did but that does not change my remarks or the fact that employers are not required to PAY for healthcare premiums.
Oh, and that's great. Because nobody was arguing any such thing by the way. So you've spend a bunch of posts making a point about ObamaCare nobody really discussed.
And of course since ObamaCare is driving up premiums, of course you'll do that as a diversion.
I love how you phrase that..very funny.
Funny meaning pathetic of course, not humorous.
Why are premiums going up? Might it be that the coverage is also going up in quality?
Nah..premiums are going up because its Obama of course.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
did but that does not change my remarks or the fact that employers are not required to PAY for healthcare premiums.
Oh, and that's great. Because nobody was arguing any such thing by the way. So you've spend a bunch of posts making a point about ObamaCare nobody really discussed.
And of course since ObamaCare is driving up premiums, of course you'll do that as a diversion.
I love how you phrase that..very funny.
Funny meaning pathetic of course, not humorous.
Why are premiums going up? Might it be that the coverage is also going up in quality?
Nah..premiums are going up because its Obama of course.
My costs as a business to provide health insurance for my employees went up 13.65% this year. The cost goes up every year but when will Obamacare do as promised and start to lower peoples premiums?
Cutting pay to doctors is not a wise solution.......
0
My costs as a business to provide health insurance for my employees went up 13.65% this year. The cost goes up every year but when will Obamacare do as promised and start to lower peoples premiums?
Cutting pay to doctors is not a wise solution.......
Nah..premiums are going up because its Obama of course.
Premiums are going up because of ObamaCare and I've provided example after example of this.
You pretending it isn't true isn't an argument or responsive to that fact.
That is a great example of your flaw..you point to premiums going you because of a blanket comment.
WHY are premiums going up? Why do you think Obamacare makes premiums go up?
You cannot generalize like this when you are so antagonistic in the exact same fashion.
So what about Obamacare to you is making premiums go up?
How much would premiums go up without Obamacare? How much have premiums gone up over the last 5 yrs, the last 10 years?
What real social costs are there from Obamacare? Forget the increase in premiums, what total social cost addition would there be from the end result of Obamacare?
Those are the questions that need answering.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Nah..premiums are going up because its Obama of course.
Premiums are going up because of ObamaCare and I've provided example after example of this.
You pretending it isn't true isn't an argument or responsive to that fact.
That is a great example of your flaw..you point to premiums going you because of a blanket comment.
WHY are premiums going up? Why do you think Obamacare makes premiums go up?
You cannot generalize like this when you are so antagonistic in the exact same fashion.
So what about Obamacare to you is making premiums go up?
How much would premiums go up without Obamacare? How much have premiums gone up over the last 5 yrs, the last 10 years?
What real social costs are there from Obamacare? Forget the increase in premiums, what total social cost addition would there be from the end result of Obamacare?
People cant afford to opt out and buy on their own.
I agree as a society we should be able to care for the sick, no doubt. We will ALL need care at some point in our lives, ALL of us.
How do we provide care for everyone? Thats the Bazzillion $$ question.
Yep..people dont want to pay for a need down the road or be preventative. We will go pay for an IPhone or a tv because that is instant gratification but we wont pay to cover medical needs until we are hip deep in the middle of that need.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
wall
People cant afford to opt out and buy on their own.
I agree as a society we should be able to care for the sick, no doubt. We will ALL need care at some point in our lives, ALL of us.
How do we provide care for everyone? Thats the Bazzillion $$ question.
Yep..people dont want to pay for a need down the road or be preventative. We will go pay for an IPhone or a tv because that is instant gratification but we wont pay to cover medical needs until we are hip deep in the middle of that need.
it doesnt require an employer with 50+ employees do provide a plan. BUT if that employer does not then they pay a fine.
Whats your point by the way?
Right.
So the employer offers a plan to their employees. If the employer wants to contribute to the plan (and receives a tax incentive for doing so), fantastic.
If the employer does not want to contribute, so be it.
