What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (1 Viewer)

Johnny Rock

Footballguy
ObamaCare is complex and will affect various companies in different ways. There is much to sort out yet. What are you or your company doing to lessen the effects and navigate through?

Industry: Retail, Multi-State

Workforce: 35 Store Managers & Office/350 Part-Time (PT)

We are choosing to concentrate on a few things that are under our control.

1) Analyze our PT workforce to determine how many Full-time Equivalent (FTE) (30 hrs/wk) emps we have and how many hours they're working.

2) Adjust PT hours to minimize the number of PT'ers who average 30 hours. We plan to adjust by 1/1/2013 as 2013 (either full year or quarterly) will be used as the basis in 2014 when we "Look Back" at the measurement period.

3) Determine what level of benefits will be considered "Qualifying" so as not to incur a penalty.

Expected Ramifications: More of our top PT'ers may need to find a second job in order to get more hours/week. This is unfortunate as managing the extra schedules is more work for everybody and can create chaos for the employee.

More time will be spent managing the hourly threshholds, hiring and workforce balance. The hedge will be to carry more employees at each store.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well kind of early for much planning from us but we are smaller. We don't even know whether what our exchanges will look like yet. Plus we have no part timers and we are under 25 employees. In general we expect to see a small increase in premiums but then we see that pretty much every year.

 
When you punish businesses for having good full-time jobs, is it really surprising you get less of them. How real the impact actually is in terms of cost is not really known, but the fear of the impact is real and it has made companies afraid to hire.

 
When you punish businesses for having good full-time jobs, is it really surprising you get less of them. How real the impact actually is in terms of cost is not really known, but the fear of the impact is real and it has made companies afraid to hire.
Actually it seems like this stops rewarding people like Wal-Mart who intentionally hire in such a way as to put the onus on the state to care for their part time workers. We have no part timers. Everyone is full time. That makes our adjustment pretty straight forward.
 
When you punish businesses for having good full-time jobs, is it really surprising you get less of them. How real the impact actually is in terms of cost is not really known, but the fear of the impact is real and it has made companies afraid to hire.
Actually it seems like this stops rewarding people like Wal-Mart who intentionally hire in such a way as to put the onus on the state to care for their part time workers. We have no part timers. Everyone is full time. That makes our adjustment pretty straight forward.
I think you're talking past each other here.Seems like the new rules do incentivize employers to hire part time workers instead of full time workers. If that's the case, we shouldn't be surprised when businesses do so, right?
 
When you punish businesses for having good full-time jobs, is it really surprising you get less of them. How real the impact actually is in terms of cost is not really known, but the fear of the impact is real and it has made companies afraid to hire.
Actually it seems like this stops rewarding people like Wal-Mart who intentionally hire in such a way as to put the onus on the state to care for their part time workers. We have no part timers. Everyone is full time. That makes our adjustment pretty straight forward.
I think you're talking past each other here.Seems like the new rules do incentivize employers to hire part time workers instead of full time workers. If that's the case, we shouldn't be surprised when businesses do so, right?
They were already incentivized. That's why they do it now. That's why Wal-Mart takes all the tax breaks your town gives them and then gives no benefits to the majority of their workers because they part time them. Meaning they are still relying on government services for healthcare, food assistance, etc. despite having a job. Meaning the town/county/state gets to pay twice for the awesome privilege of having Wal-Mart come to town.
 
