NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,258
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 29, 2012 10:24:11 GMT -5
I thought YM is always saying that eliminating employer based benefits was a good thing because it frees up people to be more mobile if your insurance isn't tied to your job? I get what everyone is saying, I am just really confused because based on previous threads about employer health insurance I would think that making it so it is of interest for employers to stop offering benefits would be a good thing.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 29, 2012 10:28:20 GMT -5
Employers have been offering health insurance for decades. It's going to be hard to break the habit. As the employees that DF inherited from his father, most of which are dead weight and finally retired except this last one who will soon be retiring or trying to find other employment, he has made sure to hire those on Medicare or on their spouses insurance plans. Yes, he did financially compensate those on their spouses plans.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 29, 2012 10:37:47 GMT -5
I thought YM is always saying that eliminating employer based benefits was a good thing because it frees up people to be more mobile if your insurance isn't tied to your job? I get what everyone is saying, I am just really confused because based on previous threads about employer health insurance I would think that making it so it is of interest for employers to stop offering benefits would be a good thing. I am doubtful my employer will drop our coverage; however, if they do they do. I honestly would love to not have that bond with them. ETA: As long as my income is supplemented enough so I can get coverage on my own.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 29, 2012 10:47:12 GMT -5
I'm sure people said that about pensions, too. Unions aren't what they used to be. Women in the corner office. Drinking at work, smoking at your desk, etc. Times change. I don't think that all at once there will be a 100% drop in coverage - but there is a distinct possibility that my grandchildren will not have the link between employers and health insurance that I have.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 29, 2012 10:54:55 GMT -5
There seems to be a disconnect between what people think employers will do regarding dropping employee insurance. It appears more business owners, people in management and with upper level financial experience view this as likely to probable, yet people who are not business owners, in management or with upper level financial experience don't think the businesses will make this change. Hard to tell where the disconnect is happening. Well, then all you small business owners should be jumping for joy over this new healthcare plan because now you can your employees healthcare benefits and be able to sleep at night.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 29, 2012 11:19:21 GMT -5
...and pay the government to subsidize it.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 29, 2012 11:26:17 GMT -5
Currently through my employer I pay $3400 per year for insurance. I just looked up my exact plan, which I could buy individually, and it would cost me $387 per month or $4,644. But, if my employer gave me a 3% raise, I would be ahead $2k. Woo Hoo!
Nice to know that if I quit my job, my medical costs would only cost me another $100 per month. Actually, in reality, I would likely go to a cheaper plan, with more out of pocket or a higher deductible. We are a healthy crowd, and have savings, so it would be a good calculated risk for us.
|
|
greenstone
Established Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 13:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 353
|
Post by greenstone on Jun 29, 2012 11:36:09 GMT -5
I thought YM is always saying that eliminating employer based benefits was a good thing because it frees up people to be more mobile if your insurance isn't tied to your job? I get what everyone is saying, I am just really confused because based on previous threads about employer health insurance I would think that making it so it is of interest for employers to stop offering benefits would be a good thing. I've been saying for sometime to anyone that would listen that we would be much better off if we decouple health insurance from employment, so I too don't see the horror in this. No matter how it happens, whether by ACA or another means, the transition will be bumpy and rocky as hell, but I do believe we will be better off in the end. Some people will be worse off at least for a while and I feel bad for them but that is not reason enough not to allow change when so many are going without a basic need. I do expect that some employers will drop providing health care but dropping it or making employees pick up more of the cost has been a trend for some time now. I don't think we will see a catastrophic collapse of employer-provided health care but any step in untying that bond is IMO a good step. I am not endorsing ACA but I am so happy to finally see some change to a very broken system. I also believe that overall employee compensation packages will adjust in time too to cover the loss of health care. Employers may benefit more initially but I do believe that the law of supply and demand will force a new equilibrium - with both sides thinking they got screwed.
|
|
yummy2tummy
Initiate Member
Joined: May 22, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
Posts: 51
|
Post by yummy2tummy on Jun 29, 2012 12:26:56 GMT -5
It's not a tax, says Obama, however the Supreme Court says it is.. and this is how the Obama lawyers argued the case.... it was a tax... that is how it passed.
Obama, IMO, lied and deceived the American People.
This will be the largest "tax" in our History ever.
