Employers seek help over ‘Obamacare’ costs

PBulldog2 wrote:I'm not going to sign up just to read this article, but I do have a question.

Will employers who keep full-time employees on part-time status have to pay $3000.00 for the supposedly part-time employees? If so, then GOOD!

However, it would be even better if the employers were forced to pay the part-timers $3000.00 each so they could find their own insurance through the exchanges.

Hopefully, this will all lead to a complete severance of health insurance from employment. I think that's the goal, and if this part of the ACA helps this happen, that's a good thing.

PBulldog2 wrote:Chrissy, if insurance had never been tied to employment to begin with, this wouldn't be happening.

I can recall, years ago, when a part-time worker could tap into the group insurance by paying more of the premium. That hasn't happened since about the late eighties or so.

Who brought about this change? I don't know if it was the insurers or the employers. I do know that most employers will do whatever it takes to classify an employee as part-time or as-needed to justify not allowing the person to participate in the employer's group insurance plan. What I don't know - and maybe doubtingthomas can help here - is the WHY. Why is it employers are loathe to allow part-timers to participate, even if they pay a higher premium?

A woman with whom I worked about three years ago worked over 40 hours every week for over eight months. She approached the powers-that-be multiple times about obtaining insurance, but was told her job was classified "as-needed", so she couldn't get insurance benefits through the company.

That is wrong, Chrissy. Employers should not be allowed to get away with that. I don't agree with a lot of the ACA, but this part of it is spot-on correct in my opinion. It's way past time this ploy on the part of employers was stopped.

NaNook wrote:Healthcare Insurance is a benefit. Paid vacation time is a benefit. Holidays paid are a benefit. Retirement plans are a benefit.

Talk about looking a ,"gift horse in the mouth".

People complaining about more "free stuff", are the problem. Not the workers enjoying the benefits provided by the evil corporations.

PBulldog2 wrote:Chrissy, if insurance had never been tied to employment to begin with, this wouldn't be happening.

I can recall, years ago, when a part-time worker could tap into the group insurance by paying more of the premium. That hasn't happened since about the late eighties or so.

Who brought about this change? I don't know if it was the insurers or the employers. I do know that most employers will do whatever it takes to classify an employee as part-time or as-needed to justify not allowing the person to participate in the employer's group insurance plan. What I don't know - and maybe doubtingthomas can help here - is the WHY. Why is it employers are loathe to allow part-timers to participate, even if they pay a higher premium?

A woman with whom I worked about three years ago worked over 40 hours every week for over eight months. She approached the powers-that-be multiple times about obtaining insurance, but was told her job was classified "as-needed", so she couldn't get insurance benefits through the company.

That is wrong, Chrissy. Employers should not be allowed to get away with that. I don't agree with a lot of the ACA, but this part of it is spot-on correct in my opinion. It's way past time this ploy on the part of employers was stopped.

PBulldog2 wrote:Chrissy, I wish you had read my posts. I simply said health care insurance should not be tied to employment. I never wrote it should be free. Even if health insurance is ever government-provided, i.e., Medicare for all, it still won't be free. It will never be free.

We should all be able to purchase a decent health care policy whether or not we are employed. Why should the "group insurance rate" apply to only those with full-time employment? If that rate can be given to companies that provide insurance for full-time employees, why can that same rate not be provided to those who are self-employed or entrepreneurs rather than only to those who are wage slaves for employers? Why?

Receiving health insurance "benefits" only through an employer - and even worse, only as a designated full-time employee - is not a benefit. It is a noose, a trap, a soul-strangler. It is a dangling carrot that is rotten to the core.

Fear of losing health insurance provided by an employer keeps good people with great ideas down. It prevents people who would love to break away and pursue their own, individual and independent source of income - especially those with pre-existing conditions- tied to the umbilical cord of an employer. It keeps us down; it doesn't build us up.

