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

[matttyl]

I have not seen here where ONE family comes out better with Obamacare, Not one.

Early retirees make out like bandits thanks to the spread limitation. If I was 55 I would think very, very heavily about hanging it up.

Expand please. Most folks in their late 50s and early 60 up to 65 when Medicare kicks in, those folks pay thru the nose. What are you specifically referring to?

He's referring to the limitation of age spread under the ACA. Currently it can be as high as 10:1, while under ACA it can only be as much as 3:1. Means it will be MUCH more expensive for younger folks while possibly (likely) making it more expensive for older ones.

 

[Rayderr]

Apparently, I, and about half of the people in my office, qualify for maketplace plans. We're all so looking forward to dealing with the paperwork for that.

 

[matttyl]

Apparently, I, and about half of the people in my office, qualify for maketplace plans. We're all so looking forward to dealing with the paperwork for that.

Just to clear up something you may mean - everyone "qualifies" for a marketplace plan. Anyone can just drop their current individual plan or employer group plan and enroll on an exchange.

Do you mean that about half of your office qualifies for a subsidy with a market place plan, even though you are eligible for a group plan?

Also, from what I've heard there isn't a lot of "paperwork" for the subsidy, much of it is online - hope you don't mind all of your personal information being on a government server and in front of the eyes of all of these "navigators".

 

[Rayderr]

Apparently, I, and about half of the people in my office, qualify for maketplace plans. We're all so looking forward to dealing with the paperwork for that.

Just to clear up something you may mean - everyone "qualifies" for a marketplace plan. Anyone can just drop their current individual plan or employer group plan and enroll on an exchange.

Do you mean that about half of your office qualifies for a subsidy with a market place plan, even though you are eligible for a group plan?

Also, from what I've heard there isn't a lot of "paperwork" for the subsidy, much of it is online - hope you don't mind all of your personal information being on a government server and in front of the eyes of all of these "navigators".

Half of us fall into that less that 400% of the poverty level (basically, all of us who have a spouse staying at home with kid(s)) and can get the lower rate/subsidy/whatever thing.

 

[matttyl]

Apparently, I, and about half of the people in my office, qualify for maketplace plans. We're all so looking forward to dealing with the paperwork for that.

Just to clear up something you may mean - everyone "qualifies" for a marketplace plan. Anyone can just drop their current individual plan or employer group plan and enroll on an exchange.

Do you mean that about half of your office qualifies for a subsidy with a market place plan, even though you are eligible for a group plan?

Also, from what I've heard there isn't a lot of "paperwork" for the subsidy, much of it is online - hope you don't mind all of your personal information being on a government server and in front of the eyes of all of these "navigators".

Half of us fall into that less that 400% of the poverty level (basically, all of us who have a spouse staying at home with kid(s)) and can get the lower rate/subsidy/whatever thing.

Ok, there is (I believe) one other thing you need to verify to be sure that you qualify for the subsidy - or not.

Do you have group coverage available to you through that job? I assume the answer to that is yes. Is that coverage available to you (just for you, not for your entire family) less than 9.5% of your individual income? Meaning if you were to enroll on that group as an "employee only" without your family, is the cost that you would pay (likely through payroll deductions) less than 9.5% of your income?

I believe if the answer to that question is "yes, I do have coverage available to me through my employer which would cost less than 9.5% of my income" then no, you would not qualify for a subsidy through the exchange, and I'm pretty sure your family wouldn't either. You can still enroll on an exchange plan, but you wouldn't get any monetary assistance to do so.

 

[Rayderr]

Apparently, I, and about half of the people in my office, qualify for maketplace plans. We're all so looking forward to dealing with the paperwork for that.

Just to clear up something you may mean - everyone "qualifies" for a marketplace plan. Anyone can just drop their current individual plan or employer group plan and enroll on an exchange.

Do you mean that about half of your office qualifies for a subsidy with a market place plan, even though you are eligible for a group plan?

Also, from what I've heard there isn't a lot of "paperwork" for the subsidy, much of it is online - hope you don't mind all of your personal information being on a government server and in front of the eyes of all of these "navigators".

Half of us fall into that less that 400% of the poverty level (basically, all of us who have a spouse staying at home with kid(s)) and can get the lower rate/subsidy/whatever thing.

Ok, there is (I believe) one other thing you need to verify to be sure that you qualify for the subsidy - or not.

Do you have group coverage available to you through that job? I assume the answer to that is yes. Is that coverage available to you (just for you, not for your entire family) less than 9.5% of your individual income? Meaning if you were to enroll on that group as an "employee only" without your family, is the cost that you would pay (likely through payroll deductions) less than 9.5% of your income?

I believe if the answer to that question is "yes, I do have coverage available to me through my employer which would cost less than 9.5% of my income" then no, you would not qualify for a subsidy through the exchange, and I'm pretty sure your family wouldn't either. You can still enroll on an exchange plan, but you wouldn't get any monetary assistance to do so.