Appeal Obama Care!
|
|
yummy2tummy
Initiate Member
Joined: May 22, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
Posts: 51
|
Post by yummy2tummy on Jun 29, 2012 12:29:38 GMT -5
There seems to be a disconnect between what people think employers will do regarding dropping employee insurance. It appears more business owners, people in management and with upper level financial experience view this as likely to probable, yet people who are not business owners, in management or with upper level financial experience don't think the businesses will make this change. Hard to tell where the disconnect is happening. Well, then all you small business owners should be jumping for joy over this new healthcare plan because now you can your employees healthcare benefits and be able to sleep at night. They may not have a choice.... I watched a few intereviews with Small business Owners and they say they will have no choice but to hire part time employees and not have any full time. This will hurt Small Businesses.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 29, 2012 12:39:33 GMT -5
This will be the largest "tax" in our History ever. Depends on how you look at it. I've always had insurance. Always. One way or another I'll still have insurance after this is implemented. It may not come from my employer anymore, but I'll still keep us covered. I would whether this law passed or not. So, my taxes won't be going up at all. The largest tax in history would only be true if you look at your entire health insurance cost as a tax. Which I guess you could, but most of us have been paying it for years, so it's not really a tax increase. Even if we didn't pay it directly, our employer factored it into their decisions regarding our total compensation, so indirectly it's been coming out of our pocket the entire time. If you decide not to carry insurance and pay the fine instead, it's only 1% of income. That's hardly the largest tax ever. FICA is way higher than that. Fed income taxes for most people are higher than that. Hell state income or sales tax is usually higher than that for most of us.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 29, 2012 12:44:46 GMT -5
Well, then all you small business owners should be jumping for joy over this new healthcare plan because now you can your employees healthcare benefits and be able to sleep at night. They may not have a choice.... I watched a few intereviews with Small business Owners and they say they will have no choice but to hire part time employees and not have any full time. This will hurt Small Businesses. Why?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,558
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 29, 2012 12:47:28 GMT -5
This will be the largest "tax" in our History ever. Depends on how you look at it. I've always had insurance. Always. One way or another I'll still have insurance after this is implemented. It may not come from my employer anymore, but I'll still keep us covered. I would whether this law passed or not. So, my taxes won't be going up at all. The largest tax in history would only be true if you look at your entire health insurance cost as a tax. Which I guess you could, but most of us have been paying it for years, so it's not really a tax increase. Even if we didn't pay it directly, our employer factored it into their decisions regarding our total compensation, so indirectly it's been coming out of our pocket the entire time. If you decide not to carry insurance and pay the fine instead, it's only 1% of income. That's hardly the largest tax ever. FICA is way higher than that. Fed income taxes for most people are higher than that. Hell state income or sales tax is usually higher than that for most of us. but, but it's far more fun to insist that the sky is falling. have you seen the cartoon with the guy complaining about how awful this is, and when he is presented with each major line item he finds he likes each one? the punchline is that he hates the "Obama part" of the whole thing.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 29, 2012 14:53:53 GMT -5
I'm confused...don't we WANT people to face the consequences of obesity? As a system, wouldn't it be BETTER if the overweight couple saw how much their premiums were due to their lifestyle and decided to lose 50lbs to save money? Employers bitch about how expensive premiums are...well now employees will see the exact costs too. I don't understand why employers don't love Obamacare.
There will be a ton of fallout from this bill. People who only worked for insurance purposes can quit. People who are inclined to start a small business but needed group insurance will now have the flexibility to start that business. And yes, employers can cut back on their benefits and get more competitive...assuming they don't lose their ability to attract top talent. There will be negatives for sure, but there will be positives to this too.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 29, 2012 15:52:01 GMT -5
No one wants to face the consequences for any bad choice they make so why should paying through the nose for insurance not be among them?