Do you really believe only the "good" workers work for others? Damn if that doesn't sound communistic to me! However, it is a mindset that has been instilled in the workforce over the last twenty years, and that scares the dickens out of me. Can you not see that so many of these "good" workers could prosper on their own if only they could buy their own insurance at a decent rate? The same rate provided to the large employers?

If the ACA makes this possible, and I don't know yet that it will, it will bring about a marvelous and long-needed change in the fabric and motivation of our society. It will free people to blossom and become who they are rather than keep their hearts and souls tied to the capricious whims of an employer.

(I suppose I am a true libertarian after all.)

*****************************************************

Your post deserves a ++++ from me . . . . . . perhaps I too am a Libertarian!

PBulldog2 wrote:Chrissy, I wish you had read my posts. I simply said health care insurance should not be tied to employment. I never wrote it should be free. Even if health insurance is ever government-provided, i.e., Medicare for all, it still won't be free. It will never be free.

We should all be able to purchase a decent health care policy whether or not we are employed. Why should the "group insurance rate" apply to only those with full-time employment? If that rate can be given to companies that provide insurance for full-time employees, why can that same rate not be provided to those who are self-employed or entrepreneurs rather than only to those who are wage slaves for employers? Why?

Receiving health insurance "benefits" only through an employer - and even worse, only as a designated full-time employee - is not a benefit. It is a noose, a trap, a soul-strangler. It is a dangling carrot that is rotten to the core.

Fear of losing health insurance provided by an employer keeps good people with great ideas down. It prevents people who would love to break away and pursue their own, individual and independent source of income - especially those with pre-existing conditions- tied to the umbilical cord of an employer. It keeps us down; it doesn't build us up.

Do you really believe only the "good" workers work for others? Damn if that doesn't sound communistic to me! However, it is a mindset that has been instilled in the workforce over the last twenty years, and that scares the dickens out of me. Can you not see that so many of these "good" workers could prosper on their own if only they could buy their own insurance at a decent rate? The same rate provided to the large employers?

If the ACA makes this possible, and I don't know yet that it will, it will bring about a marvelous and long-needed change in the fabric and motivation of our society. It will free people to blossom and become who they are rather than keep their hearts and souls tied to the capricious whims of an employer.

(I suppose I am a true libertarian after all.)

Chrissy wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:Chrissy, I wish you had read my posts. I simply said health care insurance should not be tied to employment. I never wrote it should be free. Even if health insurance is ever government-provided, i.e., Medicare for all, it still won't be free. It will never be free.

We should all be able to purchase a decent health care policy whether or not we are employed. Why should the "group insurance rate" apply to only those with full-time employment? If that rate can be given to companies that provide insurance for full-time employees, why can that same rate not be provided to those who are self-employed or entrepreneurs rather than only to those who are wage slaves for employers? Why?

Receiving health insurance "benefits" only through an employer - and even worse, only as a designated full-time employee - is not a benefit. It is a noose, a trap, a soul-strangler. It is a dangling carrot that is rotten to the core.

Fear of losing health insurance provided by an employer keeps good people with great ideas down. It prevents people who would love to break away and pursue their own, individual and independent source of income - especially those with pre-existing conditions- tied to the umbilical cord of an employer. It keeps us down; it doesn't build us up.

Do you really believe only the "good" workers work for others? Damn if that doesn't sound communistic to me! However, it is a mindset that has been instilled in the workforce over the last twenty years, and that scares the dickens out of me. Can you not see that so many of these "good" workers could prosper on their own if only they could buy their own insurance at a decent rate? The same rate provided to the large employers?

If the ACA makes this possible, and I don't know yet that it will, it will bring about a marvelous and long-needed change in the fabric and motivation of our society. It will free people to blossom and become who they are rather than keep their hearts and souls tied to the capricious whims of an employer.

(I suppose I am a true libertarian after all.)

ah poop. I see what you are saying about it being tied to employment and a little it agrees.