When you punish businesses for having good full-time jobs, is it really surprising you get less of them. How real the impact actually is in terms of cost is not really known, but the fear of the impact is real and it has made companies afraid to hire.
Actually it seems like this stops rewarding people like Wal-Mart who intentionally hire in such a way as to put the onus on the state to care for their part time workers. We have no part timers. Everyone is full time. That makes our adjustment pretty straight forward.
I think you're talking past each other here.Seems like the new rules do incentivize employers to hire part time workers instead of full time workers. If that's the case, we shouldn't be surprised when businesses do so, right?
They were already incentivized. That's why they do it now. That's why Wal-Mart takes all the tax breaks your town gives them and then gives no benefits to the majority of their workers because they part time them. Meaning they are still relying on government services for healthcare, food assistance, etc. despite having a job. Meaning the town/county/state gets to pay twice for the awesome privilege of having Wal-Mart come to town.
Don't the new rules lower the number of hours to qualify as part time (or something along those lines)? And aren't Walmart and others doing exactly that to their workers?Edit to add: Also, I really don't think we should be blaming Walmart for this. If the government incentivizes a company to do something, we shouldn't blame the company when it does that something. We should blame government for making stupid rules in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you punish businesses for having good full-time jobs, is it really surprising you get less of them. How real the impact actually is in terms of cost is not really known, but the fear of the impact is real and it has made companies afraid to hire.
Actually it seems like this stops rewarding people like Wal-Mart who intentionally hire in such a way as to put the onus on the state to care for their part time workers. We have no part timers. Everyone is full time. That makes our adjustment pretty straight forward.
I think you're talking past each other here.Seems like the new rules do incentivize employers to hire part time workers instead of full time workers. If that's the case, we shouldn't be surprised when businesses do so, right?
They were already incentivized. That's why they do it now. That's why Wal-Mart takes all the tax breaks your town gives them and then gives no benefits to the majority of their workers because they part time them. Meaning they are still relying on government services for healthcare, food assistance, etc. despite having a job. Meaning the town/county/state gets to pay twice for the awesome privilege of having Wal-Mart come to town.
Don't the new rules lower the number of hours to qualify as part time (or something along those lines)? And aren't Walmart and others doing exactly that to their workers?Edit to add: Also, I really don't think we should be blaming Walmart for this. If the government incentivizes a company to do something, we shouldn't blame the company when it does that something. We should blame government for making stupid rules in the first place.
I was just using them as the most egregious of the bunch. Sure we can blame government or more accurately the people that write checks to government officials so they set up laws that make this kind of thing easier. Which would again include WM.
 
Companies keeping employees just under the threshold of a full-time worker was always a bit of a #### move anyway. We'll see more part time jobs open and more people working multiple part time jobs. I don't think it will be that big of a deal.

I work for a small company. About 40 employees, only one part-time. Premium increases have been smaller over the last few years. I don't think Obamacare will have much of an impact for us.

 
Companies keeping employees just under the threshold of a full-time worker was always a bit of a #### move anyway. We'll see more part time jobs open and more people working multiple part time jobs. I don't think it will be that big of a deal.I work for a small company. About 40 employees, only one part-time. Premium increases have been smaller over the last few years. I don't think Obamacare will have much of an impact for us.
This was the first year we didn't get a premium increase.
 
Companies keeping employees just under the threshold of a full-time worker was always a bit of a #### move anyway. We'll see more part time jobs open and more people working multiple part time jobs. I don't think it will be that big of a deal.I work for a small company. About 40 employees, only one part-time. Premium increases have been smaller over the last few years. I don't think Obamacare will have much of an impact for us.
This was the first year we didn't get a premium increase.
Mine was 40% last year. Waiting for the letter that should be arriving this year with the good news.When do the rebate checks flow? Isn't 2013 the first year for mandated purchase?
 
1. Skewing more toward PT rather than FT, as possible

2. Expanding use of outsourced labor in South America, due to significantly lower costs at a similar skill level.

Sector: financial services

 
Friend of mine who owns a stake in car dealerships says they are implementing a strategy to separate their new and used car businesses to stay under the threshold. They are splitting up ownership stakes to pass the common ownership situation.

 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.

For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.

 
When you punish businesses for having good full-time jobs, is it really surprising you get less of them. How real the impact actually is in terms of cost is not really known, but the fear of the impact is real and it has made companies afraid to hire.
Actually it seems like this stops rewarding people like Wal-Mart who intentionally hire in such a way as to put the onus on the state to care for their part time workers. We have no part timers. Everyone is full time. That makes our adjustment pretty straight forward.
I think you're talking past each other here.Seems like the new rules do incentivize employers to hire part time workers instead of full time workers. If that's the case, we shouldn't be surprised when businesses do so, right?
I disagree. As johnnyrocks posted, his company will be looking to scale back the hours of his best PT workers. However, those workers are likely to look for other work so it may be in the best interest of the company to make them FT instead. I think the law makes it tougher on companies to keep PT workers since they can't simply give them 39 hours and continue to call them PT while they are practically FT.
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
 
