Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[JJ Husker]

You can give me all the goofy blinky eyes you want but we both know it to be true, you just may not want to admit it. The whole program and track to one payer government provided healthcare is dependent upon junking the existing system and forcing everyone into it eventually. This was simply a major first step in accomplishing that. Our healthcare industry is a huge business. You don't think for one minute that our government doesn't want to have control of that system and be dipping their hand into that big ole cookie jar?

No. It's about healthcare . . . and it's going to work.

 

uh, ya, well ok then

[JJ Husker]

Also, I want to be clear on why we will likely not continue to offer company sponsored healthcare. It is not 100% the fault of the ACA. the issue is cost, plain and simple. With premiums increasing as they were, we were headed towards eliminating the benefit already. All Obamacare did was expedite the arrival to the date we do in fact cease offering it. That has been my primary annoyance with this deal from day one. they didn't fix the absolute biggest thing that was broke (runaway care costs and premium costs) but rather made them worse. Sure some of the provisions are great for certain groups of people. Like the uninsured and the most unhealthy of our population.

 

Example of one of the biggest problems- uninsured people going to the hospital for routine care, not paying their bill, and the hospital passing that on to those with insurance and those capable of paying. The fix? Get a government run bureaucracy to redistribute those costs for the hospitals and add in more inefficiency and more BS funded programs like PCORA (Patient centered outcomes research- or some BS name like that). Before it was a runaway train, now it's a runaway train operating on jet fuel with a drunk engineer driving the thing. Maybe instead of thanking Obama for the gal that can't get a banana stuffed into a bottle we can thank him for this.

The two bolded complaints are interesting . . .

Hey, when the government run and funded research comes up with something that actually saves us more money than it costs us, let me know would ya? I won't be holding my breathe.

What?

 

Well then what did you mean by stating that the two bolded complaints are interesting?

[StPaulHusker]

Set what?

The increased salary as compared to the health benefits.

I am not sure you can proportionally increase a salary for an employee and pay all the taxes, etc that goes with it to offset a decreased health insurance benefit and keep the bottom line the same without making the money back somewhere.

 

 

 

 

[JJ Husker]

Set what?

The increased salary as compared to the health benefits.

I am not sure you can proportionally increase a salary for an employee and pay all the taxes, etc that goes with it to offset a decreased health insurance benefit and keep the bottom line the same without making the money back somewhere.

 

You can't. If you increase someone's pay $1.00 it actually costs the employer a greater amount. Let's say $1.15. So, if the employer wants to break even on the deal (which they do) that approx. 13% has to come out of the employees end. So, to offset a $1.00 reduction in benefits and not lose money, the employer can only replace about $0.87 directly to the employee. These are only approximate figures. I have a feeling it is even worse when you consider that spending that money on health insurance is a deductible business expense and increasing a persons pay costs you additionally in all sorts of areas- work comp, unemployment insurance, possibly matching 401K or IRA funds, matching Social Security, etc. It is worse than 13%.

[HSKR]

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.

 

Nothing wrong with the system at all since that was the design of it in the first place. The problem is people are starting to figure it out.

[HSKR]

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.

 

This is what I have been told as well which is ironic in that a lot the sob stories leading into this was the younger people were the ones who couldn't afford healthcare and now it will be made even more expensive for them.

[HSKR]

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.

 

I know firsthand of some bad decisions already being made by small business owners because they don't fully understand the regulations. Can you guess who is taking the brunt of the bad decisions? Yep, the employees.

[JJ Husker]

 

I know firsthand of some bad decisions already being made by small business owners because they don't fully understand the regulations. Can you guess who is taking the brunt of the bad decisions? Yep, the employees.

 

Absolutely. I don't mean to brag but I am quite sure I am much more knowledgeable and up to date on this issue and health insurance generally than the average small business owner. But not for a minute do I think I know enough, or ever will, to make an error free or unquestionably best decision for my business or my employees. But I do know that any errors I do make will likely be in the businesses best interest and therefore highly likely not to the benefit of the employees. It is simply more than I can effectively handle. I am literally at the point I don't want to even try anymore. *throws hands up, relegates employees to the exchange, and goes about productive activity*

[StPaulHusker]

Set what?

The increased salary as compared to the health benefits.

I am not sure you can proportionally increase a salary for an employee and pay all the taxes, etc that goes with it to offset a decreased health insurance benefit and keep the bottom line the same without making the money back somewhere.