If the employee chooses to participate, great. If the employee does not, they, not the business, pay a tax.
Its not complicated.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
dj
it doesnt require an employer with 50+ employees do provide a plan. BUT if that employer does not then they pay a fine.
Whats your point by the way?
Right.
So the employer offers a plan to their employees. If the employer wants to contribute to the plan (and receives a tax incentive for doing so), fantastic.
If the employer does not want to contribute, so be it.
If the employee chooses to participate, great. If the employee does not, they, not the business, pay a tax.
I love the fact that you think that mandating insurance companies to both a) expand the pool of people they have to cover and b) offer more coverages is some sort of serious inquiry as it relates to cost.
0
Why do you think Obamacare makes premiums go up?
Because of the mandates.
I love the fact that you think that mandating insurance companies to both a) expand the pool of people they have to cover and b) offer more coverages is some sort of serious inquiry as it relates to cost.
So what about Obamacare to you is making premiums go up?
An example was already provided. Such as:
"Most plan co-pays and deductibles have been modified," Jennifer Hodges, AARP's director of compensation and benefits, wrote employees in an Oct. 25 e-mail. "Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP's plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform."
Such as:Young adults will see higher health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because of a provision that links prices for older and younger patients, according to a new study.
Actuaries at management consulting firm Oliver Wyman predicted the law's age rating restrictions could mean a 42 percent hike in premium costs for people aged 21 to 29 when they buy individual coverage.
=============
You're not asking a serious question.
0
So what about Obamacare to you is making premiums go up?
An example was already provided. Such as:
"Most plan co-pays and deductibles have been modified," Jennifer Hodges, AARP's director of compensation and benefits, wrote employees in an Oct. 25 e-mail. "Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP's plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform."
Such as:Young adults will see higher health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because of a provision that links prices for older and younger patients, according to a new study.
Actuaries at management consulting firm Oliver Wyman predicted the law's age rating restrictions could mean a 42 percent hike in premium costs for people aged 21 to 29 when they buy individual coverage.
but dj and correct me if I am mistaken.......if a company with 50+ offers a plan and an employee cannot afford that plan and goes on fed subsidized insurance then doesnt the employer have to pay a fine??
0
but dj and correct me if I am mistaken.......if a company with 50+ offers a plan and an employee cannot afford that plan and goes on fed subsidized insurance then doesnt the employer have to pay a fine??
the Affordable Care Act required insurance companies to cover preventive care at no cost, for example, and allowed parents to keep their kids on their plans up to age 26.
In the individual market, adding in those additional benefits caused insurance premiums to increase by just under 5 percent.
0
Why do you think Obamacare makes premiums go up?
Examples:
the Affordable Care Act required insurance companies to cover preventive care at no cost, for example, and allowed parents to keep their kids on their plans up to age 26.
In the individual market, adding in those additional benefits caused insurance premiums to increase by just under 5 percent.
If a firm with at least 50 workers has a full-time employee who is getting federally-subsided insurance through an ”exchange,” then that employer must pay a penalty for failing to offer that worker acceptable insurance on the job. (Workers that are offered qualified coverage by an employer are ineligible for the new insurance subsidies provided in the exchanges.)
So an employer has to offer at a minimum, the shittiest, least expensive, lowest service minded, highest deductible plan known to man to make sure that every employee can afford it based on govt poverty levels (below 400% of poverty level) or risk being fined by the feds? Do I have that right?
0
If a firm with at least 50 workers has a full-time employee who is getting federally-subsided insurance through an ”exchange,” then that employer must pay a penalty for failing to offer that worker acceptable insurance on the job. (Workers that are offered qualified coverage by an employer are ineligible for the new insurance subsidies provided in the exchanges.)
So an employer has to offer at a minimum, the shittiest, least expensive, lowest service minded, highest deductible plan known to man to make sure that every employee can afford it based on govt poverty levels (below 400% of poverty level) or risk being fined by the feds? Do I have that right?