Hmm.. that 9.5% thing wasn't mentioned in the briefing by the HR people. Have to look into that. But what about my family? What if it's more than 9.5% if I include converage of my family. Is it a just a #### out of luck thing?

 

[Courtjester]

My question is how will it be verified you have coverage? I mean, I can see how the government can verify enrollment in one of the exchanges, but how will they verify other coverage?

Secondly, if you just say I am not paying anything, sure you get the fine. I know there are all these spooky stories about the IRS coming after you, but in reality isn't it just going to be alot of collection letters and phone calls? And at what point does the amount of money expended to collect the fine exceed what the actual fine is?

I have good insurance through my employer, though I pay a pretty high premium for what I get. I guess what I worry about (and I have heard rumblings about) is that the government decides that my employer's contribution is defined as attributable income to me and I get taxed on it. Again, maybe this is just fear mongering being spread by the GOP, but that does concern me if true.

 

[matttyl]

Hmm.. that 9.5% thing wasn't mentioned in the briefing by the HR people. Have to look into that. But what about my family? What if it's more than 9.5% if I include converage of my family. Is it a just a #### out of luck thing?

The way I understand it, yes, you're out of luck. By definition, if you have coverage that is "creditable" (meaning it meets the 60% actuarial value rule), and it is "affordable" to you (meaning that employee only coverage would cost you, the employee, less than 9.5% of your income) then no one in your "family unit" is eligible for a subsidy. That's because, by rule, you have coverage available to you that is both "creditable" and "affordable". Doesn't matter what it would cost you to enroll your family on that group plan.

Your employer should have given you a form (it's a form that was generated by the Department of Labor, you can google it) that tells you the employee, that you have coverage available to you that is both of those things - "creditable" and "affordable".

 

[matttyl]

My question is how will it be verified you have coverage? I mean, I can see how the government can verify enrollment in one of the exchanges, but how will they verify other coverage?

Secondly, if you just say I am not paying anything, sure you get the fine. I know there are all these spooky stories about the IRS coming after you, but in reality isn't it just going to be alot of collection letters and phone calls? And at what point does the amount of money expended to collect the fine exceed what the actual fine is?

I have good insurance through my employer, though I pay a pretty high premium for what I get. I guess what I worry about (and I have heard rumblings about) is that the government decides that my employer's contribution is defined as attributable income to me and I get taxed on it. Again, maybe this is just fear mongering being spread by the GOP, but that does concern me if true.

I believe this year, or maybe it was last year, was the first year employers were required to put what it spent for your health care coverage on your W-2. They claim you won't be taxed on the amount, they just want you to see it.

I think it's just the first step toward people getting taxed on the money that their employers are paying for their income.

 

[Rayderr]

Hmm.. that 9.5% thing wasn't mentioned in the briefing by the HR people. Have to look into that. But what about my family? What if it's more than 9.5% if I include converage of my family. Is it a just a #### out of luck thing?

The way I understand it, yes, you're out of luck. By definition, if you have coverage that is "creditable" (meaning it meets the 60% actuarial value rule), and it is "affordable" to you (meaning that employee only coverage would cost you, the employee, less than 9.5% of your income) then no one in your "family unit" is eligible for a subsidy. That's because, by rule, you have coverage available to you that is both "creditable" and "affordable". Doesn't matter what it would cost you to enroll your family on that group plan.

Your employer should have given you a form (it's a form that was generated by the Department of Labor, you can google it) that tells you the employee, that you have coverage available to you that is both of those things - "creditable" and "affordable".

Well. That's just effing stupid. "You have coverage for just you that costs 9.49999% of your income. Granted you have kids and a stay at home wife, and to cover them on your business plan would cost you 75% of your income, but we don't give a ####."

 

[matttyl]

Hmm.. that 9.5% thing wasn't mentioned in the briefing by the HR people. Have to look into that. But what about my family? What if it's more than 9.5% if I include converage of my family. Is it a just a #### out of luck thing?

The way I understand it, yes, you're out of luck. By definition, if you have coverage that is "creditable" (meaning it meets the 60% actuarial value rule), and it is "affordable" to you (meaning that employee only coverage would cost you, the employee, less than 9.5% of your income) then no one in your "family unit" is eligible for a subsidy. That's because, by rule, you have coverage available to you that is both "creditable" and "affordable". Doesn't matter what it would cost you to enroll your family on that group plan.

Your employer should have given you a form (it's a form that was generated by the Department of Labor, you can google it) that tells you the employee, that you have coverage available to you that is both of those things - "creditable" and "affordable".

Well. That's just effing stupid. "You have coverage for just you that costs 9.49999% of your income. Granted you have kids and a stay at home wife, and to cover them on your business plan would cost you 75% of your income, but we don't give a ####."

Honestly, I feel that this was just an oversight that they didn't think about (one of many). I do believe that in the future this will be resolved somehow. I'm just not sure how they would do it.