BUT. medicare for all is asking the GOV to run everyones insurance. you know that's not a libertarian thing to want.

what your wishing for is for all private ins to go away. do you know how many jobs lost that would be? would those jobs then been absorbed by the new large GOV health ins industry and be federal payroll?

but lets not get so far of our self, because if ACA manages to kill private ins industry and I think it will, two things, your gov insurance plan wont be the same plan it is today. that's too cushy, matter of a fact its already becoming less cushy. And we may not see this fully implemented in our life time.

MEANWHILE. I don't know about you, but im in a living hell. I want you to put yourself in my shoes for a sec. imagine you are running a multi million dollar lab. and boom, you loose millions of dollars over night due to this law. there is no way you can make it up. the people at the top want you to do everything you can to be as frugal as possible because they took a huge hit and want to make sure owning a lab is a good choice for them. the gov licked the candy off their apple and for a while I suppose it will be viewed with a bad taste in mouth if you know what I mean. the solution is do more work with no more people. and this is just the beginning.

so while you may be all fine and dandy with screwing up the health system in hopes to bring forth this wonderful magical new shiny perfect healthcare for all, I say good luck. call me a pessimist if you want. because we are tearing this shit down now and once it gets in rumbles its going to take a hellava lot more to pick it back up than a mandate from the GOV saying they will pay for everything. because we are messing with MILLIONS of healthcare professionals LIVES and it will have a long lasting effect on the face of our healthcare no matter who pays for it in the future.

I still love ya though.

PBulldog2 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:Chrissy, I wish you had read my posts. I simply said health care insurance should not be tied to employment. I never wrote it should be free. Even if health insurance is ever government-provided, i.e., Medicare for all, it still won't be free. It will never be free.

We should all be able to purchase a decent health care policy whether or not we are employed. Why should the "group insurance rate" apply to only those with full-time employment? If that rate can be given to companies that provide insurance for full-time employees, why can that same rate not be provided to those who are self-employed or entrepreneurs rather than only to those who are wage slaves for employers? Why?

Receiving health insurance "benefits" only through an employer - and even worse, only as a designated full-time employee - is not a benefit. It is a noose, a trap, a soul-strangler. It is a dangling carrot that is rotten to the core.

Fear of losing health insurance provided by an employer keeps good people with great ideas down. It prevents people who would love to break away and pursue their own, individual and independent source of income - especially those with pre-existing conditions- tied to the umbilical cord of an employer. It keeps us down; it doesn't build us up.

Do you really believe only the "good" workers work for others? Damn if that doesn't sound communistic to me! However, it is a mindset that has been instilled in the workforce over the last twenty years, and that scares the dickens out of me. Can you not see that so many of these "good" workers could prosper on their own if only they could buy their own insurance at a decent rate? The same rate provided to the large employers?

If the ACA makes this possible, and I don't know yet that it will, it will bring about a marvelous and long-needed change in the fabric and motivation of our society. It will free people to blossom and become who they are rather than keep their hearts and souls tied to the capricious whims of an employer.

(I suppose I am a true libertarian after all.)

ah poop. I see what you are saying about it being tied to employment and a little it agrees.

BUT. medicare for all is asking the GOV to run everyones insurance. you know that's not a libertarian thing to want.

what your wishing for is for all private ins to go away. do you know how many jobs lost that would be? would those jobs then been absorbed by the new large GOV health ins industry and be federal payroll?

but lets not get so far of our self, because if ACA manages to kill private ins industry and I think it will, two things, your gov insurance plan wont be the same plan it is today. that's too cushy, matter of a fact its already becoming less cushy. And we may not see this fully implemented in our life time.