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 29, 2012 15:59:59 GMT -5
No one wants to face the consequences for any bad choice they make so why should paying through the nose for insurance not be among them? They may not pay through the nose because they will be in a pool along with several other people which will bring their costs down.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 29, 2012 16:02:24 GMT -5
No one wants to face the consequences for any bad choice they make so why should paying through the nose for insurance not be among them? My understanding is that one of the theories about what is currently helping keep healthcare costs so out of control is that much of the actual cost of healthcare is 'hidden' from the consumers because of things like employer contributions and discount programs, etc. So one theory is that the reform measures may actually help lower prices by making the full costs more visible. I found it an interesting idea, although I'm not sure how the subsidizing of some premiums might affect that theory.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 29, 2012 18:11:09 GMT -5
His insurance lady said that for them to cover his wife and himself would be over 2200 a month because of their weight and health so there is still going to be those issues going on. Obamacare changed nothing but is going to hurt a fair amount of people. Actually Obamacare said insurance is no longer allowed to price premiums based on weight & health, so it may have changed a lot for this guy. He will be able to purchase premiums through the exchange if you DF drops coverage & may get his premiums subsidized depending on his salary. I really don't think this is the end of the world you make it out to be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 6:35:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 18:15:33 GMT -5
His insurance lady said that for them to cover his wife and himself would be over 2200 a month because of their weight and health so there is still going to be those issues going on. Obamacare changed nothing but is going to hurt a fair amount of people. Actually Obamacare said insurance is no longer allowed to price premiums based on weight & health, so it may have changed a lot for this guy. He will be able to purchase premiums through the exchange if you DF drops coverage & may get his premiums subsidized depending on his salary. I really don't think this is the end of the world you make it out to be. Uh, no, they still get to price premiums based on weight and health, they just cannot deny you.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 29, 2012 18:28:33 GMT -5
Actually Obamacare said insurance is no longer allowed to price premiums based on weight & health, so it may have changed a lot for this guy. He will be able to purchase premiums through the exchange if you DF drops coverage & may get his premiums subsidized depending on his salary. I really don't think this is the end of the world you make it out to be. Uh, no, they still get to price premiums based on weight and health, they just cannot deny you. No, I am almost certain it can only be priced on age & whether you smoke now. It was part of the law unless they changed it since I skimmed through it.. I will try to look it up though & verify.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 29, 2012 18:41:37 GMT -5
Message deleted by Angel D.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 29, 2012 18:41:52 GMT -5
It is late & I don't have the time right now to search through the bill, but a quick google found me a couple hits: www.bcbs.com/why-bcbs/health-reform/www.nh.gov/insurance/consumers/documents/naic_faq.pdfIf I recall correctly, they can vary premiums based on age up to 400%. Thus if a 22 yr old pays $200, they can charge a 64 yr old $800. I thought the age cost difference was a bit high & honestly I thought they should be allowed to vary premiums somewhat based on health because those people are more expensive to insure. But, I didn't write the law so
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 29, 2012 20:38:29 GMT -5
Well, good luck not charging them more. Hope it works out for them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 6:35:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 22:15:10 GMT -5
I am just going to add my own spin to this when it comes to employers not offering insurance.
My wife is and always has been on my insurance, so when she was considering jobs or currently looking... the healthcare coverage is meaningless to her; has no appeal. So comes down to salary, time off, etc.
I think the same will happen when workers can get just as good of an insurance that the employers offers. They will no longer care about the healthcare package the employers are offering, they will care about compensation, bonus, vacation, etc.
So slowly and gradually I can see more employers following suit... dropping healthcare coverage and increasing salaries/bonuses. And if both parties come out ahead one way or the other (in our case, my wife will take more money in a heartbeat over good insurance) I don't see the harm to it.
If my company is going to pay me 50k + 12k insurance coverage and 3k I pay out of pocket and yet I get the same access/service to healthcare as if they paid me 60k and let's say 8k I will pay out of pocket. In theory we both come out ahead, they save 2k and I get to take home 5k/year more.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 6:35:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 22:45:25 GMT -5
I am just going to add my own spin to this when it comes to employers not offering insurance. My wife is and always has been on my insurance, so when she was considering jobs or currently looking... the healthcare coverage is meaningless to her; has no appeal. So comes down to salary, time off, etc. I think the same will happen when workers can get just as good of an insurance that the employers offers. They will no longer care about the healthcare package the employers are offering, they will care about compensation, bonus, vacation, etc. So slowly and gradually I can see more employers following suit... dropping healthcare coverage and increasing salaries/bonuses. And if both parties come out ahead one way or the other (in our case, my wife will take more money in a heartbeat over good insurance) I don't see the harm to it. If my company is going to pay me 50k + 12k insurance coverage and 3k I pay out of pocket and yet I get the same access/service to healthcare as if they paid me 60k and let's say 8k I will pay out of pocket. In theory we both come out ahead, they save 2k and I get to take home 5k/year more. Except money paid by you or your employer for your health insurance is pre-tax. If you buy as an individual it is post-tax so for higher wage earners, I think good health insurance benefits will still be part of the sell.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 1, 2012 13:09:02 GMT -5
Except money paid by you or your employer for your health insurance is pre-tax. If you buy as an individual it is post-tax so for higher wage earners, I think good health insurance benefits will still be part of the sell. Bingo! Let's say my employer pays $8k a year on my coverage and I pay $4k. They could offer me a raise of $8k and drop coverage, but that would actually leave me losing money, since I'll have to pay taxes on the $8k (at my highest marginal tax bracket) before I could pay for my own insurance. What they're really offering me is a small pay/benefit cut. I'd want them to give me a $9k raise if they dropped health insurance so they aren't really saving any money. Or, they could tell me to suck it up, and just give me the $8k, but now they haven't saved any money, and they just gave every single employee a small pay cut. That kind of things tends to be bad for moral and retention.