The reason they did it this way (I believe) is that in order for your employer to know if the cost to you to add your wife and children to your group plan is more than 9.5% of your income....they would obviously have to know your spouse's income (if they have one) which is none of your employer's business. For all they may know your wife works for another company and has her coverage through them which is "affordable" (9.5% of her income or less), and they don't know how many kids you have.

The form you should have received from your employer is DOL form 1210-0149. You can google it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

[Foosball God]

Then you have articles like this one as well. Everyone is trying to spin.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/25/federal-health-insurance-premiums-lower/2863401/

HHS report shows that health insurance rates are lower than expected in 36 states.


WASHINGTON — Most Americans buying insurance from new state health exchanges will have at least two insurers to choose from, and six out of 10 people could pay less than $100 a month in premiums, a report to be released Wednesday by the Department of Health and Human Services shows.

The report analyzed insurance plans and premiums in 36 states where the federal government will either run or help run the exchanges, which are websites where state residents can shop for and buy health insurance starting Oct. 1.

In those 36 states, 95% of people will have two or more plans to choose from, while the average premium for all states and all ages will be $328, according to HHS. However, anyone who makes less than 400% of the federal poverty level, or about $94,000 for a family of four, will be eligible for a federal tax subsidy that will immediately be deducted from the cost of the insurance policy.

Wednesday's report is the latest review of exchanges' rates and policies from HHS and various states. Most have shown lower rates than anticipated, as more insurers have entered the markets and pegged their prices to capture more customers. The Obama administration estimates that 7 million uninsured Americans will use the exchanges to buy insurance in the six-month enrollment period that starts next week and ends March 1.

"Individual markets in way too many markets were dominated by one or two insurers," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, adding that they now have an average of 53 plans to choose from. "The bottom line is that January 1 will be a new day for millions of Americans."

Uninsured Americans will be able to choose from four levels of plans, starting with bronze and moving upward to silver, gold and platinum. Catastrophic coverage will be available for people younger than 30. Because of the 2010 health care law, which created the exchanges, insurers may no longer prohibit people from buying insurance or charge them more if they have pre-existing medical conditions.
"About one in four insurance companies are newly offering in the individual market, a sign of healthy competition," said Gary Cohen, director of the center for consumer information and oversight. "The prices are affordable. I think when you factor in the tax credits, you'll see the lowest cost bronze average is only $93."

The report broke down insurance costs for a variety of prospective buyers based on their ages, family sizes and states. For example, a 27-year-old making $25,000 in Dallas could buy the second-lowest silver plan for $223 a month before the tax credit and $145 a month after the credit. A bronze plan would cost the same person $74 a month after the tax credit.

States with the lowest rates and most competition tended to be states that had their own marketplaces, rather than using the federal marketplace, the report showed.

Analysts outside the government say rates under the law will be higher. Avik Roy, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, wrote in a column in USA TODAY that the law will increase premiums in the individual insurance market by 24%.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said there's a difference between insurance rates being lower than HHS expected and lower than they are now on the market. "The White House is making every effort possible to spin the bad news that seems to come every day, but the American people know that even this rosy scenario is not what they were promised when Democrats were ramming this bill through Congress on a party-line vote," Stewart said.

Cohen said those comparisons don't take into account the law's provisions that allow customers to see what each policy covers and how much it costs.

But rates for residents of some states will rise, Cohen said. That's particularly true for residents of states that did not provide much regulation about what types of coverage insurers must provide. Rates may also increase in places where health costs are higher in general — a kidney stone in New York City might cost more than a kidney stone in Indianapolis, for example.

Potential insurance customers can check www.healthcare.gov on Oct. 1 to find out actual costs.

None of the operation of the exchanges would likely be affected by a government shutdown, Cohen said. The law's budget is made up of mandatory spending, not the discretionary spending that would be affected by a shutdown. But Cohen said the Office of Management and Budget is working with other agencies to make sure work continues. He called the prospect of a shutdown "irresponsible."

To see the complete report, visithttp://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/ib_marketplace_premiums.cfm.

 

[matttyl]

As discussed in the other thread, the article specifically states "This report focuses on the plans with the lowest premiums in each state". To me, that's not a good place to start a comparison from. It's like comparing a Nissan Versa to other automobiles.

It's also comparing newly announced ACA rates to previous ACA rate projections. It is not comparing prices for these plans vs. prices of current, similar plans. In other words instead of as close to an "apples to apples" comparison, they are comparing "apples to what we thought an apple would cost."

 

[Foosball God]

As discussed in the other thread, the article specifically states "This report focuses on the plans with the lowest premiums in each state". To me, that's not a good place to start a comparison from. It's like comparing a Nissan Versa to other automobiles.

It's also comparing newly announced ACA rates to previous ACA rate projections. It is not comparing prices for these plans vs. prices of current, similar plans. In other words instead of as close to an "apples to apples" comparison, they are comparing "apples to what we thought an apple would cost."