MEANWHILE. I don't know about you, but im in a living hell. I want you to put yourself in my shoes for a sec. imagine you are running a multi million dollar lab. and boom, you loose millions of dollars over night due to this law. there is no way you can make it up. the people at the top want you to do everything you can to be as frugal as possible because they took a huge hit and want to make sure owning a lab is a good choice for them. the gov licked the candy off their apple and for a while I suppose it will be viewed with a bad taste in mouth if you know what I mean. the solution is do more work with no more people. and this is just the beginning.

so while you may be all fine and dandy with screwing up the health system in hopes to bring forth this wonderful magical new shiny perfect healthcare for all, I say good luck. call me a pessimist if you want. because we are tearing this shit down now and once it gets in rumbles its going to take a hellava lot more to pick it back up than a mandate from the GOV saying they will pay for everything. because we are messing with MILLIONS of healthcare professionals LIVES and it will have a long lasting effect on the face of our healthcare no matter who pays for it in the future.

I still love ya though.

If we ever get that bee farm going, Joani will provide all our care, so this whole question will be moot.

doubtingthomas wrote:We should all be able to purchase a decent health care policy whether or not we are employed. Why should the "group insurance rate" apply to only those with full-time employment? If that rate can be given to companies that provide insurance for full-time employees, why can that same rate not be provided to those who are self-employed or entrepreneurs rather than only to those who are wage slaves for employers? Why?

Do you really know what the "group rate is" ? You could not afford to purchase at a group rate. Let's take an example of a group quote I did this past week on a biz with 10 employee's, the best plan was was over $1000 per month for an employee, to add the family over $2000 per month, the worst plan was a little over $500 with employee only and over $1000 per family. Not many people realize that you as an employee are paying a rate each month and your employer is picking up at least maybe more than 50%. Also a self employed person can get group insurance in the month of August for Oct 1, effective date, but that ain't cheap. These one man groups as many small group will go on the individual plans Jan 1 2014, no reason to get a small group anymore just for a sick employee. That is the biggest single reason that a biz under 10 puts a group in, because of a sick employee.

Now for most families under the aca their guaranteed plans will be just around what the total cost of a group plan is today. They may be able to lower it with the subsidy from gov.

Chrissy wrote:

doubtingthomas wrote:We should all be able to purchase a decent health care policy whether or not we are employed. Why should the "group insurance rate" apply to only those with full-time employment? If that rate can be given to companies that provide insurance for full-time employees, why can that same rate not be provided to those who are self-employed or entrepreneurs rather than only to those who are wage slaves for employers? Why?

Do you really know what the "group rate is" ? You could not afford to purchase at a group rate. Let's take an example of a group quote I did this past week on a biz with 10 employee's, the best plan was was over $1000 per month for an employee, to add the family over $2000 per month, the worst plan was a little over $500 with employee only and over $1000 per family. Not many people realize that you as an employee are paying a rate each month and your employer is picking up at least maybe more than 50%. Also a self employed person can get group insurance in the month of August for Oct 1, effective date, but that ain't cheap. These one man groups as many small group will go on the individual plans Jan 1 2014, no reason to get a small group anymore just for a sick employee. That is the biggest single reason that a biz under 10 puts a group in, because of a sick employee.

Now for most families under the aca their guaranteed plans will be just around what the total cost of a group plan is today. They may be able to lower it with the subsidy from gov.

You know Thomas, that's why I refer to insurance through your work as a benefit, because it is. It is even handled by the benefits department in larger organizations. Its planned out as a benefit. Managers often have to quote true cost of a FTE with their salary plus add another average 24% to include what benefits cost.

There will never be a perfect solution to the access problem. I hate to see the system ruined by a small percentage to where most of them were not even included to begin with. 12 million illegals run up the cost, not included yet in ACA. the smaller % is young people and then some very wealthy people who just don't carry it and pay cash. there are those in the lower income groups, the working poor who don't carry it because its expensive and they don't have the type of job that provides that benefit. those people are really gong to be the segment of society that gets hurt the most with the mandate because the subsidy has the poverty level so low. I think its like $15,000 or something. I don't have it in front of me right now. So even if these people have to pay the fine, they will still go without insurance because they make to much to be on Medicaid.

we havnt solved any problems. not any that out weigh the problems we have caused. IMHO.