In August of 2011, the Ohio Department of Insurance retained Milliman, the prestigious actuarial consulting firm, to estimate the impact of Obamacare on the private insurance market. Milliman’s 159-page report makes clear that Obamacare’s blizzard of insurance mandates and regulations will dramatically increase the cost of individually-purchased insurance.
By 2017, write the Milliman researchers, “individual health insurance market premiums are estimated to increase by 55% to 85% above current market average rates (excluding the impact of medical inflation).” Because Obamacare forces insurers to cover a buffet of benefits that they don’t have to today, the cost of insurance will go up. Another driver of higher premiums is the fact that insurers will have to cover everyone, regardless of previous health status, a change that will attract sicker enrollees at the expense of healthier ones.
0
ObamaCare making premiums go up:
In August of 2011, the Ohio Department of Insurance retained Milliman, the prestigious actuarial consulting firm, to estimate the impact of Obamacare on the private insurance market. Milliman’s 159-page report makes clear that Obamacare’s blizzard of insurance mandates and regulations will dramatically increase the cost of individually-purchased insurance.
By 2017, write the Milliman researchers, “individual health insurance market premiums are estimated to increase by 55% to 85% above current market average rates (excluding the impact of medical inflation).” Because Obamacare forces insurers to cover a buffet of benefits that they don’t have to today, the cost of insurance will go up. Another driver of higher premiums is the fact that insurers will have to cover everyone, regardless of previous health status, a change that will attract sicker enrollees at the expense of healthier ones.
So the employer offers a plan to their employees. If the employer wants to contribute to the plan (and receives a tax incentive for doing so), fantastic.
If the employer does not want to contribute, so be it.
If the employee chooses to participate, great. If the employee does not, they, not the business, pay a tax.
Its not complicated.
Completely & utterly false. I already provided the relevant information on this.
Employers pay a tax.
Read that again.
Fact:
Beginning in 2014, businesses with more than 50 full-time employees will be required to offer healthcare coverage to their employees or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker above 30 employees.
Which isn't what you said.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Right.
So the employer offers a plan to their employees. If the employer wants to contribute to the plan (and receives a tax incentive for doing so), fantastic.
If the employer does not want to contribute, so be it.
If the employee chooses to participate, great. If the employee does not, they, not the business, pay a tax.
Its not complicated.
Completely & utterly false. I already provided the relevant information on this.
Employers pay a tax.
Read that again.
Fact:
Beginning in 2014, businesses with more than 50 full-time employees will be required to offer healthcare coverage to their employees or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker above 30 employees.
If an employee finds that his employer-sponsored insurance is unaffordable as defined by law, he may decline to participate in it and instead obtain insurance on a state insurance exchange, where, depending on his income level, his premiums may be subsidized by the government. (Having no insurance, of course, is not an option in the “land of the free”: Uninsured individuals face a tax penalty of $695 or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher.) For every one of his employees who turns down “unaffordable” employer-sponsored insurance in favor of insurance on an exchange, an employer will be fined up to $3,000.
Addresses what DJbrow said.
0
Sorry,
Meant to say that this excerpt:
If an employee finds that his employer-sponsored insurance is unaffordable as defined by law, he may decline to participate in it and instead obtain insurance on a state insurance exchange, where, depending on his income level, his premiums may be subsidized by the government. (Having no insurance, of course, is not an option in the “land of the free”: Uninsured individuals face a tax penalty of $695 or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher.) For every one of his employees who turns down “unaffordable” employer-sponsored insurance in favor of insurance on an exchange, an employer will be fined up to $3,000.
If a firm with at least 50 workers has a full-time employee who is getting federally-subsided insurance through an ”exchange,” then that employer must pay a penalty for failing to offer that worker acceptable insurance on the job. (Workers that are offered qualified coverage by an employer are ineligible for the new insurance subsidies provided in the exchanges.)
