thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 16:12:54 GMT -5
I've known women who work just to get insurance because their husband is self employed.
So if gdgyva and his cohorts are successful, the employer/insurance bond will be broken, and everyone can buy insurance on the open market. I believe that will cause a lot of changes in insurance and services consumption.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jun 28, 2012 16:15:17 GMT -5
Wouldn't the employer pay more in taxes by doing that? They have to match social security, FICA, etc.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 16:23:46 GMT -5
Requiring companies to pay more for preventative care is doing the wrong thing? Requiring that companies spend more of the purchaser's dollar on actual care rather than admin is doing the wrong thing? How so? Do you even understand how a business works? By "requiring the companies to pay more", that generally means those same companies are going to CHARGE MORE. Again..Cost savings? Are you aware what the profit margins are for insurance companies? It's in the range of 3%-5%. Do you vilify Apple for making a much bigger profit margin? I haven't villified anyone, nor did I introduce any statement about profit margins. I believe that companies should make a profit if that's what their set up to do. I also believe that they won't act in the best interest of their customers at times unless they are made to. That's where a governmental oversight organization occasionally needs to say, you must improve the quality of your product to protect the consumers by taking certain measures. Meat would probably be a lot cheaper if no one made the companies keep to sanitation standards, but we'd pay for it in increased costs of caring for all the diseases we'd get.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 16:25:00 GMT -5
So if we see the employees get a raise to offset having insurance dropped by employers, are we also going to see wages drop for those who receive benefits under the cadillac plans due to the higher cost for them? Just another redistribution of wealth.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 16:25:31 GMT -5
Wouldn't the employer pay more in taxes by doing that? They have to match social security, FICA, etc. Excellent point! Employees' taxes would go up as well, without the tax deduction benefit of their share of premiums.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jun 28, 2012 16:30:05 GMT -5
Wouldn't the employer pay more in taxes by doing that? They have to match social security, FICA, etc. Excellent point! Employees' taxes would go up as well, without the tax deduction benefit of their share of premiums. An even better point! I still don't get the logic of undoing what they've already been doing (paying for employee insurance in some capacity)when the new penalty tax doesn't even apply to that company or it's employees. I guess I will quit waiting for it. LOL!
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 16:32:10 GMT -5
Excellent point! Employees' taxes would go up as well, without the tax deduction benefit of their share of premiums. An even better point! I still don't get the logic of undoing what they've already been doing (paying for employee insurance in some capacity)when the new penalty tax doesn't even apply to that company or it's employees. I guess I will quit waiting for it. LOL! Employees just LOVE it when their taxes increase, too!
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jun 28, 2012 16:35:32 GMT -5
LOL! Yes, every employee's dream. Work hard, get no insurance benefits AND pay more in taxes. Yay!
|
|
lynnerself
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 11:42:29 GMT -5
Posts: 4,166
|
Post by lynnerself on Jun 28, 2012 16:37:29 GMT -5
Sounds like an excuse to drop benefits and blame it on the federal government.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 16:37:50 GMT -5
I'm hoping that gvgyva is a good enough analyst that he wouldn't forget such a basic expense as taxes on the increased EBIT numbers.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 16:40:01 GMT -5
Sounds like an excuse to drop benefits and blame it on the federal government. That's just because you don't have a fancy corporate controller degree. Can't you see, the companies wouldn't do this if it costs them nothing, but by making it cost them something the government forced their hand.... or something like that. I don't know, I'm just a peon. I'm sure he'll be back to explain how they have no choice at some point.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 16:43:24 GMT -5
It is true that if enough employers discontinue the benefits, that all employers will go that route. It will hit a critical mass at some point where the expense of the product does not bring in the best workers. Right now, you have to do it just to be considered. But, it is a real question mark on if the companies that start the trend will be able to survive the time period where they do not offer the insurance, but others still do.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 16:46:14 GMT -5
It is true that if enough employers discontinue the benefits, that all employers will go that route. It will hit a critical mass at some point where the expense of the product does not bring in the best workers. That makes sense, but then it should have been even more true without a government fine for not offering insurance. So, I'm still curious why his field feels that now it's prudent, but 2, 5, 10, and 15 years ago it wasn't. Doesn't make sense to me. The only argument that would make sense is that if they do it now, they can blame it on the government, say they had no choice, and hope that people buy it. I haven't seen too many companies go under by banking on the stupidity of the American people... so maybe it is the right call.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 16:46:26 GMT -5
