Obamacare

[bUU]

I think there is a very strong bias in our society against (truly) small businesses. Everything seems to be very deliberately arrayed to foster the development of businesses that start "small" meaning 250-500 employees (13 CFR 121), not two or three employees.

[explanade]

Well I've worked for a small business and a big business and I know what I prefer.

Health care, regular raises, stock options and employee stock purchase plan and some other perks for the latter.

The small business guy I worked for was pleasant enough to work for but when I quit after about 9 months with no offers of a raise, he looked hurt and asked if I was leaving for more money.

There was a huge gap in pay, before the benefits.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade Well I've worked for a small business and a big business and I know what I prefer. Health care, regular raises, stock options and employee stock purchase plan and some other perks for the latter.

When was this? Most people I know who work for big businesses have barely sniffed any raises at all, if any, in the last 5-6 years. Very few stock options, either.

I'd add one benefit to working for a small business, while also acknowledging some of the advantages of a Megacorp: the small business probably isn't going to be publicly traded and given its marching orders from Wall Street, which only cares about "hitting the numbers" this quarter, no matter how you do it, and doesn't care how it screws employees (or the company in the long run).

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud but I think that any company that currently offers health care will not drop it to save money... heck, they never had to offer it at all and could have saved even more money, but did not...

Maybe, we'll see. The company will do whatever gives them the best return on the compensation they pay. If health insurance now costs them $10K per worker (after the tax benefits) and they can dump it, pay a $3K fine, and give the worker a $6K raise in pay and the worker also gets a $6K subsidy from taxpayers to buy health insurance and he only pays $4k out of pocket more than he used to pay for care, then the worker is better off and the company is better off. Only the taxpayer got burned. These companies >should< drop health insurance--keeping it hurts their bottom line (and hurts their workers).

But if the exchanges turn into a disaster and if waits for medical care in the exchange-price plans are excessive, then employers might gain a competitive advantage by offering workers a way out of the gulag.

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Maybe, we'll see. The company will do whatever gives them the best return on the compensation they pay. If health insurance now costs them $10K per worker (after the tax benefits) and they can dump it, pay a $3K fine, and give the worker a $6K raise in pay and the worker also gets a $6K subsidy from taxpayers to buy health insurance and he only pays $4k out of pocket more than he used to pay for care, then the worker is better off and the company is better off. Only the taxpayer got burned. These companies >should< drop health insurance--keeping it hurts their bottom line (and hurts their workers). But if the exchanges turn into a disaster and if waits for medical care in the exchange-price plans are excessive, then employers might gain a competitive advantage by offering workers a way out of the gulag.

Am I thinking correctly that a worker with a decent wage could get hammered pretty good under this scenario? Company does what you mentioned above. Except add these variables. 1. The workers pay was high enough for no subsidy. 2. Worker had been paying part of his healthcare premium out of pocket already and all his family. 3. If company dumped the insurance and the worker family gets pushed into the exchange program, won't they also lose a lot of money due to the fact they now cannot pay for their insurance with pretax dollars? Now I know many here including myself already have to do this, but for people who have not, this could also bring some budget shock to the family.

[Alan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud For the people who think that a large number of companies are going to drop health insurance because of Obamacare.... I just do not see it... When I worked in the UK for a year, (back in 2000), companies were starting to offer health insurance to their workers.... and they have 'free' health care!!! As long as it gives them a competative advantage (or to eliminate one from another company) to attract employees, they will offer these.. Remember that this in only health care... most large companies also offer dental, vision, STD, LTD, life, flex spending account, 401(k) with a match, sick leave and vacation time... Now, smaller companies that have low paid employees probably do not offer these things at all and will have to make a decision on what to do.... but I think that any company that currently offers health care will not drop it to save money... heck, they never had to offer it at all and could have saved even more money, but did not...

+1

I had employer provided health insurance from 2 different companies in the UK that I worked for between 1979 and 1987. (then we moved to the USA)

Over time the nature of the HI offered may change, and it may be taxed just like other employee perks (company provided life insurance has been taxed for some years now).

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan Am I thinking correctly that a worker with a decent wage could get hammered pretty good under this scenario? Company does what you mentioned above. Except add these variables. 1. The workers pay was high enough for no subsidy. 2. Worker had been paying part of his healthcare premium out of pocket already and all his family. 3. If company dumped the insurance and the worker family gets pushed into the exchange program, won't they also lose a lot of money due to the fact they now cannot pay for their insurance with pretax dollars? Now I know many here including myself already have to do this, but for people who have not, this could also bring some budget shock to the family.

I don't think there will be many folks paying with pre-tax dollars anyway. But, your worker would at least get the higher pay. I think (without the govt subsidy) he'd do worse than if the company had kept the company-purchased insurance, but he'll do better than he was doing when he paid full freight and didn't get that $6k extra pay.
But, I think overall the company will still do whatever gives them the most bang-for-the-buck in attracting/keeping employees. Maybe the improvements the ACA brings is that lower-paid workers generally won't have employer-provided insurance (but they'll get more pay than otherwise and easier job mobility than today), while higher paid workers will generally have company insurance.
Like today.