So an employer has to offer at a minimum, the shittiest, least expensive, lowest service minded, highest deductible plan known to man to make sure that every employee can afford it based on govt poverty levels (below 400% of poverty level) or risk being fined by the feds? Do I have that right?
Ummm no. And to address the post above.
In nearly all businesses (ours included), a specific company (like Blue Cross/Blue Shield) provides insurance. Employees have options of various plans including what is often termed as 'catastrophic' coverage up through the luxury plans.
Any business that follows this would be offering affordable coverage which is measured by comparison of costs of various insurance companies.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
If a firm with at least 50 workers has a full-time employee who is getting federally-subsided insurance through an ”exchange,” then that employer must pay a penalty for failing to offer that worker acceptable insurance on the job. (Workers that are offered qualified coverage by an employer are ineligible for the new insurance subsidies provided in the exchanges.)
So an employer has to offer at a minimum, the shittiest, least expensive, lowest service minded, highest deductible plan known to man to make sure that every employee can afford it based on govt poverty levels (below 400% of poverty level) or risk being fined by the feds? Do I have that right?
Ummm no. And to address the post above.
In nearly all businesses (ours included), a specific company (like Blue Cross/Blue Shield) provides insurance. Employees have options of various plans including what is often termed as 'catastrophic' coverage up through the luxury plans.
Any business that follows this would be offering affordable coverage which is measured by comparison of costs of various insurance companies.
Thanks for answering some of the questions..the ones that allegedly make a point. How about answering the other question.
What does Obamacare do to TOTAL social costs? Not just the marginal cost of premiums.
You are responding in the way you usually do, partisan to try and win a point. I am not keeping a tally against you and I am more interested in the NET effect, not pin pointing a few things that you can be negative about.
You make it seem as if offering additional benefit which has an additional cost is a bad thing..I think expansion of overall benefit can have a net social gain and is not a bad thing.
You are focusing on one cost point and ignoring the overall total social cost..AND you are dismissing overall system inflation in your analysis.
Talk about crazy..
0
14,
Thanks for answering some of the questions..the ones that allegedly make a point. How about answering the other question.
What does Obamacare do to TOTAL social costs? Not just the marginal cost of premiums.
You are responding in the way you usually do, partisan to try and win a point. I am not keeping a tally against you and I am more interested in the NET effect, not pin pointing a few things that you can be negative about.
You make it seem as if offering additional benefit which has an additional cost is a bad thing..I think expansion of overall benefit can have a net social gain and is not a bad thing.
You are focusing on one cost point and ignoring the overall total social cost..AND you are dismissing overall system inflation in your analysis.
I am not so sure the feds define affordable coverage that way dj
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees — with “full time” defined as working at least 30 hours per week — to offer “affordable” health insurance to those employees. Insurance is deemed affordable if it costs an employee no more than 9.5 percent of his total household income.
If an employee finds that his employer-sponsored insurance is unaffordable as defined by law, he may decline to participate in it and instead obtain insurance on a state insurance exchange, where, depending on his income level, his premiums may be subsidized by the government. (Having no insurance, of course, is not an option in the “land of the free”: Uninsured individuals face a tax penalty of $695 or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher.) For every one of his employees who turns down “unaffordable” employer-sponsored insurance in favor of insurance on an exchange, an employer will be fined up to $3,000.
Among the many complications introduced by the PPACA, one major one, from an employer’s perspective, is that definition of affordable insurance. “Typically,” observed NFIB director of federal public policy Amanda Austin, “employers do not have access to what employees’ total household income looks like.”
How, then, will they be able to ensure that they are offering insurance that does not set their employees back more than 9.5 percent of that income? “Employers will now be forced to either snoop around employees’ household income or go in blind and hope for the best,” Austin averred.
0
I am not so sure the feds define affordable coverage that way dj
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees — with “full time” defined as working at least 30 hours per week — to offer “affordable” health insurance to those employees. Insurance is deemed affordable if it costs an employee no more than 9.5 percent of his total household income.
