|
On October 04 2013 13:56 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 13:41 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 13:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 04 2013 13:28 Kaitlin wrote:
Ok, well, let's start with the employer mandate applying to employees with 30 or more hours per week. Is it a good or bad idea ? Can anyone see the "unintended consequence" of this law to be that employers will have incentive to cut employee hours below 30 hours per week to avoid application of this part of the law ? Sometimes employers already cut hours below 40/week to avoid overtime and benefits for certain jobs, such as retail jobs (see Walmart, for example). I'm not sure this "what if employers cut hours" is a very strong argument. How many employers are expected to cut how many hours? Is there evidence this is going to be a problem? Just wondering http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/093013-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm?fromcampaign=1Here's a list, but even before it happened, is it that terribly difficult to put yourself in the mind of a business owner trying to make ends meet that cutting hours below 30 saves them significant money, even perhaps the different between losing money and not losing money ? It seems like there would be easy ways to get around an employer gaming the system using a pro rata format. Why it isn't already in, I don't know. As for employers losing money, there are already exemptions and subsidies in place which seem sufficient from what I can tell. What would you suggest? I don't believe this alone warrants ditching the whole thing?
It's not gaming the system. It's the way the law is written. It was written hastily, nobody read it, they just wanted to pass his landmark achievement. The reason they put the restriction on employer size is because they didn't want to burden small employers with such costs (those with less than 50 employees). The reason they put the restriction on hours was so that it wouldn't make it basically impossible to hire part time people. If you're looking for a part-time job while you're going to school, and you can only work maybe 15 to 20 hours a week, no employer will be able to afford the burden of your health care for that few hours. I don't know what you mean by some pro-rata format. If you're going to mandate that employers provide health insurance, then either the employee will be covered or he won't. Requiring an employer to pay some pro-rata amount would result in what, health coverage only for Tuesdays and Thursdays ? The total cost of a policy must be paid from somewhere. Require the employee make up the difference ? Well, that's kinda costly to them, given they are only working 15 to 20 hours / week. If you relieve the employer of the obligation if the employee is covered under their parents' policy (until they are 26) or the employee chooses to pay the penalty instead of the insurance, then employers will favor hiring employees who will pay the penalty, thus being cheaper for the employer to pay. This is kind of just one extremely simple example of why you don't create a massive piece of legislation which is large enough to effect 1/6 of the largest economy in the world, and force it through without debate or review, let alone anyone, ANYONE, having read it. It's absolutely shitty government at its absolute shittiest.
edit: and by "exemptions", are you referring to exemptions which you have to apply to the Obama Administration to receive ? The same Obama Administration under which the IRS has been harassing political enemies ?
|
The republicans are getting destroyed in the court of public opinion. How dumb is John Boehner not to cut his losses?
|
On October 04 2013 14:09 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 13:56 screamingpalm wrote:On October 04 2013 13:41 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 13:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 04 2013 13:28 Kaitlin wrote:
Ok, well, let's start with the employer mandate applying to employees with 30 or more hours per week. Is it a good or bad idea ? Can anyone see the "unintended consequence" of this law to be that employers will have incentive to cut employee hours below 30 hours per week to avoid application of this part of the law ? Sometimes employers already cut hours below 40/week to avoid overtime and benefits for certain jobs, such as retail jobs (see Walmart, for example). I'm not sure this "what if employers cut hours" is a very strong argument. How many employers are expected to cut how many hours? Is there evidence this is going to be a problem? Just wondering http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/093013-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm?fromcampaign=1Here's a list, but even before it happened, is it that terribly difficult to put yourself in the mind of a business owner trying to make ends meet that cutting hours below 30 saves them significant money, even perhaps the different between losing money and not losing money ? It seems like there would be easy ways to get around an employer gaming the system using a pro rata format. Why it isn't already in, I don't know. As for employers losing money, there are already exemptions and subsidies in place which seem sufficient from what I can tell. What would you suggest? I don't believe this alone warrants ditching the whole thing? It's not gaming the system. It's the way the law is written. It was written hastily, nobody read it, they just wanted to pass his landmark achievement. The reason they put the restriction on employer size is because they didn't want to burden small employers with such costs (those with less than 50 employees). The reason they put the restriction on hours was so that it wouldn't make it basically impossible to hire part time people. If you're looking for a part-time job while you're going to school, and you can only work maybe 15 to 20 hours a week, no employer will be able to afford the burden of your health care for that few hours. I don't know what you mean by some pro-rata format. If you're going to mandate that employers provide health insurance, then either the employee will be covered or he won't. Requiring an employer to pay some pro-rata amount would result in what, health coverage only for Tuesdays and Thursdays ? The total cost of a policy must be paid from somewhere. Require the employee make up the difference ? Well, that's kinda costly to them, given they are only working 15 to 20 hours / week. If you relieve the employer of the obligation if the employee is covered under their parents' policy (until they are 26) or the employee chooses to pay the penalty instead of the insurance, then employers will favor hiring employees who will pay the penalty, thus being cheaper for the employer to pay. This is kind of just one extremely simple example of why you don't create a massive piece of legislation which is large enough to effect 1/6 of the largest economy in the world, and force it through without debate or review, let alone anyone, ANYONE, having read it. It's absolutely shitty government at its absolute shittiest. edit: and by "exemptions", are you referring to exemptions which you have to apply to the Obama Administration to receive ? The same Obama Administration under which the IRS has been harassing political enemies ?