Friend of mine who owns a stake in car dealerships says they are implementing a strategy to separate their new and used car businesses to stay under the threshold. They are splitting up ownership stakes to pass the common ownership situation.
This is one of the problems with the law - companies can create two separate entities and have people work 20 hours at each.
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
what was the thought process on that?
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
what was the thought process on that?
Well going to China won't save them from it because it is on imported devices as well. Also if you export the device you don't pay the excise tax so it doesn't affect being competitive overseas. So the thought on this is with 33 million more Americans being covered the demand for medical devices will increase. Studies suggest that increase will more than offset the excise tax. The excise tax is one of several such actually being levied across the healthcare system and is one of the way Congress made it so that the ACA didn't add to the deficit.
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
what was the thought process on that?
I don't know the real reason, but my guess is that the industry is extremely profitable and using the tax revenue to add 30 million new people getting health care would increase their profits by a greater amount than the 2.3% tax.
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
what was the thought process on that?
A few million here and a few million there and we can make this thing look like it won't be a trillion dollar goverment program.Like the tanning tax. Brilliant!
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
Sounds draconian. I'm surprised the medical device industry hasn't schriveled up and croaked at the mere thought of such an increase.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure what they are doing in regards to hiring and full/part -time employees.

For me in 2013, my same plan has a 20% increase in employer/employee cost. The name of my plan is changing to "Premium" and they are adding another plan with higher deductibles, higher co-pays and more limited coverage for slightly more than my 2012 plan.

 
The only thing my company has done so far is pocket the extra money it received for our health care provider not meeting the 85% mandate.

 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
it's worth noting that this is a tax on revenues, not profits.
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
Sounds draconian. I'm surprised the medical device industry hasn't schriveled up and croaked at the mere thought of such an increase.
Why don't you shut yer yap since the only thing you've ever run is your tongue along the edge of a rolling paper. We're having an adult conversation here.
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
what was the thought process on that?
Well going to China won't save them from it because it is on imported devices as well. Also if you export the device you don't pay the excise tax so it doesn't affect being competitive overseas. So the thought on this is with 33 million more Americans being covered the demand for medical devices will increase. Studies suggest that increase will more than offset the excise tax. The excise tax is one of several such actually being levied across the healthcare system and is one of the way Congress made it so that the ACA didn't add to the deficit.
Thanks. I'll have to ask him more about it when I see him Thursday night. I'm guessing they are trying to lower their costs to offset the tax.My company's largest customer is a medical device manufacturer so I was wondering how they might be affected also.
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
what was the thought process on that?
Well going to China won't save them from it because it is on imported devices as well. Also if you export the device you don't pay the excise tax so it doesn't affect being competitive overseas. So the thought on this is with 33 million more Americans being covered the demand for medical devices will increase. Studies suggest that increase will more than offset the excise tax. The excise tax is one of several such actually being levied across the healthcare system and is one of the way Congress made it so that the ACA didn't add to the deficit.
Thanks. I'll have to ask him more about it when I see him Thursday night. I'm guessing they are trying to lower their costs to offset the tax.My company's largest customer is a medical device manufacturer so I was wondering how they might be affected also.
I would think it's more about the dirt cheap manufacturing. However even that makes less sense today. Shipping, taxes and wage demands are making the Chinese less able to compete just on cheap labor. Not to mention their population is graying at an amazing rate. Apparently they realize this and we are seeing huge demand increases for manufacturing robots in China.
 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
what was the thought process on that?
Well going to China won't save them from it because it is on imported devices as well. Also if you export the device you don't pay the excise tax so it doesn't affect being competitive overseas. So the thought on this is with 33 million more Americans being covered the demand for medical devices will increase. Studies suggest that increase will more than offset the excise tax. The excise tax is one of several such actually being levied across the healthcare system and is one of the way Congress made it so that the ACA didn't add to the deficit.
Thanks. I'll have to ask him more about it when I see him Thursday night. I'm guessing they are trying to lower their costs to offset the tax.My company's largest customer is a medical device manufacturer so I was wondering how they might be affected also.
I would think it's more about the dirt cheap manufacturing. However even that makes less sense today. Shipping, taxes and wage demands are making the Chinese less able to compete just on cheap labor. Not to mention their population is graying at an amazing rate. Apparently they realize this and we are seeing huge demand increases for manufacturing robots in China.
Agree. We have a partner in China and have found recently that we can actually run some things cheaper here, and that's not even accounting for freight cost and lead time.
 
