Obamacare

[Embar Angylwrath]

The deployment of the law that had to be passed before we could know what's in it (thank you Pelosi for that gem) has been running into some issues. The cost curve isn't bending like predicted, companies and even municipalities are shifting people to part-time work to avoid the choice of coverage or penalties. Obama has, late today, announced that coverage deadlines are now being pushed back a year.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 1644.story

And as is common, the administration delayed the announcement of this until right before the long holiday. Bad news for the administration is dumped late on Fridays or right before a holiday.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

All this does is further underscore how retarded it is to have health insurance tied to employment.

[Ddrak]

I love how Boehner and Hatch's only solution is to change from a potentially broken system to a known broken system. Clearly the house should vote to repeal, because it hasn't tried that before.

The real benefits of the law were broken when the government insurer option was removed. That would have broken the back of employer-based stupidity and moved to a saner person-oriented system where Adam Smith's invisible hand would work *for* the individual instead of *against* them.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

All this does is further underscore how retarded it is to have health insurance tied to employment.

Under Obamacare, its not tied to employment anymore. He fixed that for you. Coverage through an employer is now optional.

And you will be penalized if you don't get coverage, the 1 year extension doesn't apply to you. All people will still be required to get coverage in 2014. Have fun on the exchanges.

Hope you can afford it on the exchanges, especially after your employer cuts you to 29 hours/week so he's not required to pay coverage for you.

/working as intended

[Ddrak]

Under Obamacare, its not tied to employment anymore ... especially after your employer cuts you to 29 hours/week so he's not required to pay coverage for you.

Still absolutely tied to employment. Not tied to employment = no employer anywhere providing health coverage, instead individuals deal with insurance companies directly at a national level. Not tied to employment = none of this bullshit about employers cutting hours to escape coverage requirements. Not tied to employment = health care has nothing to do with your job.

Dd

[Partha]

Because, remember, kids: Your boss loves you so much he'd rather you be on the dole than you have health care.

This must be the modern version of 'Let them eat cake'.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Under Obamacare, its not tied to employment anymore ... especially after your employer cuts you to 29 hours/week so he's not required to pay coverage for you.

Still absolutely tied to employment. Not tied to employment = no employer anywhere providing health coverage, instead individuals deal with insurance companies directly at a national level. Not tied to employment = none of this bullshit about employers cutting hours to escape coverage requirements. Not tied to employment = health care has nothing to do with your job.

Dd

Linked to employment, not tied. You can get insurance through an employer, that's an OPTIONAL path. Having no access to that OPTION, you are REQUIRED to get it on an exchange.

It's tied to a law, i.e. government mandate. Surely you can see that.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Because, remember, kids: Your boss loves you so much he'd rather you be on the dole than you have health care.

This must be the modern version of 'Let them eat cake'.

That's a business decision. If you don't support businesses making that decision, don't give them your patronage.

Protip: You would no longer be eating out anywhere (or at least very rarely, depending on the establishment).

[Ddrak]

It's tied to a law, i.e. government mandate. Surely you can see that.

That's what I mean. There should be no mandate, law, or government programme anywhere that includes "employer" and "health care" in the same sentence. In fact, the government should be strongly encouraging individuals to get insurance outside employment by going directly to private insurers and providing a centralised minimum-care insurance itself to keep everyone else honest.

@Fallakin, you realise you're proving his point that "companies are evil and business decisions tend to be independent of employee welfare"?

Dd

[Kulaf]

Well I for one love my employer provided healthcare since it is 100% paid for by them. So no thanks on the exchange.

[Embar Angylwrath]

It's tied to a law, i.e. government mandate. Surely you can see that.

That's what I mean. There should be no mandate, law, or government programme anywhere that includes "employer" and "health care" in the same sentence. In fact, the government should be strongly encouraging individuals to get insurance outside employment by going directly to private insurers and providing a centralised minimum-care insurance itself to keep everyone else honest.

