Healthcare law upheld!

[resolution]

When I was reading the comments on final rules on the CMS site, this employer affordability calculation was under review and they were looking at ways to base it strictly on employee pay and not on the household income. This was due to exactly your objection, that an employer doesn't control what is going on in someone's household.

[zibazinski]

You aren't going to make fat people stop eating. You aren't going to make smokers not smoke. You can penalize them all you want but it won't make them change. You think they don't know they are fat? They like eating a lot of food. You think they don't know smoking is bad for them and disgusting to others? Yes, they do. Charge them up the wazoo for insurance and they will simply go without insurance. If DFs employee leaves and can't get another job because no one will hire someone that's fat, whose going to pay for that? The fat employee? Not likely.

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 2, 2012 7:16:46 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

You aren't going to make fat people stop eating. You aren't going to make smokers not smoke. You can penalize them all you want but it won't make them change. You think they don't know they are fat? They like eating a lot of food. You think they don't know smoking is bad for them and disgusting to others? Yes, they do. Charge them up the wazoo for insurance and they will simply go without insurance. If DFs employee leaves and can't get another job because no one will hire someone that's fat, whose going to pay for that? The fat employee? Not likely.

But smokers and obese people have been proven to suck up more health insurance dollars because of their choices. Why should the rest of us have to share is their risk to bring their costs down, thereby driving the insurance cost up for those that choose to live healthier lifestyles?

[thyme4change]

Why should the rest of us have to share is their risk to bring their costs down, thereby driving the insurance cost up for those that choose to live healthier lifestyles?

Because the definition of "fair" seems to be whatever benefits the one doing the defining.

[Angel!]

Jul 2, 2012 0:19:49 GMT -5 susanb said:

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.

Not exactly. They only pay for insurance on the people that actually take it. My employer pays around $6700/yr towards insuring a single person & like $12500 towards a family. If I decline coverage & get credits, then they don't have to pay that out on me & instead pay a $3K fine. They actually save money.

For a company like mine it can actually be a win-win. I get cheaper insurance through the exchange & my employer saves between $3700-9500 for each person that declines coverage.

This will mainly impact employers that have an older, cheap labor force & offer little to no benefits.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jun 29, 2012 12:26:56 GMT -5 yummy2tummy said:

This will be the largest "tax" in our History ever.

Actually, experts are saying that it's not:

www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/article1237768.ece

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/12/looming-tax-hike-not-the-biggest-ever/