I work in accounting for a large healthcare company that operates within the medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer over-the-counter (OTC) sectors. We are looking at an annual 2.3% tax on 25.7 billion (2011) gross trade sales (of course it's not operating income), resulting in a taxable amount of about 592 MM based on 2011 sales. Also looking at a 92.4 MM market share tax for simply operating in the pharmaceutical space. So about 5.5% additional tax. That tax is probably going to come out of salaries & wages for non-manufacturing jobs here in the US, since basically (as a % of manufacturing worldwide) we don't make anything domestically (and haven't for quite some time). It is sinfully cheap to manufacture abroad and not in the US, that ship sailed years and years ago and it's never coming back. Add the costs to pay for the insurance itself for full-time employees, and it's pretty much not looking great on paper.

I'm not so much concerned with the impact on the bottom line with the investment community, since the rest of the industry will have ObamaCare impact them in the same manner. I'm concerned with how this will potentially continue to shrink the workforce at my company, as pretty much any avenue to make these taxes up and continue to pay our investors their increased dividend will be explored, so long as it doesn't impact the products we sell. First one I think of is jobs that can be made obsolete or eliminated.

Further on the dividend, we have to pay our investors their dividend with US based cash. Thus, if "the well dries up" domestically, we get to pay more taxes on top of this to re-patriate all the money we strategically have from ex-US operations in other countries. I'll be president before Obama offers any sort of tax incentives to get that money back onto US soil.

We also haven't heard if President Obama plans to raise the US corporate tax rate during his second term, which is a completely separate discussion from planned ObamaCare tax increases for companies, and when that might be planned to take effect.

 
Shameless plug... SOI.com can help. They can provide cheaper healthcare by adding small companies to a larger pool. Basically they are your company as far as healthcare goes. Instead of 25 employees you are now part of 55,000 employees. SOI can get you much lower rates because of greater leverage with the insurance companies.

 
Is there anywhere I can read Obamacare? I am by no means a lawyer but I want to actually read the bill. It fascinates me to see two sides to a story that probably only half is true.

 
'mquinnjr said:
I work in accounting for a large healthcare company that operates within the medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer over-the-counter (OTC) sectors. We are looking at an annual 2.3% tax on 25.7 billion (2011) gross trade sales (of course it's not operating income), resulting in a taxable amount of about 592 MM based on 2011 sales. Also looking at a 92.4 MM market share tax for simply operating in the pharmaceutical space. So about 5.5% additional tax. That tax is probably going to come out of salaries & wages for non-manufacturing jobs here in the US, since basically (as a % of manufacturing worldwide) we don't make anything domestically (and haven't for quite some time). It is sinfully cheap to manufacture abroad and not in the US, that ship sailed years and years ago and it's never coming back. Add the costs to pay for the insurance itself for full-time employees, and it's pretty much not looking great on paper.

I'm not so much concerned with the impact on the bottom line with the investment community, since the rest of the industry will have ObamaCare impact them in the same manner. I'm concerned with how this will potentially continue to shrink the workforce at my company, as pretty much any avenue to make these taxes up and continue to pay our investors their increased dividend will be explored, so long as it doesn't impact the products we sell. First one I think of is jobs that can be made obsolete or eliminated.

Further on the dividend, we have to pay our investors their dividend with US based cash. Thus, if "the well dries up" domestically, we get to pay more taxes on top of this to re-patriate all the money we strategically have from ex-US operations in other countries. I'll be president before Obama offers any sort of tax incentives to get that money back onto US soil.

We also haven't heard if President Obama plans to raise the US corporate tax rate during his second term, which is a completely separate discussion from planned ObamaCare tax increases for companies, and when that might be planned to take effect.
I feel bad for companies like yours. A tax on revenues is a huge hit - it doesn't matter if you're profitable or not! It makes no sense to punish an industry like yours. As others have said, I expect to see a stronger leaning to part-time workers in order to avoid having to provide coverage. Those without coverage go into the state-run exchanges (in 2014), except many states aren't bothering and will let the feds run their exchanges. Who has confidence in that working well?

Further down the road in 2018 will be the extra fees assessed on "cadillac" plans (plans with a high cost, but it's really not that high and will hit a lot of firms).

 
Well kind of early for much planning from us but we are smaller. We don't even know whether what our exchanges will look like yet. Plus we have no part timers and we are under 25 employees. In general we expect to see a small increase in premiums but then we see that pretty much every year.
Premiums will double... Not all at once mind you.. but it's going to be expensive.. This plan is doomed..
 