@Fallakin, you realise you're proving his point that "companies are evil and business decisions tend to be independent of employee welfare"?

Dd

Aside from Partha's evil snark, when have business decisions been anything else but in the business's interests? Somewhere Partha got the word "business" confused with the word "charity".

And Fallakin's point is well taken. Don't like the business decisions of giving low pay/shitty healthcare to employees, don't patronize the business. Look at how much that hurts Walmart.

Another protip Partha: The 99% don't give a flying fuck about your, or anyone elses, benefits. Just because they hate on the 1% doesn't mean they care about the rest of the 99%.

[Partha]

Aside from Partha's evil snark, when have business decisions been anything else but in the business's interests? Somewhere Partha got the word "business" confused with the word "charity".

Conflating eternal cost cutting with 'business's interests' is part of the reason we don't have a manufacturing base here in America anymore.

Sometimes the business's interest is in attracting and keeping good workers by paying them much better wages or offering much better benefits than their competitors. You know, like you claim to do every time you turn around on this board. Are you now claiming that you're a bad businessman for that reason?

Some related questions:

Have you ever released an employee because of a medical condition solely because of the added cost to your insurance?

Ever released a pregnant employee?

Ever refused to hire someone because of a medical condition that didn't interfere with their ability to do the job?

You can be a dick if you want to and still run a business, but it's hardly a given that one has to maximize one's dickishness to maximize one's business.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Aside from Partha's evil snark, when have business decisions been anything else but in the business's interests? Somewhere Partha got the word "business" confused with the word "charity".

Conflating eternal cost cutting with 'business's interests' is part of the reason we don't have a manufacturing base here in America anymore.

Sometimes the business's interest is in attracting and keeping good workers by paying them much better wages or offering much better benefits than their competitors. You know, like you claim to do every time you turn around on this board. Are you now claiming that you're a bad businessman for that reason?

Some related questions:

Have you ever released an employee because of a medical condition solely because of the added cost to your insurance?

Ever released a pregnant employee?

Ever refused to hire someone because of a medical condition that didn't interfere with their ability to do the job?

You can be a dick if you want to and still run a business, but it's hardly a given that one has to maximize one's dickishness to maximize one's business.

Perhaps what Americans produced were inferior to foreign goods? Like, errr... cars? That's why Detroit is dead. It failed to keep up with international pressure. And that was because of the unions. C'mon, Partha, debate me on that. I dare you.

As to your other questions...

We have never released an employee because of implications to insurance costs. In fact, we have covered health insurance costs for employees that insurance wouldn't cover, mostly in the form of the high deductibles. I leave it to you to figure out why this s in the best interests of the company.

We have never released a pregnant employee. In fact, our most recent pregnant employee is one of our top performers, although her performance took a hit when she was pregnant and then on maternity leave. We make an investment in our employees, and we see them as all investments. They have ups and downs. A periodic down in performance that can be explained by circumstance is not considered in overall evaluations.

We have never (and don't ask) refused to hire someone on an existing medical condition that might interfere with the work specifications. For instance, for our federally regulated drivers, we don't ask if they have uncontrolled seizures, or have uncontrolled blood pressure, both of which are disqualifications for the position, based on federal law. We leave that up to the non-company examining physician.

Believe it or not, most companies are like mine. We want good employees, we want them happy, we want them to feel secure in their position. We treat them well, we engage them in dialogue on how to improve their position and the company. And honest to god, we like them. And we want to care for them as much as we can.

Businesses aren't run by formulas and algorithms Partha, they are run by humans, just like you. And thank god you don't run a company, because someone as cynical and bitter as you has no business looking to the benefit of others.

[Ddrak]

I don't see how you're reconciling "employers would rather let you go than pay your health care" with "employers are awesome, invest in employees and pay health care regardless".

