Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

My biggest problem is the mandate requiring people have insurance.

This is one of the biggest reasons why the premiums are falling in New York.

A lot of it seems to trace back to a law passed in 1993, which required insurance plans to accept all applicants, regardless of how sick or healthy they were. That law did not, however, require everyone to sign up, as the Affordable Care Act does.

 

New York has, for 20 years now, been a long-running experiment in what happens to universal coverage without an individual mandate. It’s the type of law the country would have if House Republicans succeeded in delaying the individual mandate, as they will vote to do this afternoon. The result: a small insurance market with very high insurance premiums.

http://www.washingto...ng-in-new-york/

 

Your original article point to another part of the bill that is producing the possible decline in prices.

 

Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.

Both probably deserve some credit for the drop.

[carlfense]

I would counter and say that many healthy people have insurance already, and more would if insurance companies had to fight each other for every person who wants coverage. Most people I know who want coverage but don't have it are because the costs are so high. If companies have to fight for participants, like in the exchanges, they have to offer better pricing.

I agree that competition is a good thing but the underlined portion is the problem. The unhealthy are more likely to want/need coverage.

[topekahusker]

I used 'tax revenues' because the Supremes changed the terminology from 'penalties'. So, there is no offsetting revenue in year one to reduce the costs of the implementation/program as part of the promises made when the legislation was introduced and argued.

 

On a positive note, the one year delay may result in employers ceasing to reduce employee hours to less than 30 so they aren't on the hook for offering/providing health care for another year. Thus, it may help some with the underemployment problem dragging the economy.

[carlfense]

I used 'tax revenues' because the Supremes changed the terminology from 'penalties'. So, there is no offsetting revenue in year one to reduce the costs of the implementation/program as part of the promises made when the legislation was introduced and argued.

Eh. "Deficits don't matter."

[Mavric]

Insurance Exchange Application Process. Looks simple enough.

 

[topekahusker]

Well, another Union has gone public that does not want to be covered by the ACA. If these Unions get their way, that is less 'joe lunch buckets' like me that are going to be covered and may have an adverse impact on my rates. I'm getting concerned, especially because this is the Union that represents the 100,000 IRS employees that are responsible for a lot of the implementation of the plan.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-employee-union-we-dont-want-obamacare/article/2533520

[carlfense]

But now Republicans have taken themselves hostage. They’re threatening to hurt themselves and their states and their voters and their most committed activists if Democrats don’t give them their way on Obamacare. It’s evidence of their extraordinary dedication to the cause, but also to their increasingly extreme view of how American politics works.

But behind all of it is a mounting desperation. Obamacare beat a filibuster. It beat the right’s legal challenge. Its namesake beat the Republican Party’s nominee for president. Come 2014, it will start helping millions of Americans afford health insurance, and come the 2016 election it will have been delivering health care to tens of millions of Americans for almost three years. That’s not the kind of program that just goes away in American politics.

 

And so Republicans are desperate to stop it from going into effect in October, and from working smoothly after that. But desperation doesn’t always lead to good strategies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/02/the-gops-kamikaze-mission-to-stop-obamacare/

[JJ Husker]

Just spent an hour in a Webinar on Small Group Health Reform due to PPACA. f#*k me, man do I need some alcohol. A few highlights.

 

Pre-reform average yearly premium increases 15%. Post reform anticipated increases, that same 15% plus an additional 10% to 35%. The 10% guaranteed increase is due to funding required new patient centered research, absorbing new participants (those previously uninsured or excluded for various reason) and for redistribution of premium expense from the healthy to the unhealthy. An additional 0% to 25% may be experienced by current groups who are receiving a SIC code discount for their business industry. Net result, average premiums will now increase an additional 10% to 35%. Every single one of those "nice" provisions they put in Obamacare translates to increased expense for health insurers which in turn will be passed on to insured persons.

 

Currently older persons may pay as much as 5 to 7 times for their premiums as a healthy 21 year old. ACA limits that ratio to 3:1 now. Result; older persons are likely to see less of an increase and younger healthy persons will be picking up the tab. Selfishly, this does not necessarily bother this 50 year old guy. However, it does bother the anti-socialism capitalist in me.

 

I have a bunch of research to do to determine how my company will respond to this. At this point I would venture a very good guess that we will cease offering health insurance to employees and then their only option will be to get it on their own through the Exchange. We are a very small employer so we have no mandate to provide coverage and we will suffer no penalty. the only incentive for us to keep providing it is a pittance of a tax credit that is only approx. 6% of what we currently spend to provide the coverage.

 

Rant- There is something wrong with the system that requires me, the owner of a small business with less than 20 employees, to learn, know, understand, and comply with all these government regulations. I literally have to know it as well as the HR person in a company of 250+ employees who has the time to dedicate to this sole purpose. I don't have time for this sh#t, I've got real work to do.