I would be shocked if my employer stopped providing health insurance. It would just be illogical. The only thing I can come up with is that some people must be afraid that their company is either run by a bunch of morons and/or they believe that their company cares so little about them that they would drop coverage to save a few bucks and not have to feel bad about it because people have the option of government insurance
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 16:46:31 GMT -5
It is true that if enough employers discontinue the benefits, that all employers will go that route. It will hit a critical mass at some point where the expense of the product does not bring in the best workers. Right now, you have to do it just to be considered. But, it is a real question mark on if the companies that start the trend will be able to survive the time period where they do not offer the insurance, but others still do. Does anybody remember the employee size limit for small businesses that would exempt them from being fined? I don't see how this would give incentives to small businesses to purchase healthcare for their employees, just another thing to ponder.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 16:48:52 GMT -5
It is true that if enough employers discontinue the benefits, that all employers will go that route. It will hit a critical mass at some point where the expense of the product does not bring in the best workers. Right now, you have to do it just to be considered. But, it is a real question mark on if the companies that start the trend will be able to survive the time period where they do not offer the insurance, but others still do. Does anybody remember the employee size limit for small businesses that would exempt them from being fined? I don't see how this would give incentives to small businesses to purchase healthcare for their employees, just another thing to ponder. 50, I believe I don't really see what difference it makes. I work in an office of 10 people right now and have excellent insurance. Why would this policy stop my employer from providing healthcare?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 16:51:26 GMT -5
It might start making sense now because the options to buy on the open market are much better than they were 10 years ago. With the law now having some of the hardest parts of insurance lessened, and the need to make an even greater number of products available at all different price points, it won't be quite so tough on those who are out there on their own.
I know that someone mentioned the other day that it was cheaper to buy a different kind of coverage for her family than it was to take the single option that her employer offered. So, even though she had a job that offered the benefit, she still went outside to buy coverage. If her company offered her a 4% raise for opting out - she would take it in a heartbeat!
So, maybe it is just a cultural shift, which may or may not happen, depending on decisions made by both the insurance providers and the executives of key companies.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 16:57:14 GMT -5
It might start making sense now because the options to buy on the open market are much better than they were 10 years ago. With the law now having some of the hardest parts of insurance lessened, and the need to make an even greater number of products available at all different price points, it won't be quite so tough on those who are out there on their own. I know that someone mentioned the other day that it was cheaper to buy a different kind of coverage for her family than it was to take the single option that her employer offered. So, even though she had a job that offered the benefit, she still went outside to buy coverage. If her company offered her a 4% raise for opting out - she would take it in a heartbeat! So, maybe it is just a cultural shift, which may or may not happen, depending on decisions made by both the insurance providers and the executives of key companies. I know for a fact how much my employer spends each month on my premium and I also know (because I shopped around) that I could get an individual policy for 1/2 that amount. Now the deductible would be a bit higher but I have actually thought about approaching her with the proposal of don't provide my healthcare and give me the money you are paying each month and I will get my own. I would be giving myself a raise and still getting insurance.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 17:02:37 GMT -5
It might start making sense now because the options to buy on the open market are much better than they were 10 years ago. With the law now having some of the hardest parts of insurance lessened, and the need to make an even greater number of products available at all different price points, it won't be quite so tough on those who are out there on their own. I know that someone mentioned the other day that it was cheaper to buy a different kind of coverage for her family than it was to take the single option that her employer offered. So, even though she had a job that offered the benefit, she still went outside to buy coverage. If her company offered her a 4% raise for opting out - she would take it in a heartbeat! So, maybe it is just a cultural shift, which may or may not happen, depending on decisions made by both the insurance providers and the executives of key companies. It might, in fact, be a cultural shift. Imagine if in a few years, we're all sitting around going, "hey, remember when we had to rely on our employers to pick decent health insurance plans for large groups of people? And how we lost our coverage because we changed jobs or worked part-time? How silly of a system was that?"
