knew to my insurance.

arrippa · March 2016

thisismynickname said:

Sidenote on WW, I just went over there to try to defend good etiquette and it's like talking to a wall.
Why bother.

It's a little weird over there. They hate cash bars, but they also hate dry weddings. They are against honeyfunds but are for unplugged weddings. It's like they taking one step forward and then two steps back. But watching them implode reminds me of the last mass exodus here with unfair bannings and unclear rules.

glasgowtolondon · March 2016

arrippa said:

thisismynickname said:

Sidenote on WW, I just went over there to try to defend good etiquette and it's like talking to a wall.
Why bother.

It's a little weird over there. They hate cash bars, but they also hate dry weddings. They are against honeyfunds but are for unplugged weddings. It's like they taking one step forward and then two steps back. But watching them implode reminds me of the last mass exodus here with unfair bannings and unclear rules.

Idk about the things that happened here, but that was my take away from the whole thing. It's not really my kind of place, but the whole banning shit is ridiculous. Especially of regular participants, who, whether the powers that be lile it or not are the ones driving conversation forward and giving the lurkers something to lurk. Lurking isn't participation. I completely see why they are all angry. I can only think it's a management decision to make it more like WB. Bullshit.

ernursej · March 2016

Being a Canadian, I just don't understand the US healthcare world. I knew a Canadian who crashed his bike in Maui and the first question that people asked him was if he had insurance or not. As an Emergency Nurse ... I just don't understand it. I feel very lucky to live where I do.

kimmiinthemitten · March 2016

Been busy at work so I haven't creeped on there in a while. Who the hell are all of these people who were unaware of the Hobby Lobby/Birth Control case? I know I'm hyper-aware, but I thought that was a pretty well covered/publicized case.

ETA - now that I've read both threads, how the hell are we still considered the bitchy ones?!

NowIAmSyp · March 2016

WW's blow-up has made it over to Snarky Chickens (circle of snark) as well. We (TK) are mentioned several times on that thread as well- it's actually really funny- I LOL'd several times

http://circleofsnark.com/index.php?threads/the-weddingwire-meltdown.2559/

ETA: link (is this allowed?)

Heffalump · March 2016

kvruns said:

Ok I saw WW (didn't look at the link) and was like wait I was on Wedding Woes last night and didn't see anything. Wedding Wire. doh! grabbing popcorn

I remember when Wedding Woes was the only WW in town.

photo crying-1gif

(Well, except for Weight Watchers--there was occasionally some confusion with Weight Watchers when WW was referenced on other boards, but it was rare.)

ETA: I read that entire, jaw-dropping thread. My favorite part was, eight pages in and after everything had blown up, someone posted "I also went to hobby lobby this weekend and OMG I am in love! I loved everything and want everything!!" Oh honey, that ship sailed about 7 pages ago...

glasgowtolondon · March 2016

Heffalump said:

ETA: I read that entire, jaw-dropping thread. My favorite part was, eight pages in and after everything had blown up, someone posted "I also went to hobby lobby this weekend and OMG I am in love! I loved everything and want everything!!" Oh honey, that ship sailed about 7 pages ago...

When you post BEFORE reading.....

PrettyGirlLost · March 2016

glasgowtolondon said:

Heffalump said:

ETA: I read that entire, jaw-dropping thread. My favorite part was, eight pages in and after everything had blown up, someone posted "I also went to hobby lobby this weekend and OMG I am in love! I loved everything and want everything!!" Oh honey, that ship sailed about 7 pages ago...

When you post BEFORE reading.....

Or she didn't give two shits about the political discussion turned shitshow, and was just commenting based on the original point of OP's, well, OP, lol.

NowIAmSyp said:

WW's blow-up has made it over to Snarky Chickens (circle of snark) as well. We (TK) are mentioned several times on that thread as well- it's actually really funny- I LOL'd several times

http://circleofsnark.com/index.php?threads/the-weddingwire-meltdown.2559/

ETA: link (is this allowed?)

I love that site! I don't think they realize how similar our snark is, though.

sparklepants41 · March 2016

Heffalump said:

kvruns said:

Ok I saw WW (didn't look at the link) and was like wait I was on Wedding Woes last night and didn't see anything. Wedding Wire. doh! grabbing popcorn

I remember when Wedding Woes was the only WW in town.

(Well, except for Weight Watchers--there was occasionally some confusion with Weight Watchers when WW was referenced on other boards, but it was rare.)

ETA: I read that entire, jaw-dropping thread. My favorite part was, eight pages in and after everything had blown up, someone posted "I also went to hobby lobby this weekend and OMG I am in love! I loved everything and want everything!!" Oh honey, that ship sailed about 7 pages ago...

Yeah. I was scratching my head about that one too.

glasgowtolondon · March 2016

kimmiinthemitten said:

Been busy at work so I haven't creeped on there in a while. Who the hell are all of these people who were unaware of the Hobby Lobby/Birth Control case? I know I'm hyper-aware, but I thought that was a pretty well covered/publicized case.

ETA - now that I've read both threads, how the hell are we still considered the bitchy ones?!

Especially if they were on WW even now and again. I don't even go over there all that much and I have read at least three threads where they all tear some enthusiastic DIY-er a new one when she declares her innocent and unwitting love for HL. I'm far too well informed over their moral fuckwittery than someone living in North London should be. They are not even a thing over here.

And re: bitches, there's a lot of posters over there that would probably fit right in over here. Pot, meet kettle WW ladies.

Sherbie25 · March 2016

One thing that annoyed me (apart from the obviousl!) was the comment 'there are no right or wrongs'! If your opinion is full of negativity and hate towards someone then it's plain wrong! Pick a side or stay out of the kitchen!

Shit has hit the fan over on WeddingWire...

Re: Shit has hit the fan over on WeddingWire...

Choose Another Board

Search Boards