If an employee finds that his employer-sponsored insurance is unaffordable as defined by law, he may decline to participate in it and instead obtain insurance on a state insurance exchange, where, depending on his income level, his premiums may be subsidized by the government. (Having no insurance, of course, is not an option in the “land of the free”: Uninsured individuals face a tax penalty of $695 or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher.) For every one of his employees who turns down “unaffordable” employer-sponsored insurance in favor of insurance on an exchange, an employer will be fined up to $3,000.
Among the many complications introduced by the PPACA, one major one, from an employer’s perspective, is that definition of affordable insurance. “Typically,” observed NFIB director of federal public policy Amanda Austin, “employers do not have access to what employees’ total household income looks like.”
How, then, will they be able to ensure that they are offering insurance that does not set their employees back more than 9.5 percent of that income? “Employers will now be forced to either snoop around employees’ household income or go in blind and hope for the best,” Austin averred.
social cost and financial cost are 2 very different things as you know. Who pays the financial cost so we get the social benefit? Is that the question at hand?
0
wall
social cost and financial cost are 2 very different things as you know. Who pays the financial cost so we get the social benefit? Is that the question at hand?
social cost and financial cost are 2 very different things as you know. Who pays the financial cost so we get the social benefit? Is that the question at hand?
That to me is the question. To some the question is how to blame Obama and point only at Obamacare as the blame for healthcare issues.
We all pay the financial cost, we all receive the social benefit..directly and indirectly.
If hospitals and doctors do not absorb forced losses due to lack of coverage and payment, who benefits from that? The hospital who then does not force costs higher (especially if they are not for profit) the doctor who makes more and MIGHT charge less for services.
In the end society benefits from an expansion of coverage and services if it can be done in a way that is not more expansive than the losses combined with general inflation.
The goal to me should be how we can give MORE to society, MORE of society and control costs at the same time.
I am not only focused on premiums, in fact premiums are not the top factor of this discussion, it is the net societal cost that we should be focused on, that and how we can best provide better coverage and life experience for our citizens.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
wall
social cost and financial cost are 2 very different things as you know. Who pays the financial cost so we get the social benefit? Is that the question at hand?
That to me is the question. To some the question is how to blame Obama and point only at Obamacare as the blame for healthcare issues.
We all pay the financial cost, we all receive the social benefit..directly and indirectly.
If hospitals and doctors do not absorb forced losses due to lack of coverage and payment, who benefits from that? The hospital who then does not force costs higher (especially if they are not for profit) the doctor who makes more and MIGHT charge less for services.
In the end society benefits from an expansion of coverage and services if it can be done in a way that is not more expansive than the losses combined with general inflation.
The goal to me should be how we can give MORE to society, MORE of society and control costs at the same time.
I am not only focused on premiums, in fact premiums are not the top factor of this discussion, it is the net societal cost that we should be focused on, that and how we can best provide better coverage and life experience for our citizens.
I am not so sure the feds define affordable coverage that way dj
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees — with “full time” defined as working at least 30 hours per week — to offer “affordable” health insurance to those employees. Insurance is deemed affordable if it costs an employee no more than 9.5 percent of his total household income.
If an employee finds that his employer-sponsored insurance is unaffordable as defined by law, he may decline to participate in it and instead obtain insurance on a state insurance exchange, where, depending on his income level, his premiums may be subsidized by the government. (Having no insurance, of course, is not an option in the “land of the free”: Uninsured individuals face a tax penalty of $695 or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher.) For every one of his employees who turns down “unaffordable” employer-sponsored insurance in favor of insurance on an exchange, an employer will be fined up to $3,000.
Among the many complications introduced by the PPACA, one major one, from an employer’s perspective, is that definition of affordable insurance. “Typically,” observed NFIB director of federal public policy Amanda Austin, “employers do not have access to what employees’ total household income looks like.”
How, then, will they be able to ensure that they are offering insurance that does not set their employees back more than 9.5 percent of that income? “Employers will now be forced to either snoop around employees’ household income or go in blind and hope for the best,” Austin averred.