I"m just saying both sides are spinning.

 

[matttyl]

As discussed in the other thread, the article specifically states "This report focuses on the plans with the lowest premiums in each state". To me, that's not a good place to start a comparison from. It's like comparing a Nissan Versa to other automobiles.

It's also comparing newly announced ACA rates to previous ACA rate projections. It is not comparing prices for these plans vs. prices of current, similar plans. In other words instead of as close to an "apples to apples" comparison, they are comparing "apples to what we thought an apple would cost."

I"m just saying both sides are spinning.

And they will be for years. I'm not saying I have a definitive answer to this question, I'm just saying that the ACA isn't it.

 

[Foosball God]

As discussed in the other thread, the article specifically states "This report focuses on the plans with the lowest premiums in each state". To me, that's not a good place to start a comparison from. It's like comparing a Nissan Versa to other automobiles.

It's also comparing newly announced ACA rates to previous ACA rate projections. It is not comparing prices for these plans vs. prices of current, similar plans. In other words instead of as close to an "apples to apples" comparison, they are comparing "apples to what we thought an apple would cost."

I"m just saying both sides are spinning.

And they will be for years. I'm not saying I have a definitive answer to this question, I'm just saying that the ACA isn't it.

The ACA almost assuredly isn't the correct answer. But I truly believe we as a country are too stupid to come up with the right answer and implement it the first time. We need to see something in action and fix it as we go. I wish we were smarter and had a more conducive government to allow this to happen but we don't.

 

[matttyl]

As discussed in the other thread, the article specifically states "This report focuses on the plans with the lowest premiums in each state". To me, that's not a good place to start a comparison from. It's like comparing a Nissan Versa to other automobiles.

It's also comparing newly announced ACA rates to previous ACA rate projections. It is not comparing prices for these plans vs. prices of current, similar plans. In other words instead of as close to an "apples to apples" comparison, they are comparing "apples to what we thought an apple would cost."

I"m just saying both sides are spinning.

And they will be for years. I'm not saying I have a definitive answer to this question, I'm just saying that the ACA isn't it.

The ACA almost assuredly isn't the correct answer. But I truly believe we as a country are too stupid to come up with the right answer and implement it the first time. We need to see something in action and fix it as we go. I wish we were smarter and had a more conducive government to allow this to happen but we don't.

A few ideas....

1) Empower the country as a whole to lead a healthier lifestyle. We still have 20% of the adult population that smokes. We are the most overweight nation in the history of mankind. Our leading cause of death is heart disease, which by in large is preventable. Something like 60% of all health insurance claims are caused by lifestyle choices (things which are preventable).

2) We should have continued to push high deductible type plans, and continue with the tax incentives for them. If someone has a $5k deductible maybe they would make a different decision about the treatment for their head cold than if they had no deductible at all. The higher the deductible, the lower the premium - the higher participation we'll have from the masses.

3) Continue with education reform/improvement. The more educated the population is, the more jobs are created. The more people that are employed in middle income jobs, the more people that will be covered on an employer sponsored plan.

4) Possibly look into removing lifetime maximums entirely from insurance plans. This would drop the prices SUBSTANTIALLY, leading to higher participation. Lets say that after $100k or $250k or something in claims, an insurance company can walk away from the individual. People can buy supplemental policies that would then pick up the costs above that, and those are priced as the market will allow. If you don't obtain a supplemental policy, you still have coverage, and quite a bit of it - and you'll still have your basic checkups and access to care and such.

5) Implement measures to actually make the products (drugs) and services (medical procedures) themselves more affordable. As I've said in either this thread or another previously, I have a cousin with a condition where there is only one drug currently on the market that will help with it. This drug is an injection, and is well over $1k per shot - and she needs at least 2 per month. That's alone $24k a year, for one drug for one person, on a family plan where 4 people are covered.

How about some discussion on those?

 

[lod01]

How come we don't just make it where if you don't have insurance, you simply either pay up front in cash or die.

 

[Sand]

As discussed in the other thread, the article specifically states "This report focuses on the plans with the lowest premiums in each state". To me, that's not a good place to start a comparison from. It's like comparing a Nissan Versa to other automobiles.

It's also comparing newly announced ACA rates to previous ACA rate projections. It is not comparing prices for these plans vs. prices of current, similar plans. In other words instead of as close to an "apples to apples" comparison, they are comparing "apples to what we thought an apple would cost."

I"m just saying both sides are spinning.

And they will be for years. I'm not saying I have a definitive answer to this question, I'm just saying that the ACA isn't it.

The ACA almost assuredly isn't the correct answer. But I truly believe we as a country are too stupid to come up with the right answer and implement it the first time. We need to see something in action and fix it as we go. I wish we were smarter and had a more conducive government to allow this to happen but we don't.

A few ideas....