Id like toknow if there is a better subsidy calculator than Keiser? I havnt found one.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Home/KHS/SubsidyCalculator.aspx?source=FS.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

doubtingthomas wrote:We should all be able to purchase a decent health care policy whether or not we are employed. Why should the "group insurance rate" apply to only those with full-time employment? If that rate can be given to companies that provide insurance for full-time employees, why can that same rate not be provided to those who are self-employed or entrepreneurs rather than only to those who are wage slaves for employers? Why?

Do you really know what the "group rate is" ? You could not afford to purchase at a group rate. Let's take an example of a group quote I did this past week on a biz with 10 employee's, the best plan was was over $1000 per month for an employee, to add the family over $2000 per month, the worst plan was a little over $500 with employee only and over $1000 per family. Not many people realize that you as an employee are paying a rate each month and your employer is picking up at least maybe more than 50%. Also a self employed person can get group insurance in the month of August for Oct 1, effective date, but that ain't cheap. These one man groups as many small group will go on the individual plans Jan 1 2014, no reason to get a small group anymore just for a sick employee. That is the biggest single reason that a biz under 10 puts a group in, because of a sick employee.

Now for most families under the aca their guaranteed plans will be just around what the total cost of a group plan is today. They may be able to lower it with the subsidy from gov.

You know Thomas, that's why I refer to insurance through your work as a benefit, because it is. It is even handled by the benefits department in larger organizations. Its planned out as a benefit. Managers often have to quote true cost of a FTE with their salary plus add another average 24% to include what benefits cost.

There will never be a perfect solution to the access problem. I hate to see the system ruined by a small percentage to where most of them were not even included to begin with. 12 million illegals run up the cost, not included yet in ACA. the smaller % is young people and then some very wealthy people who just don't carry it and pay cash. there are those in the lower income groups, the working poor who don't carry it because its expensive and they don't have the type of job that provides that benefit. those people are really gong to be the segment of society that gets hurt the most with the mandate because the subsidy has the poverty level so low. I think its like $15,000 or something. I don't have it in front of me right now. So even if these people have to pay the fine, they will still go without insurance because they make to much to be on Medicaid.

we havnt solved any problems. not any that out weigh the problems we have caused. IMHO.

Id like toknow if there is a better subsidy calculator than Keiser? I havnt found one.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Home/KHS/SubsidyCalculator.aspx?source=FS.

That's absolutely wrong. Only the poorest of the poor will go on medicaid and the others will get a subsidy for their care. The Govt's poverty level is very high.

Dreamsglore wrote:Oh really? When your income for one for ACA can be $44,000 I'd say the poverty level is pretty low.

http://www.ehealthlink.com/exchange/acaroles.aspx

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Oh really? When your income for one for ACA can be $44,000 I'd say the poverty level is pretty low.

http://www.ehealthlink.com/exchange/acaroles.aspx

dreams, your link shows that a single person making $44,000 a year on this plan with have to pay $353 a month for a gov plan.

most of the people in this group would have a employer ins and that cost would not be that much.

it also states what I showed you earlier. $44,000 is considered 400% above poverty level.

like I said, no helping you.

Im going to play with a room full of lesbians now.

have fun trying to figure out where you went wrong on understanding yur link LOL

Chrissy wrote:fact is, poverty level is low income according to the gov

and what I said is true right from the link given.

1 person making 44 thou will pay 343 a month, which is more than most pay now.

I am WELL aware that what dreams gave was a random ins plan offered. never the less, its more than what most people who make that much money pay for ins, because most people making that much money are NOT part time and they have a employer covered plan.

anyone who does not understand this, I cant help you. I suggest you stya in denial until it hits you. Im covered for now and plan on staying so because I am a skilled worker.