The point I am making is that the employer need only offer said 'affordable' insurance. The employer is not under any obligation to pay the cost of the insurance. We both agree on that.
The employer doesn't actually 'offer' insurance anyway. That is done by the insurance company. All the employer needs to do is make sure that whatever carrier is going to offer insurance offers catastrophic coverage. Google those costs and you will see why the 9.5% factor is a non-issue.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
I am not so sure the feds define affordable coverage that way dj
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees — with “full time” defined as working at least 30 hours per week — to offer “affordable” health insurance to those employees. Insurance is deemed affordable if it costs an employee no more than 9.5 percent of his total household income.
If an employee finds that his employer-sponsored insurance is unaffordable as defined by law, he may decline to participate in it and instead obtain insurance on a state insurance exchange, where, depending on his income level, his premiums may be subsidized by the government. (Having no insurance, of course, is not an option in the “land of the free”: Uninsured individuals face a tax penalty of $695 or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher.) For every one of his employees who turns down “unaffordable” employer-sponsored insurance in favor of insurance on an exchange, an employer will be fined up to $3,000.
Among the many complications introduced by the PPACA, one major one, from an employer’s perspective, is that definition of affordable insurance. “Typically,” observed NFIB director of federal public policy Amanda Austin, “employers do not have access to what employees’ total household income looks like.”
How, then, will they be able to ensure that they are offering insurance that does not set their employees back more than 9.5 percent of that income? “Employers will now be forced to either snoop around employees’ household income or go in blind and hope for the best,” Austin averred.
The point I am making is that the employer need only offer said 'affordable' insurance. The employer is not under any obligation to pay the cost of the insurance. We both agree on that.
The employer doesn't actually 'offer' insurance anyway. That is done by the insurance company. All the employer needs to do is make sure that whatever carrier is going to offer insurance offers catastrophic coverage. Google those costs and you will see why the 9.5% factor is a non-issue.
400% below poverty level for a family of 4 is about 23K I think.
Cat Insurance is around 3-4K a year I think but not sure...(I am actually trying to do real work at work and not talk Obamacare :))
How does an employer know what a persons houshold income is? They have the employees figure but not the spouses.
I am soo glad I dont work in the insurance field....I just call my agent and say "do we comply" and thats it....but for many other companies with wide ranging skill sets and pay ranges I can see where it gets confusing.
Information is power
0
400% below poverty level for a family of 4 is about 23K I think.
Cat Insurance is around 3-4K a year I think but not sure...(I am actually trying to do real work at work and not talk Obamacare :))
How does an employer know what a persons houshold income is? They have the employees figure but not the spouses.
I am soo glad I dont work in the insurance field....I just call my agent and say "do we comply" and thats it....but for many other companies with wide ranging skill sets and pay ranges I can see where it gets confusing.
You make it seem as if offering additional benefit which has an additional cost is a bad thing.
But that isn't what is happening.
Why in the world should I pay more for health insurance because someone else wants to put their 25 year old adult child on their insurance plan?
Well, I shouldn't, at least not by government fiat.
Further, there isn't some 1-1 mapping of "additional benefit" and "additional cost" See, people are losing their insurance coverage because of this, or their being offered fewer and crappier plan choices.
But as long as you're under the delusion that people are paying a bit more to get "an additional benefit" I guess this is all ok.
0
You make it seem as if offering additional benefit which has an additional cost is a bad thing.
But that isn't what is happening.
Why in the world should I pay more for health insurance because someone else wants to put their 25 year old adult child on their insurance plan?
Well, I shouldn't, at least not by government fiat.
Further, there isn't some 1-1 mapping of "additional benefit" and "additional cost" See, people are losing their insurance coverage because of this, or their being offered fewer and crappier plan choices.
But as long as you're under the delusion that people are paying a bit more to get "an additional benefit" I guess this is all ok.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