www.thenation.com/blog/168689/biggest-tax-increase-world-isnt#

A portion is quoted below for ease of use:
~~~~~~~~~
Depending on your rounding, that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961.

The tax increases in the health care legislation do reverse a trend of federal tax cuts and represent the first significant tax increases since 1993.

But they are not the largest in the history of the United States.~~~~~~~~~

[susanb]

Jul 2, 2012 10:50:39 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jul 2, 2012 0:19:49 GMT -5 susanb said:

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.

Not exactly. They only pay for insurance on the people that actually take it. My employer pays around $6700/yr towards insuring a single person & like $12500 towards a family. If I decline coverage & get credits, then they don't have to pay that out on me & instead pay a $3K fine. They actually save money.

For a company like mine it can actually be a win-win. I get cheaper insurance through the exchange & my employer saves between $3700-9500 for each person that declines coverage.

This will mainly impact employers that have an older, cheap labor force & offer little to no benefits.

Right. I did not mean that an employer would have to offer insurance and pay the fine for the same person. But some employers will be offering insurance to all of their employees AND paying a fine for some. Regulators have not yet determined if the 9.5% household income trigger is based on the cost of insuring an individual or a family. If they decide to base it on the cost of a family, employers are going to avoid single parents like the plague. You can't ask about family status, but people can and will offer that information in interviews if their situation is advantageous.

We offer insurance. Excellent insurance. It is also "insufficient" insurance because it has a lifetime limit. While we won't be impacted since we don't have 50 employees, companies that use our policy will be impacted.

Also, I believe that this will mainly impact employees that are low income, not employers. Low income employers can simply change full time workers to part time workers. Again, I haven't heard anyone state what would motivate an employer to keep a low income worker on at 40 hours per week when they can avoid significant costs by changing them to a part time worker and employing them for 29 hours per week.

[Angel!]

Jul 2, 2012 12:18:26 GMT -5 susanb said:

Also, I believe that this will mainly impact employees that are low income, not employers. Low income employers can simply change full time workers to part time workers. Again, I haven't heard anyone state what would motivate an employer to keep a low income worker on at 40 hours per week when they can avoid significant costs by changing them to a part time worker and employing them for 29 hours per week.

Don't most employers already do this? I thought that was a big complaint against Walmart, that they don't really offer full-time positions for most of their staff. Consider it is already advantageous for companies like that to employ more people than needed for positions like these. That way when you lose people you can easily shift hours around without worrying about overtime.

I could see this having an impact on a company like walmart, but then walmart supported Obama in the healthcare reform, so they must get something out of it. While companies like McDonalds employ a high percentage of teens who wouldn't be getting insurance through the exchange, so it seems like it would be less of an impact to them.

I just don't think this will have the sweeping negative impacts that some are saying. Some negative impacts sure, but then some really positive impacts as well. Health insurance will be more affordable to the lower/middle class. People working only for insurance could retire. People with pre-existing conditions will always be insurable. I see more good than bad with this legislation, but I guess time will tell.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Jul 2, 2012 12:18:26 GMT -5 susanb said:

Also, I believe that this will mainly impact employees that are low income, not employers. Low income employers can simply change full time workers to part time workers. Again, I haven't heard anyone state what would motivate an employer to keep a low income worker on at 40 hours per week when they can avoid significant costs by changing them to a part time worker and employing them for 29 hours per week.

Memo: Companies have already been doing this for a while now.

[Angel!]

Jul 2, 2012 12:18:26 GMT -5 susanb said:

We offer insurance. Excellent insurance. It is also "insufficient" insurance because it has a lifetime limit. While we won't be impacted since we don't have 50 employees, companies that use our policy will be impacted.

I thought legally insurance could no longer have lifetime limits. Maybe the complete prohibition of limits doesn't happen until 2014.

Am I wrong because this was one of the things that was touted regarding this reform?

[thyme4change]

I agree that people who believe that the exact plan they have now will be exactly the same in a few years are most likely incorrect. Even if your employer is under 50 people, it doesn't mean that the insurance provider won't adjust or change the terms of the plan. Heck, it seems like we get a list of adjustments every year now! I just don't think that some products that are currently available will be around once everything settles out. Your company won't have a choice but to take one of the options that your provider offers.

[nittanycheme]

Companies will just use this as another reason to hire part-timers, but they do it so they don't need to provide other benefits. I worked for a company about 20 years ago that would only allow X number of employees per department to be full time, everyone else had to be part time. So, I worked for the Y department; it had 4 full time people and about 16 part time people. The part time people could only work up to 39 hrs per week. No more, unless it was a special week (i.e., holiday with approved overtime). So, you were part time but essentially worked full time hours. Mostly because the part timers didn't get benefits that the full timers did. Not just health insurance - vacation pay, sick time, etc. I can't imagine it's gotten better since then.

[susanb]

I get that employers have manipulated hours to keep workers at part time for years now (thanks for the memo, Rocky). The thing is, many people making it on 39 hours with no benefits are going to become people making it on 29 hours with no benefits IMO. It is easy for those of us who are fortunate enough to be salaried and have benefits to say that nothing is changing because employers have long avoided full time hires, but for the working poor having your hours cut at all has a huge impact.

[zibazinski]

DF hired a guy for 3 days a week. The guy goes to school the other 2 and this is what he wanted. DF is paying him 25 an hour and is just thrilled with the whole deal. The worker is happy and seems to be a great worker. Much better than the guy with the family who wanted the same money plus 1700 a month for insurance. This is the way of the future.

[Formerly SK]

Jul 5, 2012 9:19:46 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

DF hired a guy for 3 days a week. The guy goes to school the other 2 and this is what he wanted. DF is paying him 25 an hour and is just thrilled with the whole deal. The worker is happy and seems to be a great worker. Much better than the guy with the family who wanted the same money plus 1700 a month for insurance. This is the way of the future.

I'm actually hoping your are right. I know a lot (maybe even most) of my mom friends would ideally work PT. It is hard on marriages to juggle two FT careers and kids, but so many companies only hire FT. There are so many people with different employment needs - it seems like our system could use more flexibility.

[movingforward]

Jul 5, 2012 10:37:13 GMT -5 Formerly SK said:

Jul 5, 2012 9:19:46 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

DF hired a guy for 3 days a week. The guy goes to school the other 2 and this is what he wanted. DF is paying him 25 an hour and is just thrilled with the whole deal. The worker is happy and seems to be a great worker. Much better than the guy with the family who wanted the same money plus 1700 a month for insurance. This is the way of the future.

I'm actually hoping your are right. I know a lot (maybe even most) of my mom friends would ideally work PT. It is hard on marriages to juggle two FT careers and kids, but so many companies only hire FT. There are so many people with different employment needs - it seems like our system could use more flexibility.

Interesting... we decided to make our front desk position part-time and can't find anyone to fill the position. Everyone seems to want FT with benefits. Maybe it has to do with pay or the city in which I live

[zibazinski]

Think of it as a job share. Maybe the hours for part-time aren't friendly to a senior citizen or a mom who wants to be home when her kids get home?

[zibazinski]

If someone wanted me, when I had kids and if I had a husband with insurance for all of us, hours of 9-3, I'd be all over that job. But if they wanted different, I'd be less inclined.

[movingforward]

Jul 5, 2012 10:49:45 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Think of it as a job share. Maybe the hours for part-time aren't friendly to a senior citizen or a mom who wants to be home when her kids get home?

Yeah, we have looked at a few college students but their hours are all over the place and we need someone during the busy hours to answer the phones. You just never know when their class schedule is going to change, etc. Personally, I would like to get someone in their 50's or early 60's who is not quite ready for full retirement yet and wants part-time.

[zibazinski]

I would think seniors would be the way to go. Look at churches or whatever. Senior handouts. They don't want to be out at night, that kind of thing.

[zibazinski]

Hangouts, sorry.

[zibazinski]

After I retired, I'd have loved that kind of job. There's one at DFs temple but you have to be a Jew and I don't quality.

[thyme4change]

I'm actually hoping your are right. I know a lot (maybe even most) of my mom friends would ideally work PT. It is hard on marriages to juggle two FT careers and kids, but so many companies only hire FT. There are so many people with different employment needs - it seems like our system could use more flexibility.

I agree. I was hoping to go part-time, and I'm struggling finding anyone to bite. I would think I was a bargain - but people like full time. The only people I've seen turn their job into a successful part-time gig is people who hold all the cards and have nothing to lose. Otherwise, their loyalties get questioned and even broaching the subject turns into a process of pushing them out of the business.