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 17:06:26 GMT -5
Yup. I know it was a political statement, but during a Mad Men episode, they were all sitting around making fun of the potential "Medicare bill" and how it was going to destroy the country and plunge us into communism or socialism or whatever. I know in every fiber in my being that it was a wink at the current insurance situation. But, it got me thinking about how I feel about Medicare and if I feel it should exist.
|
|
lynnerself
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 11:42:29 GMT -5
Posts: 4,166
|
Post by lynnerself on Jun 28, 2012 17:08:08 GMT -5
This whole argument feels weird. The point of a fine was to motivate employers to provide insurance to their employees. How did it get turned around to companies dropping insurance instead?
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 17:10:09 GMT -5
This whole argument feels weird. The point of a fine was to motivate employers to provide insurance to their employees. How did it get turned around to companies dropping insurance instead? Cost incentive. Besides, it's all theoretical at this point because no one really knows what the future holds.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 28, 2012 17:43:34 GMT -5
It might start making sense now because the options to buy on the open market are much better than they were 10 years ago. With the law now having some of the hardest parts of insurance lessened, and the need to make an even greater number of products available at all different price points, it won't be quite so tough on those who are out there on their own. I know that someone mentioned the other day that it was cheaper to buy a different kind of coverage for her family than it was to take the single option that her employer offered. So, even though she had a job that offered the benefit, she still went outside to buy coverage. If her company offered her a 4% raise for opting out - she would take it in a heartbeat! So, maybe it is just a cultural shift, which may or may not happen, depending on decisions made by both the insurance providers and the executives of key companies. It might, in fact, be a cultural shift. Imagine if in a few years, we're all sitting around going, "hey, remember when we had to rely on our employers to pick decent health insurance plans for large groups of people? And how we lost our coverage because we changed jobs or worked part-time? How silly of a system was that?" Frankly, I don't understand the viewpoint that the world will end if employers stop providing insurance. As long as individual plans have the same benefits as group plans (which Obamacare provides), why NOT have everyone buy their own insurance just like they buy their own groceries or their own cable service? Why should it be connected to employment at all??
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 17:44:40 GMT -5
This is interesting, even the government is expecting employers to drop worker's coverage, but doesn't really have a way to pick up the tab for subsidized plans. "Premium Subsidies Households with incomes below 400 percent and above 133 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) who are enrolled in insurance plans offered through the exchanges are eligible for premium assistance financed by the federal government (Medicaid will cover families with incomes below 133 percent of FPL). In 2010, the FPL is $22,050 for family of four. The new law establishes a sliding scale of assistance based on limitations on required family contributions to the cost of coverage. For instance, at 150 percent of FPL in 2014, ObamaCare limits the amount that such households must contribute toward their health insurance premium to 4 percent of their annual income. At 400 percent of the FPL, households must contribute 9.5 percent of their income toward insurance premiums. Whatever portion of the total health insurance premium for their coverage is not paid by these households is covered by the new federal premium assistance program. Estimated Federal Costs and the “Firewall” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that this new premium assistance program will cost $113 billion annually by 2019, with premium assistance going to an additional 19 million Americans (the Medicaid expansion will add 16 million new people to the program at a cost of $97 billion in 2017). This CBO estimate of the cost of premium assistance assumes that tens of millions of otherwise eligible households will not be eligible for this new entitlement because their employers will continue to offer them qualified coverage at their place of work. Under ObamaCare, if a low income household is offered qualified coverage by their employer, they are automatically ineligible for additional federal premium assistance (this is the so-called “firewall” rule aimed at creating a barrier against mass migration out of employer-sponsored insurance). Former CBO Director Doug Holtz-Eakin has estimated that employers will have strong incentives to move as many as 35 million workers who will be eligible for premium assistance out of employer plans and into subsidized coverage provided through the exchanges because both the employers and the workers will be better off if they are able to access the large new federal subsidies available to exchange enrollees. Holtz-Eakin estimates that adding this many additional subsidized workers in the exchanges would add about $1 trillion over the next ten years to the cost projections provided by CBO." Edit to add: source of info: www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/exchanges-and-premium-subsidies also has some other interesting points regarding marriage and what may happen when you are on the threshhold of pay brackets.
|
|
zdaddy
Established Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2012 13:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 295
|
Post by zdaddy on Jun 28, 2012 17:56:01 GMT -5
Addressing the argument that the government now has the power to make you buy anything they want, from what I've read it looks like that is not how the Supreme Court ruled. In fact, the SCOTUS ruled that would be an overstepping of Congress's ability to conduct interstate commerce.