Either lots of employers are like you and the health care thing isn't an issue, therefore this "make everyone casual" thing is nonsense, or they aren't.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Its not all black and white, Dd, and Obamacare will make it even more gray. Before Obamacare, employers weren't considering cutting employees' hours to avoid some stiff penalties. So not only do those employees not get healthcare through their employer, they get their hours (pay) whacked as well. That's in direct response to the legislation, and would not have happened had it not been passed.

I'm sure the companies like IBM and Apple are going to continue to provide coverage for their employees. Its the smaller companies at the fringes that won't, and those that employ a lot of lower wage folks, like the food service, hotel and janitorial companies.

You may even see growing businesses snap off revenue lines and form a few smaller businesses to avoid the 50 person threshold. I've heard that kicked around in some of the business groups I'm in. One person suggested forming a company to employ all the administrative staff, then lease them to the main company. Instant way of trimming about 30% of the staff in the main company, and it would put his two companies, the old one and the new one, well under the head count trigger. He already provides healthcare to his employees too, he is contemplating this as a hedge against business conditions changing to the point he has to drop healthcare.

Oh, and another part of the calculus. The healthcare exchanges make it much easier for employers to justify to themselves that its ok to drop healthcare, because the employee can easily get it elsewhere now. And they can, it's just going to cost them the difference between what their employer subsidizes and what the policy costs.

Finally, some employers are just fault out pissed off this is being rammed down their throats, and they will take it out on the employees, especially in California where the electorate is solidly blue. There's a mindset in certain employers that "These people voted them in, now they can deal with what they voted for." Whatever you think of that particular mindset (personally, I don't think very much of it), it exists, and it will happen.

[Partha]

You may even see growing businesses snap off revenue lines and form a few smaller businesses to avoid the 50 person threshold. I've heard that kicked around in some of the business groups I'm in. One person suggested forming a company to employ all the administrative staff, then lease them to the main company. Instant way of trimming about 30% of the staff in the main company, and it would put his two companies, the old one and the new one, well under the head count trigger. He already provides healthcare to his employees too, he is contemplating this as a hedge against business conditions changing to the point he has to drop healthcare.

This....this is just maximum stupid. What the hell is he worried about the threshhold for if he ALREADY gives his people decent healthcare?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

@Fallakin, you realise you're proving his point that "companies are evil and business decisions tend to be independent of employee welfare"?

Dd

Companies have to manage the bottom line of their business first, otherwise there is no company to provide those jobs in the first place.

[Ddrak]

@Embar: And this is why (i) the whole idea of employers providing health care is screwed up and (ii) the government should provide a basic health insurance. Even enacting (ii) would have solved every problem listed.

@Fallakin: If companies don't manage their human resources then the bottom line falls over. Start stripping back on working environment and you start losing people in order of their likelihood of finding another job - in short, you lose the best and keep the worst.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

You may even see growing businesses snap off revenue lines and form a few smaller businesses to avoid the 50 person threshold. I've heard that kicked around in some of the business groups I'm in. One person suggested forming a company to employ all the administrative staff, then lease them to the main company. Instant way of trimming about 30% of the staff in the main company, and it would put his two companies, the old one and the new one, well under the head count trigger. He already provides healthcare to his employees too, he is contemplating this as a hedge against business conditions changing to the point he has to drop healthcare.

This....this is just maximum stupid. What the hell is he worried about the threshhold for if he ALREADY gives his people decent healthcare?

Business conditions change Partha. Now, he can afford to provide healthcare. Later, he might not be able to because of changing business conditions, one of which might be competitive disadvantage if his competitors just jettison employees to the exchanges.

I can tell you this, from a pure cost-savings standpoint, our balance sheet would look a lot better if we let our employees get insurance on the exchanges. We have a little over 30 employees and our insurance tab is well into the six figures, annually. That's a tempting chunk of change for any business owner.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I can tell you this, from a pure cost-savings standpoint, our balance sheet would look a lot better if we let our employees get insurance on the exchanges.

All this does is further underscore how retarded it is to have health insurance tied to employment.