1) Empower the country as a whole to lead a healthier lifestyle. We still have 20% of the adult population that smokes. We are the most overweight nation in the history of mankind. Our leading cause of death is heart disease, which by in large is preventable. Something like 60% of all health insurance claims are caused by lifestyle choices (things which are preventable).

1. Allow insurance companies to grade your health by the most significant health choice you make - body fat %. Eat more, pay more.

1a. No tort reform talk? Funny how they bought their way out of the ACA and have managed to hide in the bushes ever since.

BTW, Mexico has eclipsed the US in obesity rates.

 

[matttyl]

As discussed in the other thread, the article specifically states "This report focuses on the plans with the lowest premiums in each state". To me, that's not a good place to start a comparison from. It's like comparing a Nissan Versa to other automobiles.

It's also comparing newly announced ACA rates to previous ACA rate projections. It is not comparing prices for these plans vs. prices of current, similar plans. In other words instead of as close to an "apples to apples" comparison, they are comparing "apples to what we thought an apple would cost."

I"m just saying both sides are spinning.

And they will be for years. I'm not saying I have a definitive answer to this question, I'm just saying that the ACA isn't it.

The ACA almost assuredly isn't the correct answer. But I truly believe we as a country are too stupid to come up with the right answer and implement it the first time. We need to see something in action and fix it as we go. I wish we were smarter and had a more conducive government to allow this to happen but we don't.

A few ideas....

1) Empower the country as a whole to lead a healthier lifestyle. We still have 20% of the adult population that smokes. We are the most overweight nation in the history of mankind. Our leading cause of death is heart disease, which by in large is preventable. Something like 60% of all health insurance claims are caused by lifestyle choices (things which are preventable).

1. Allow insurance companies to grade your health by the most significant health choice you make - body fat %. Eat more, pay more.

1a. No tort reform talk? Funny how they bought their way out of the ACA and have managed to hide in the bushes ever since.

BTW, Mexico has eclipsed the US in obesity rates.

The fat Mexicans all live in the States, but that's for a different thread.

I didn't add tort reform to my list as I'm honestly torn on it (yeah, I watched a few too many documentaries on the issue). Where tort reforms have been implemented, prices haven't fallen enough in my opinion. Maybe it's because they haven't been in place long enough for it to have affected the costs, maybe it's because those cases are fairly rare in the first place.

Sure McDonalds could have paid that lady millions upon millions (and I think did) and the affect may only be an eighth of a cent for each cup of coffee they sold the following year to offset it - that's the example everyone brings up on tort reform. Also, because McDonalds was held liable, they now have temperature gauges on all coffee makers.

So in healthcare, that could mean you receive better and more through care as the doc is afraid of being sued if he doesn't.

That's a toss up to me, but is defiantly work talking about.

 

[timschochet]

One of the "unintended" consequences that many of the saner folks predicted now seems to be coming to pass. As the jobs numbers keep coming in for the year they really show (besides being absolutely horrid report after report) how this act is affecting our working class. America is now becoming a part time working society. Of the 953,000 jobs created in 2013, 731,000 were part time. That's 77% of all new jobs created this year. Part time job created has really seemed to accelerate the further into 2013 we go.

What a disaster. I shudder to think of the economic damage that has been done by the ACA. That number must be staggering.

As opposed as I've been to Obamacare, you're being a little misleading here, I think. The hiring of more part time people, I'm betting, will not last, because the marketplace will demand a greater efficiency level in most positions.What's going on right now is that most people don't understand Obamacare's rules. So they react in different ways, and it creates all kinds of short term economic disruption. The constant Republican attempts to defund it aren't helping matters.

Things will even out once again after the program is better understood by employers. The REAL problems with Obamacare (which I predict will be a gradual rise in the overall cost of health care coupled with a gradual decline in quality) are long term wont be felt for many years.

When you (and others) refer to a "gradual decline in quality", are you including the 30M+ Americans who now have access to better health care b/c they're insured?

I would prefer not to see anyone without healthcare. If you or Obama had simply said, let's provide a safety net so that those without the means to afford health care can access it (a sort of "food stamps" for health care program) I would have been for that. I don't see the need to change everybody else's health care in order to accomplish this.

for Strike.

 

[Johnny Rock]

How's ObamaCare affecting your company so far including any January 1, 2015 renewals? My thoughts on the expected effects on our company when I started this thread have been spot on.

Hours for part-timer's cut below 30 hours per week on average. We lost some good long-time people who didn't want to work two jobs to make a full week. Lots of extra tracking and stress.

We have a fairly young group. Apples to apples plan with $500 Deductible and $25 Copay would be a 14% premium increase. ObamaCare taxes represent a 10% increase alone, thus we would've had a 4% increase otherwise.

We're "fortunate" to have only 14%. We may erode coverage and increase deductibles to lower the increase. We are considering a higher deductible HSA too but that would still increase our costs the same as the company would place the increased premium equivalent in the employee's HSA if they chose that route. I'd rather not raise deductibles, especially for families, as I believe the added burden will only get worse and eventually we'll all have $5,000 - $10,000 Deductible Plans but with the premiums still rising as if you had a Cadillac Plan just a few years ago. Higher premiums and less coverage plus more out of pocket costs. Yay!