Sure you can be fined, but the fine is paltry and there's really no way for the government to collect as they can't throw you in jail. If the bill did give the government those powers, I think it would have been overturned. Also, I think the Court went this way because healthcare is something that's very important for the public good - not just for the individual but for all of society. Think about it - uninsured people coming down with some serious infectious disease could start a pandemic instead of getting treatment.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 18:00:54 GMT -5
Addressing the argument that the government now has the power to make you buy anything they want, from what I've read it looks like that is not how the Supreme Court ruled. In fact, the SCOTUS ruled that would be an overstepping of Congress's ability to conduct interstate commerce. Sure you can be fined, but the fine is paltry and there's really no way for the government to collect as they can't throw you in jail. If it's handled as a tax and based on income, wouldn't the logical place to collect it would be the IRS? If so, I'd expect that the same rules and penalties would apply to this tax as would all other tax you owe the IRS. And the IRS *can* enforce and collect outstanding tax (and throw people in jail for evading it).
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,558
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 28, 2012 18:06:03 GMT -5
Addressing the argument that the government now has the power to make you buy anything they want, from what I've read it looks like that is not how the Supreme Court ruled. In fact, the SCOTUS ruled that would be an overstepping of Congress's ability to conduct interstate commerce. Sure you can be fined, but the fine is paltry and there's really no way for the government to collect as they can't throw you in jail. If it's handled as a tax and based on income, wouldn't the logical place to collect it would be the IRS? If so, I'd expect that the same rules and penalties would apply to this tax as would all other tax you owe the IRS. And the IRS *can* enforce and collect outstanding tax (and throw people in jail for evading it). this is exactly how MA handles it - when you file your MA state tax return, you have to include your 1099-HC as proof of insurance with all the other forms. if you don't have one, the penalty is figured into your state return.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:29:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 18:52:00 GMT -5
It is true that if enough employers discontinue the benefits, that all employers will go that route. It will hit a critical mass at some point where the expense of the product does not bring in the best workers. Right now, you have to do it just to be considered. But, it is a real question mark on if the companies that start the trend will be able to survive the time period where they do not offer the insurance, but others still do. Exactly And Dark...being a smartass is not the same thing as being smart At present our avg cost per employee is 2800 per annum We have 135 employees, and right at 82% have insurance coverage The fine is 40k.....now....you want to work out the savings? And yes...the owner WILL pay more taxes on the EBIT....oh shit, boss you gonna make mo money....sorry Some of you that THINK this is the freakin greatest thing since sliced bread better think of all the possible outcomes Your company controller may be thiking the same thing i am....or at least SHOULD be And if the majority of firms in my business stop offering insurance....we will all have the same exact chance of garnering new employees Think about it...i know that hurts for some of you
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:29:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 19:04:53 GMT -5
Right, but if you had all stopped offering coverage 10 years ago, you would have paid $0 in fines. Why didn't anyone want to go first then? Preumably, the same reason you aren't going to stop offering coverage now.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 19:17:52 GMT -5
At present our avg cost per employee is 2800 per annum
We have 135 employees, and right at 82% have insurance coverage
The fine is 40k.....now....you want to work out the savings? That means that at present your savings is that much plus the $40k fine you wouldn't have to pay. It was the same last year, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before, etc., etc. So, what changed now? The only thing I see is that you'd save less doing it now. So, how exactly are you planning on pitching this to the decision makers anyway? "Uh... hey guys, I just realized that if we stopped offering insurance we'd save a bundle, and I probably should have told you to do this years ago because we'd have saved even more then, but now that the government is going to eat into that savings a little we should totally go for it." being a smartass is not the same thing as being smart Agree to disagree.
|
|