[samclem]

It appears that another claimed benefit of PPACA is not working out as we all had hoped. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) is meant to allow those with health problems to buy medical insurance. The program had fewer enreolees than anticipated, but (like several other elements of PPACA) costs have exceeded projections and in mid February, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that the no further policies would be processed and they barred states from making new enrollments due to lack of funding.

GOP legislators have suggested that the President use funds from other portions of the PPACA package to continue funding of PCIP. If this is done, it might slow implementation of the "exchanges" in the states, particularly since so many will now be administered by the federal government rather than by the states themselves.

Here's the 05 March letter from GOP legislators to the President.
Here's a link to the Daily Caller article on the issue.

[Accidental Retiree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko That is my understanding too, but many retirees would have to increase their income by about $16K in order to get $12K after taxes to pay the premium up front. For many, that would increase their MAGI and put them over the 400% limit.

Another good reason to have funds in after-tax accounts as well as in tax-deferred accounts, I guess.

[Live And Learn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem It appears that another claimed benefit of PPACA is not working out as we all had hoped. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) is meant to allow those with health problems to buy medical insurance. The program had fewer enreolees than anticipated, but (like several other elements of PPACA) costs have exceeded projections and in mid February, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that the no further policies would be processed and they barred states from making new enrollments due to lack of funding. GOP legislators have suggested that the President use funds from other portions of the PPACA package to continue funding of PCIP. If this is done, it might slow implementation of the "exchanges" in the states, particularly since so many will now be administered by the federal government rather than by the states themselves. Here's the 05 March letter from GOP legislators to the President. Here's a link to the Daily Caller article on the issue.

Just what I needed - another excuse to w*rk OMY

[travelover]

Not being an early adopter, I'm just now reading the Time article on health care costs. I've gotta say that we are screwed until we can limit lobbying to congress. The ACA is juggling the firemen but no one is pursuring the arsonist.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover I've gotta say that we are screwed until we can limit lobbying to congress.

Or maybe we could elect a Congress that isn't so easily bribed?

If someone offers me obviously stolen goods, I just say "No" (and maybe alert the cops, depending on circumstances). I don't take the 'deal' and then blame the guy for offering them to me.

-ERD50

[MichaelB]

Getting off topic here folks...

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Getting off topic here folks...

Oooops! Sorry!

It's like dangling raw meat in front of a dog, I can't help myself ! I'll put that part of me back in my cage now, thanks for the gentle reminder


-ERD50

[gerrym51]

Hi guys,

i made a separate thread about signing up for healthcare using the massachusettes health connector which is the same as an Obamacare exchange.

some old and new insights based on me actually signing up for this coverage



gerry

[gerrym51]

I'm not good with links-but the 15 page Obamacare subsidy request form for subsidies for obamacare is on the web-link on Drudge

[bondi688]

Study: Claims costs that drive premiums will rise 32 percent in under health law - The Washington Post
"A new study (by the Society of Actuaries) finds that insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. What does that mean for you?
It could increase premiums for at least some Americans.
If you are uninsured, or you buy your policy directly from an insurance company, you should pay attention.
But if you have an employer plan, like most workers and their families, odds are you don’t have much to worry about."

It is a long and complicated study from the advanced math nerds,
http://cdn-files.soa.org/web/researc...aca-report.pdf
the impact apparently will depend on the state you live in and where you get health insurance coverage. If you have an employer plan, the impact may not be so great, but for most of those in ER, unless they are getting MediCare, they no longer have an employer, and have to look for and pay for their own health insurance policies. And according to the study, that group will see the largest increase in health insurance policy premiums.

[Richard8655]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bondi688 Study: Claims costs that drive premiums will rise 32 percent in under health law - The Washington Post "A new study (by the Society of Actuaries) finds that insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. What does that mean for you? It could increase premiums for at least some Americans. If you are uninsured, or you buy your policy directly from an insurance company, you should pay attention. But if you have an employer plan, like most workers and their families, odds are you don’t have much to worry about." It is a long and complicated study from the advanced math nerds, http://cdn-files.soa.org/web/researc...aca-report.pdf the impact apparently will depend on the state you live in and where you get health insurance coverage. If you have an employer plan, the impact may not be so great, but for most of those in ER, unless they are getting MediCare, no longer have an employer, and have to look for and pay for their own health insurance policies. And according to the study, that group will see the largest increase in health insurance policy premiums.

To me it means ACA is working as intended. Insurance companies will be required to allocate more of their profits toward actual medical care for the insured and less for extravagant executive salaries, bonuses, administrative overhead, and bureaucracy. If they plan to make up this rebalance by passing those costs onto the consumer in the form of higher premiums, I believe ACA will prevent that as well. A victory for American consumers, in my opinion.

[Animorph]

I'd be tickled pink to pay only 32% more than the currently unerwritten individual policies when I have to go shopping for HI in 2014. We may or may not have qualified for those low rates, but I'm 100% sure of getting insurance in 2014.

[bondi688]

Richard8655
I hope you are right, but I find all the different takes from every side in the battle confusing. It is hard to know who one should believe. Trying to find politically neutral parties in this fight to gauge their opinion on the subject.