When you punish businesses for having good full-time jobs, is it really surprising you get less of them. How real the impact actually is in terms of cost is not really known, but the fear of the impact is real and it has made companies afraid to hire.
Actually it seems like this stops rewarding people like Wal-Mart who intentionally hire in such a way as to put the onus on the state to care for their part time workers. We have no part timers. Everyone is full time. That makes our adjustment pretty straight forward.
Walmart is exactly the company that will thrive under this environment.. The have the part time employee plan down pat..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Companies keeping employees just under the threshold of a full-time worker was always a bit of a #### move anyway. We'll see more part time jobs open and more people working multiple part time jobs. I don't think it will be that big of a deal.

I work for a small company. About 40 employees, only one part-time. Premium increases have been smaller over the last few years. I don't think Obamacare will have much of an impact for us.
For a family, struggling financially, and already neglecting time with their kids.. It's a terrible situation..
 
When you punish businesses for having good full-time jobs, is it really surprising you get less of them. How real the impact actually is in terms of cost is not really known, but the fear of the impact is real and it has made companies afraid to hire.
Actually it seems like this stops rewarding people like Wal-Mart who intentionally hire in such a way as to put the onus on the state to care for their part time workers. We have no part timers. Everyone is full time. That makes our adjustment pretty straight forward.
I think you're talking past each other here.Seems like the new rules do incentivize employers to hire part time workers instead of full time workers. If that's the case, we shouldn't be surprised when businesses do so, right?
I disagree. As johnnyrocks posted, his company will be looking to scale back the hours of his best PT workers. However, those workers are likely to look for other work so it may be in the best interest of the company to make them FT instead. I think the law makes it tougher on companies to keep PT workers since they can't simply give them 39 hours and continue to call them PT while they are practically FT.
Yea.. I hated when that used to happen..Dude.. lol...

 
Talking to a friend last night who works for a large medical device manufacturer. According to him, a large hunk of tax burden will be passed on to companies like his. Is this correct? I had never heard that. Didn't have time to go into a lot of detail with him, but he claims that they will be shutting down their largest manufacturing facility (here in Ohio) and moving it to China.For reference, he is one of their top financial guys so I'm sure he is in on all of the discussions. And it wasn't one of those "F'n Obama -we're moving our company to China" wingnut rants - he's not really a politics type of guy and did not mention BO by name. Seemed sincere. I was just surprised.
There will be a 2.3% tax on medical devices starting in January.
Sounds draconian. I'm surprised the medical device industry hasn't schriveled up and croaked at the mere thought of such an increase.
no, they'll just pass that expense on to the consumer.. making healthcare just that much more expensive.. And just another way for the government to tax the people..
 
Companies keeping employees just under the threshold of a full-time worker was always a bit of a #### move anyway. We'll see more part time jobs open and more people working multiple part time jobs. I don't think it will be that big of a deal.I work for a small company. About 40 employees, only one part-time. Premium increases have been smaller over the last few years. I don't think Obamacare will have much of an impact for us.
This was the first year we didn't get a premium increase.
Mine was 40% last year. Waiting for the letter that should be arriving this year with the good news.When do the rebate checks flow? Isn't 2013 the first year for mandated purchase?
Our premiums went down this year. And rebate checks are flowing. We received one in the mail a few months back.As much as I want to dislike Obamacare (I HATE the mandate, but do realize it is important to make this work), the initial results are promising to me so far.FYI - I own a business with about 25 full-time employees.
 
'mquinnjr said:
We are looking at an annual 2.3% tax on 25.7 billion (2011) gross trade sales (of course it's not operating income), resulting in a taxable amount of about 592 MM based on 2011 sales. Also looking at a 92.4 MM market share tax for simply operating in the pharmaceutical space. So about 5.5% additional tax.
:eek: :eek: :eek: That is insane. I can't see how that's good for America. No doubt that will raise premiums and provide disincentives to medical entrepreneurs. Makes me sick.
 
'mquinnjr said:
We are looking at an annual 2.3% tax on 25.7 billion (2011) gross trade sales (of course it's not operating income), resulting in a taxable amount of about 592 MM based on 2011 sales. Also looking at a 92.4 MM market share tax for simply operating in the pharmaceutical space. So about 5.5% additional tax.
:eek: :eek: :eek: That is insane. I can't see how that's good for America. No doubt that will raise premiums and provide disincentives to medical entrepreneurs. Makes me sick.
Remember that 30 million people will now have health care that didn't before. That theoretically means an increased demand for goods and services, and the possibility of increased revenues. My guess is that while not a complete wash, there will be some money coming back into the positive as well...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top