Our Broker said many of their client companies are seeing 55% increases for 2015. It's important to mention that MN already had mandated dependent coverage to age 26 so some of the ACA mandates were already priced in to MN, otherwise it likely would've been higher.

 

[jamny]

Chuck Schumer: Passing Obamacare in 2010 Was a Mistake

Exactly what many of us were saying at the time. I never understood the sole focus on Obamacare during the first two years when so many other problems existed.

 

[Sand]

Chuck Schumer: Passing Obamacare in 2010 Was a Mistake

Exactly what many of us were saying at the time. I never understood the sole focus on Obamacare during the first two years when so many other problems existed.

He's just scared to death that the tactics Democrats used to shove this through will be revisited. And he should be - what they did was appalling. Republicans should shove through tons of stuff to make our president get very familiar with his veto pen.

 

[dickey moe]

There was actually another thread on this?

 

[Johnny Rock]

Changing the law 40 hours would help part-time employees, not hurt them. Hopefully the Senate can pass the change as well.

Lol at this statement, "If this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39 and a half hours," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during a debate on the House floor. "Go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care."

Those people are already at 29 hours with no healthcare and are forced to find a second job and juggle both under the ACA if they want to earn more income. Anybody on salary with healthcare at 40 hours per week is not in danger of being told to go home an hour early on Friday to deny them benefits.

Have any of these Democrats ever held a private sector job or seen what is happening to the part-time workers and small business due to the ACA and rapid rise of the Minimum Wage?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/obamacare-repeal_n_6437998.html

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Changing the law 40 hours would help part-time employees, not hurt them. Hopefully the Senate can pass the change as well.

Lol at this statement, "If this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39 and a half hours," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during a debate on the House floor. "Go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care."

Those people are already at 29 hours with no healthcare and are forced to find a second job and juggle both under the ACA if they want to earn more income. Anybody on salary with healthcare at 40 hours per week is not in danger of being told to go home an hour early on Friday to deny them benefits.

Have any of these Democrats ever held a private sector job or seen what is happening to the part-time workers and small business due to the ACA and rapid rise of the Minimum Wage?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/obamacare-repeal_n_6437998.html

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data shows part-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

 

[kutta]

Our costs for my company increased over 25 percent and our new plan is worse than our old plan. Our old plan is no longer allowed. Earlier in this thread I said that we were happy "so far" with Obamacare - that was about a year ago. Well, I take that back. We are really getting hosed.

I'm on my phone now so it's hard to give a lot of details, but I'm happy to provide a real-world example of a small business with 30 employees and exactly what happened to our costs.

 

[matttyl]

Our costs for my company increased over 25 percent and our new plan is worse than our old plan. Our old plan is no longer allowed. Earlier in this thread I said that we were happy "so far" with Obamacare - that was about a year ago. Well, I take that back. We are really getting hosed.

I'm on my phone now so it's hard to give a lot of details, but I'm happy to provide a real-world example of a small business with 30 employees and exactly what happened to our costs.

I'd love to hear the details if you don't mind sharing. Also, when sharing, can you give some basic details of the gender makeup, and average age of your small group?

 

[GrandpaRox]

I wish all you people not on obamacare but feel obligated to say how great it is,have to go on it. You speak total ignorance yet have no clue how terrible it is.

Please someone actually having to use obamacare come on and speak of its greatness. The rest of you #### because you have no clue about it.

 

[GrandpaRox]

It is so freaking good, this is the second year we go without medical insurance. You can take your stats and numbers and stick them where the sun don't shine. Your words mean nothing, shut to #### up.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Changing the law 40 hours would help part-time employees, not hurt them. Hopefully the Senate can pass the change as well.

Lol at this statement, "If this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39 and a half hours," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during a debate on the House floor. "Go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care."

Those people are already at 29 hours with no healthcare and are forced to find a second job and juggle both under the ACA if they want to earn more income. Anybody on salary with healthcare at 40 hours per week is not in danger of being told to go home an hour early on Friday to deny them benefits.

Have any of these Democrats ever held a private sector job or seen what is happening to the part-time workers and small business due to the ACA and rapid rise of the Minimum Wage?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/obamacare-repeal_n_6437998.html

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data shows part-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

Please show your work. We have over 400 employees, mostly part-time retail. We have reduced hours for all non-salaried workers to < 30 per week. This often results in carrying more part-timer's.

As I've said earlier in this thread, this forced some of our part-timer's to move on even though they liked working here and others had to take on another job too. That's extra stress for them and our Managers, time management hassles for both parties, no extra income for them and still no healthcare. Although I believe anecdotally that many of them are still on their parents' healthcare.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Changing the law 40 hours would help part-time employees, not hurt them. Hopefully the Senate can pass the change as well.