|
|
susanb
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 21, 2012 14:16:56 GMT -5
Posts: 1,430
|
Post by susanb on Jul 1, 2012 18:04:20 GMT -5
I did some reading about the healthcare law last night. www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Documents/EmployerPenalties.pdfApparently employers only have to pay the penalty if their employees are accessing government subsidies. Government subsidies are only available to those with a household income at less than 400% of the poverty level. So, if a company hires a secretary with one child whose husband is an engineer they are very unlikely to have to either pay the fine or provide insurance. However, if the same company hires a secretary who is a single parent with three children, they will likely have to either pay the fine or provide health insurance. Making it cost more for companies to hire low income people than higher income people is not an incentive I can understand.
|
|
susanb
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 21, 2012 14:16:56 GMT -5
Posts: 1,430
|
Post by susanb on Jul 1, 2012 18:19:02 GMT -5
I thought employers would drop coverage, but that didn't concern me too much. A single payer system is not something that alarms me. However, after reading about the employer mandate I think this bill as is will have drastic consequences for employment opportunities for the poor.
Companies only have to pay the fine for employees who
1. work 30+ hours a week AND 2. use subsidies to access insurance (only people at 400% of poverty level can get a subsidy).
Guess how many hours a week employers are going to start offering low paying jobs/low income folks? I am thinking it will be in the twenties.
Also, employers are going to want to offer lower middle class 40k type of jobs to married people as they will be more likely to have a household income that is higher.
Finally, let us say that I am an employee whose employer does not offer health insurance. I access a subsidy on the exchange, triggering a 2k and then 3k fine for my employer. Do you think I will get a promotion or will my employer be looking for the first chance to fire me?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 1, 2012 23:24:50 GMT -5
Finally, let us say that I am an employee whose employer does not offer health insurance. I access a subsidy on the exchange, triggering a 2k and then 3k fine for my employer. Do you think I will get a promotion or will my employer be looking for the first chance to fire me? You need to read through the examples on page 5 & 6 of the link you posted. This isn't how it is calculated. If the employer does not offer health coverage & even one employee get credits, then the calculation is total employees - 20 * 2000. So if you have 50 employees, it is (50-30)*2000 = 40000. Your individual situation doesn't matter unless you think a company of over 50 will manage to weed out every person with income of less than 400% poverty, which I doubt is possible. Now if your company offers health insurance, but it is unaffordable to some & they use the exchange, the calculated penalty is the lesser of the above calculation or the number of employees receiving the credit * 3000. So, let's say you are the only person on the company that fits the credit criteria (less than 400% poverty). If they don't offer insurance, their fine is 40000, if they offer insurance it is 3000.
|
|
susanb
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 21, 2012 14:16:56 GMT -5
Posts: 1,430
|
Post by susanb on Jul 2, 2012 0:19:49 GMT -5
Finally, let us say that I am an employee whose employer does not offer health insurance. I access a subsidy on the exchange, triggering a 2k and then 3k fine for my employer. Do you think I will get a promotion or will my employer be looking for the first chance to fire me? You need to read through the examples on page 5 & 6 of the link you posted. This isn't how it is calculated. If the employer does not offer health coverage & even one employee get credits, then the calculation is total employees - 20 * 2000. So if you have 50 employees, it is (50-30)*2000 = 40000. Your individual situation doesn't matter unless you think a company of over 50 will manage to weed out every person with income of less than 400% poverty, which I doubt is possible. Now if your company offers health insurance, but it is unaffordable to some & they use the exchange, the calculated penalty is the lesser of the above calculation or the number of employees receiving the credit * 3000. So, let's say you are the only person on the company that fits the credit criteria (less than 400% poverty). If they don't offer insurance, their fine is 40000, if they offer insurance it is 3000. You are right. If the employer does not offer any health insurance, they are charged for all full time employees - 30, or 40k. If they offer "inadequate" health insurance or insurance that costs the employee more than 9.5% of their income to self insure, they only have to pay for each individual employee that gets a subsidy. So, we have an employer who is paying for health insurance AND paying a fine. Again, I would argue that most employers will get rid of the employee triggering the fine as quickly as possible. It may not be possible to make sure everyone is above 400% of the poverty level, but it is really possible to make sure low income workers are not full time workers. I can't imagine what would induce employers of low wage workers to offer 30+ hours a week of employment with this law. Part time workers are counted towards the 50 full time worker total, but would still not trigger the fine since employers are only responsible for providing insurance to full time workers or those who work 30+ hours.
|
|