[carlfense]

I have a bunch of research to do to determine how my company will respond to this. At this point I would venture a very good guess that we will cease offering health insurance to employees and then their only option will be to get it on their own through the Exchange. We are a very small employer so we have no mandate to provide coverage and we will suffer no penalty. the only incentive for us to keep providing it is a pittance of a tax credit that is only approx. 6% of what we currently spend to provide the coverage.

Would you increase their pay to offset the income that you provided in the form of health insurance? Or, if you go that route, will you keep employee pay the same?

[BigRedBuster]

Just spent an hour in a Webinar on Small Group Health Reform due to PPACA. f#*k me, man do I need some alcohol. A few highlights.

 

Pre-reform average yearly premium increases 15%. Post reform anticipated increases, that same 15% plus an additional 10% to 35%. The 10% guaranteed increase is due to funding required new patient centered research, absorbing new participants (those previously uninsured or excluded for various reason) and for redistribution of premium expense from the healthy to the unhealthy. An additional 0% to 25% may be experienced by current groups who are receiving a SIC code discount for their business industry. Net result, average premiums will now increase an additional 10% to 35%. Every single one of those "nice" provisions they put in Obamacare translates to increased expense for health insurers which in turn will be passed on to insured persons.

 

Currently older persons may pay as much as 5 to 7 times for their premiums as a healthy 21 year old. ACA limits that ratio to 3:1 now. Result; older persons are likely to see less of an increase and younger healthy persons will be picking up the tab. Selfishly, this does not necessarily bother this 50 year old guy. However, it does bother the anti-socialism capitalist in me.

 

I have a bunch of research to do to determine how my company will respond to this. At this point I would venture a very good guess that we will cease offering health insurance to employees and then their only option will be to get it on their own through the Exchange. We are a very small employer so we have no mandate to provide coverage and we will suffer no penalty. the only incentive for us to keep providing it is a pittance of a tax credit that is only approx. 6% of what we currently spend to provide the coverage.

 

Rant- There is something wrong with the system that requires me, the owner of a small business with less than 20 employees, to learn, know, understand, and comply with all these government regulations. I literally have to know it as well as the HR person in a company of 250+ employees who has the time to dedicate to this sole purpose. I don't have time for this sh#t, I've got real work to do.

 

 

Welcome to the system. I have been through several seminars on it and came away with the same feeling.

 

There is something wrong with a system that pushes you to give your employees LESS benefits and pushes them onto the government program.

[carlfense]

There is something wrong with a system that pushes you to give your employees LESS benefits and pushes them onto the government program.

Why would it push you to give your employees less?

[BigRedBuster]

Carl,

 

Please don't take this as a smart azz comment or take offense to it. But, I have explained it many times and every time I do, you seem to be totally blind to it.

 

Look at the post from JJ that I responded to. Look at the 4th paragraph in his post. I know MANY business owners who feel the same way. I am pretty sure at this point, there are parts of our benefit package that flat out won't be allowed under the new program. These are things we are doing to try to help our employees out and the law flat out says we can't do it.

[JJ Husker]

I have a bunch of research to do to determine how my company will respond to this. At this point I would venture a very good guess that we will cease offering health insurance to employees and then their only option will be to get it on their own through the Exchange. We are a very small employer so we have no mandate to provide coverage and we will suffer no penalty. the only incentive for us to keep providing it is a pittance of a tax credit that is only approx. 6% of what we currently spend to provide the coverage.

Would you increase their pay to offset the income that you provided in the form of health insurance? Or, if you go that route, will you keep employee pay the same?

 

Likely we will give them a bump in their pay rate to help offset the loss of the company benefit. But, you know us greedy biz owners, it probably won't fully offset it. The ironic thing is, by giving them a raise, it will reduce or eliminate any chance they have of having their exchange purchased insurance subsidized by the government.

 

I'll let BRB speak for himself but I think when he stated it was encouraging "less" benefits, he meant less being provided by the employer and more by the government. We all knew this is what the ACA would do and was obviously one of the main goals, to make people more dependent on the government and less on themselves

[carlfense]

Look at the 4th paragraph in his post. I know MANY business owners who feel the same way. I am pretty sure at this point, there are parts of our benefit package that flat out won't be allowed under the new program.

I'm not asking why many business owners feel this way. I'm asking why you feel that it pressures you to give your employees less.

 

You could just increase their salary proportional to the cost of the benefit that you currently provide, right?

 

These are things we are doing to try to help our employees out and the law flat out says we can't do it.

What are you talking about, exactly? A health insurance option that isn't sufficient under the ACA?

[krill]

There is something wrong with a system that pushes you to give your employees LESS benefits and pushes them onto the government program.

 

What's the difference between the government offering insurance subsidies for plans purchased through a highly regulated exchange, or the government offering direct subsidies to employers with tax incentives to offer employees health insurance? It seems to me that pushing people to the exchange is a far better use of tax dollars with the advantages of economies of scale, larger risk pools, and more careful oversight of the cost and benefits.