 

You can't. If you increase someone's pay $1.00 it actually costs the employer a greater amount. Let's say $1.15. So, if the employer wants to break even on the deal (which they do) that approx. 13% has to come out of the employees end. So, to offset a $1.00 reduction in benefits and not lose money, the employer can only replace about $0.87 directly to the employee. These are only approximate figures. I have a feeling it is even worse when you consider that spending that money on health insurance is a deductible business expense and increasing a persons pay costs you additionally in all sorts of areas- work comp, unemployment insurance, possibly matching 401K or IRA funds, matching Social Security, etc. It is worse than 13%.

Thank you. That what I was getting at. Increasing salaries is easy to say but not always to do for small business owners. I am one myself and this is a discussion we have every year.

[carlfense]

Set what?

The increased salary as compared to the health benefits.

I am not sure you can proportionally increase a salary for an employee and pay all the taxes, etc that goes with it to offset a decreased health insurance benefit and keep the bottom line the same without making the money back somewhere.

 

You can't. If you increase someone's pay $1.00 it actually costs the employer a greater amount. Let's say $1.15. So, if the employer wants to break even on the deal (which they do) that approx. 13% has to come out of the employees end. So, to offset a $1.00 reduction in benefits and not lose money, the employer can only replace about $0.87 directly to the employee. These are only approximate figures. I have a feeling it is even worse when you consider that spending that money on health insurance is a deductible business expense and increasing a persons pay costs you additionally in all sorts of areas- work comp, unemployment insurance, possibly matching 401K or IRA funds, matching Social Security, etc. It is worse than 13%.

How fine are you going to split that hair?

[carlfense]

Also, I want to be clear on why we will likely not continue to offer company sponsored healthcare. It is not 100% the fault of the ACA. the issue is cost, plain and simple. With premiums increasing as they were, we were headed towards eliminating the benefit already. All Obamacare did was expedite the arrival to the date we do in fact cease offering it. That has been my primary annoyance with this deal from day one. they didn't fix the absolute biggest thing that was broke (runaway care costs and premium costs) but rather made them worse. Sure some of the provisions are great for certain groups of people. Like the uninsured and the most unhealthy of our population.

 

Example of one of the biggest problems- uninsured people going to the hospital for routine care, not paying their bill, and the hospital passing that on to those with insurance and those capable of paying. The fix? Get a government run bureaucracy to redistribute those costs for the hospitals and add in more inefficiency and more BS funded programs like PCORA (Patient centered outcomes research- or some BS name like that). Before it was a runaway train, now it's a runaway train operating on jet fuel with a drunk engineer driving the thing. Maybe instead of thanking Obama for the gal that can't get a banana stuffed into a bottle we can thank him for this.

The two bolded complaints are interesting . . .

Hey, when the government run and funded research comes up with something that actually saves us more money than it costs us, let me know would ya? I won't be holding my breathe.

What?

Well then what did you mean by stating that the two bolded complaints are interesting?

I find it interesting that you claim that the ACA didn't attempt to fix runaway care costs and within the same post you complain about "BS funded programs like PCORA . . ." that are attempting to fix runaway care costs.

 

How do you reconcile those?

[carlfense]

I am not sure you can proportionally increase a salary for an employee and pay all the taxes, etc that goes with it to offset a decreased health insurance benefit and keep the bottom line the same without making the money back somewhere.

Set the salary increase wherever necessary to approximate the health insurance expenditure.

 

Then again, I'm sure that (as small business owners) both you and JJ know this..

[carlfense]

No. It's about healthcare . . . and it's going to work.

uh, ya, well ok then

We'll see. The GOP is starting to realize this too . . . and they're panicking. If Obamacare was going to "collapse under it's own weight" and doomed to fail they wouldn't be trying so desperately to sabotage the law, threatening government shutdown, etc.

 

They know. And it scares the hell out of them.

[StPaulHusker]

I am not sure you can proportionally increase a salary for an employee and pay all the taxes, etc that goes with it to offset a decreased health insurance benefit and keep the bottom line the same without making the money back somewhere.

Set the salary increase wherever necessary to approximate the health insurance expenditure.

 

Then again, I'm sure that (as small business owners) both you and JJ know this..

Your sarcasm is so refreshing

[carlfense]

Your sarcasm is so refreshing