Lol at this statement, "If this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39 and a half hours," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during a debate on the House floor. "Go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care."

Those people are already at 29 hours with no healthcare and are forced to find a second job and juggle both under the ACA if they want to earn more income. Anybody on salary with healthcare at 40 hours per week is not in danger of being told to go home an hour early on Friday to deny them benefits.

Have any of these Democrats ever held a private sector job or seen what is happening to the part-time workers and small business due to the ACA and rapid rise of the Minimum Wage?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/obamacare-repeal_n_6437998.html

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data shows part-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

Please show your work.We have over 400 employees, mostly part-time retail. We have reduced hours for all non-salaried workers to < 30 per week. This often results in carrying more part-timer's.

As I've said earlier in this thread, this forced some of our part-timer's to move on even though they liked working here and others had to take on another job too. That's extra stress for them and our Managers, time management hassles for both parties, no extra income for them and still no healthcare. Although I believe anecdotally that many of them are still on their parents' healthcare.

Once again anecdotes don't trump actual statistics. But even if you believe otherwise then here.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Changing the law 40 hours would help part-time employees, not hurt them. Hopefully the Senate can pass the change as well.

Lol at this statement, "If this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39 and a half hours," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during a debate on the House floor. "Go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care."

Those people are already at 29 hours with no healthcare and are forced to find a second job and juggle both under the ACA if they want to earn more income. Anybody on salary with healthcare at 40 hours per week is not in danger of being told to go home an hour early on Friday to deny them benefits.

Have any of these Democrats ever held a private sector job or seen what is happening to the part-time workers and small business due to the ACA and rapid rise of the Minimum Wage?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/obamacare-repeal_n_6437998.html

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data shows part-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

Please show your work.We have over 400 employees, mostly part-time retail. We have reduced hours for all non-salaried workers to < 30 per week. This often results in carrying more part-timer's.

As I've said earlier in this thread, this forced some of our part-timer's to move on even though they liked working here and others had to take on another job too. That's extra stress for them and our Managers, time management hassles for both parties, no extra income for them and still no healthcare. Although I believe anecdotally that many of them are still on their parents' healthcare.

Once again anecdotes don't trump actual statistics. But even if you believe otherwise then here.

My points were not about a shift to pt work from ft (40 hours) work, which is the crux of the linked analysis. My concerns are related to jobs that will be part-time no matter what the government intends to influence with legislation.

 

[jon_mx]

60 minutes is doing a story now.

 

[Juxtatarot]

60 minutes is doing a story now.

Nice piece. And probably true unlike much of the rhetoric we usually hear.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Any business people care to share how you're tracking your part-time emps, i.e. < 30 hours per week?

Payroll software, POS software, spreadsheets? I'm mostly concerned about tracking on a rolling 12-month basis, who's in their Lookback Period, Stability Period, etc.

 

[cstu]

Changing the law 40 hours would help part-time employees, not hurt them. Hopefully the Senate can pass the change as well.

Lol at this statement, "If this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39 and a half hours," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during a debate on the House floor. "Go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care."

Those people are already at 29 hours with no healthcare and are forced to find a second job and juggle both under the ACA if they want to earn more income. Anybody on salary with healthcare at 40 hours per week is not in danger of being told to go home an hour early on Friday to deny them benefits.

Have any of these Democrats ever held a private sector job or seen what is happening to the part-time workers and small business due to the ACA and rapid rise of the Minimum Wage?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/obamacare-repeal_n_6437998.html

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data shows part-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

Please show your work.We have over 400 employees, mostly part-time retail. We have reduced hours for all non-salaried workers to < 30 per week. This often results in carrying more part-timer's.

As I've said earlier in this thread, this forced some of our part-timer's to move on even though they liked working here and others had to take on another job too. That's extra stress for them and our Managers, time management hassles for both parties, no extra income for them and still no healthcare. Although I believe anecdotally that many of them are still on their parents' healthcare.

Probably losing your best employees because you don't want to give them healthcare.

Your loss is someone else's gain.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Changing the law 40 hours would help part-time employees, not hurt them. Hopefully the Senate can pass the change as well.

Lol at this statement, "If this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39 and a half hours," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during a debate on the House floor. "Go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care."

Those people are already at 29 hours with no healthcare and are forced to find a second job and juggle both under the ACA if they want to earn more income. Anybody on salary with healthcare at 40 hours per week is not in danger of being told to go home an hour early on Friday to deny them benefits.

Have any of these Democrats ever held a private sector job or seen what is happening to the part-time workers and small business due to the ACA and rapid rise of the Minimum Wage?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/obamacare-repeal_n_6437998.html

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data shows part-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

Please show your work.We have over 400 employees, mostly part-time retail. We have reduced hours for all non-salaried workers to < 30 per week. This often results in carrying more part-timer's.

As I've said earlier in this thread, this forced some of our part-timer's to move on even though they liked working here and others had to take on another job too. That's extra stress for them and our Managers, time management hassles for both parties, no extra income for them and still no healthcare. Although I believe anecdotally that many of them are still on their parents' healthcare.

Probably losing your best employees because you don't want to give them healthcare.

Your loss is someone else's gain.

I alluded to this in the CBO report with BFS, it shows 9 million fewer (pdf p. 126) being covered by employers at the end of the first 10 year period, why is that?

 

[matttyl]

I alluded to this in the CBO report with BFS, it shows 9 million fewer (pdf p. 126) being covered by employers at the end of the first 10 year period, why is that?

Because if their employers DON'T offer group coverage, those employees can go to the individual exchanges (healthcare.gov) and obtain a sizable subsidy. The employer saves money by not buying a group health plan, and has one less thing to deal with (employee enrollments and cancellations and billing and such). The employee saves money as it's likely cheaper to obtain subsidized coverage via the individual exchange (and they get more options to pick from than just the one plan being offered by their employer). It's a win-win for the employee and the employer, but will greatly increase the amount of money needed to fund the subsidies on the individual market.

Keep in mind this is really only the case for small employers.

 

[Green and Gold]

It is so freaking good, this is the second year we go without medical insurance. You can take your stats and numbers and stick them where the sun don't shine. Your words mean nothing, shut to #### up.

If you haven't had insurance in 2 years then, by your words, you don't know anything about Obama care.

 

[matttyl]

It is so freaking good, this is the second year we go without medical insurance. You can take your stats and numbers and stick them where the sun don't shine. Your words mean nothing, shut to #### up.

If you haven't had insurance in 2 years then, by your words, you don't know anything about Obama care.

I haven't had a BMW in my life, but I'm very familiar with their lineup of cars and know I can't afford any of them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It is so freaking good, this is the second year we go without medical insurance. You can take your stats and numbers and stick them where the sun don't shine. Your words mean nothing, shut to #### up.

If you haven't had insurance in 2 years then, by your words, you don't know anything about Obama care.

I haven't had a BMW in my life, but I'm very familiar with their lineup of cars and know I can't afford any of them.

Did you post something similar to this five minute before offering your BMW opinions?

I wish all you people not on obamacare but feel obligated to say how great it is,have to go on it. You speak total ignorance yet have no clue how terrible it is.

Please someone actually having to use obamacare come on and speak of its greatness. The rest of you #### because you have no clue about it.

 

[BassNBrew]

I wish all you people not on obamacare but feel obligated to say how great it is,have to go on it. You speak total ignorance yet have no clue how terrible it is.

Please someone actually having to use obamacare come on and speak of its greatness. The rest of you #### because you have no clue about it.

My gf's son would die without it.

My son went without insurance for 10 months because of it.

I lost my old affordable plan I paid for myself due to it but got a nice subsided paid for by the working stiffs because I own rental property.

Obama pitched this as being a win for everyone when the reality is that there are big winners and big losers.

 

[BassNBrew]

Expect a late surge in enrollment numbers. The free insurance window is closing.

 

[tommyGunZ]

If you think private sectors employees won't be forced into the exchanges then you're more clueless than we all originally thought.

First off all, I only say this with the prior assumtion that the ACA, the way it's currently structured will be put in place (which I believe you already know my feelings about).

They are the ones creating the laws which will cause millions of Americans to "be forced into the exchanges" against their will, why are they different? Many business, both large and small, as well as self employed people will have to do the same and "force" their employees onto the exchange as well (actually they aren't forcing anything, the government is forcing them).

If you don't feel they should obtain coverage through an exchange, why not? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm sure you're answer would be something like "well, they already have affordable insurance available to them through their current plan." Well, so do millions of currently insured Americans today, but their choice is being taken away.

EDIT - Further, as long as we're going to go forward with the ACA the way it is, more than just federal employees should be forced into the exchanges. After all, these things will only work is everyone participates, right?

How did this turn out?  I missed the part were masses of people who received private insurace through their company were forced into the exchanges.  

 

[tommyGunZ]

All I keep hearing is that big corporations all over the country are cutting hours and/or eliminating jobs, because they don't want to have to pay the big Obamacare costs, so tell me again how this is a good thing?

How did this turn out?  

 

[tommyGunZ]

And people question why I said we might actually have fewer people enrolled next year than this?! We will almost definitely see that in the younger market.

Ooops.  

 

[Parrothead]

WRONG FORUM

 

[matttyl]

How did this turn out?  I missed the part were masses of people who received private insurace through their company were forced into the exchanges.  

Didn't help that SHOP completely flopped.  Didn't the CBO or CAO project millions upon millions of people to be enrolled via SHOP?

Also, it's spelled "insurance". 

For a more detailed answer, yes many self employed, as well as many companies who had individual coverage for their employees (some of which are my clients) had to obtain coverage on the exchanges due to the ACA.  What's your point?