How many of the laws that get passed each year do members of Congress read?
|
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers.
|
On October 04 2013 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I can put myself in that guy's mindset. I can also put myself in the mind of a kid trying to get his scheduled cancer trial treatment at an NIH facility, only to be turned down due to its closure. The anecdotal thing doesn't do us much good.
My post was not anecdotal. It is the legal parameters facing every small business decision maker across the country. Every business with employees whose hours are interchangeable, such as well, pretty much every service industry business. The very types of jobs employing people without health insurance benefits. It is a decision to have employees working over 30 hours / week and being responsible for their health insurance or face a penalty of several thousand per employee, or simply reduce their hours below the 30 hours threshold and hire a few more under 30 hours / week, and bam, no requirement to fund insurance and no penalty. It's not an anecdote. It's incentive just as much as removing your hand from a hot stove.
|
On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers.
From where would the government "make up the difference" ?
edit: Also, I've gone into detail. If you could be less abstract with your points, it would be helpful. There isn't much substance to "an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time." It's really the same thing with the government making up the difference. There is absolutely no substance to it.
|
On October 04 2013 14:09 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 13:56 screamingpalm wrote:On October 04 2013 13:41 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 13:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 04 2013 13:28 Kaitlin wrote:
Ok, well, let's start with the employer mandate applying to employees with 30 or more hours per week. Is it a good or bad idea ? Can anyone see the "unintended consequence" of this law to be that employers will have incentive to cut employee hours below 30 hours per week to avoid application of this part of the law ? Sometimes employers already cut hours below 40/week to avoid overtime and benefits for certain jobs, such as retail jobs (see Walmart, for example). I'm not sure this "what if employers cut hours" is a very strong argument. How many employers are expected to cut how many hours? Is there evidence this is going to be a problem? Just wondering http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/093013-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm?fromcampaign=1Here's a list, but even before it happened, is it that terribly difficult to put yourself in the mind of a business owner trying to make ends meet that cutting hours below 30 saves them significant money, even perhaps the different between losing money and not losing money ? It seems like there would be easy ways to get around an employer gaming the system using a pro rata format. Why it isn't already in, I don't know. As for employers losing money, there are already exemptions and subsidies in place which seem sufficient from what I can tell. What would you suggest? I don't believe this alone warrants ditching the whole thing? It's not gaming the system. It's the way the law is written. It was written hastily, nobody read it, they just wanted to pass his landmark achievement. The reason they put the restriction on employer size is because they didn't want to burden small employers with such costs (those with less than 50 employees). The reason they put the restriction on hours was so that it wouldn't make it basically impossible to hire part time people. If you're looking for a part-time job while you're going to school, and you can only work maybe 15 to 20 hours a week, no employer will be able to afford the burden of your health care for that few hours. I don't know what you mean by some pro-rata format. If you're going to mandate that employers provide health insurance, then either the employee will be covered or he won't. Requiring an employer to pay some pro-rata amount would result in what, health coverage only for Tuesdays and Thursdays ? The total cost of a policy must be paid from somewhere. Require the employee make up the difference ? Well, that's kinda costly to them, given they are only working 15 to 20 hours / week. If you relieve the employer of the obligation if the employee is covered under their parents' policy (until they are 26) or the employee chooses to pay the penalty instead of the insurance, then employers will favor hiring employees who will pay the penalty, thus being cheaper for the employer to pay. This is kind of just one extremely simple example of why you don't create a massive piece of legislation which is large enough to effect 1/6 of the largest economy in the world, and force it through without debate or review, let alone anyone, ANYONE, having read it. It's absolutely shitty government at its absolute shittiest. edit: and by "exemptions", are you referring to exemptions which you have to apply to the Obama Administration to receive ? The same Obama Administration under which the IRS has been harassing political enemies ?
Okay, let's tack on a clause that says citizens under 18 or currently attending high school (or maybe even up to university) do not need to receive healthcare from employers. That wasn't very difficult.
|
On October 04 2013 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Okay, let's tack on a clause that says citizens under 18 or currently attending high school (or maybe even up to university) do not need to receive healthcare from employers. That wasn't very difficult.
Ok, so just to clarify, you're saying employers are not responsible to insure or pay the penalty for employees who are students up to age, what, 22 ?
edit: I guess it doesn't matter, exactly, but if you think about it, you will realize you are creating a preference group wherein employers will favor hiring employees for whom they are not required to incur these additional costs. This will make it more difficult for non-students to find employment, and frankly, aren't the non-students the ones who really need the work and the health insurance ?
|
On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ?
As they are already, such as UPS not covering their workers and having the plans subsidized. I am suggesting a pro rata format where the employer would pay what they could and the rest would be subsidized (if eligible). If the scale was formed so that it would be more cost effective to keep employees on full-time, I think that would address the issue of employers dropping workers to part-time.
|
On October 04 2013 14:17 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I can put myself in that guy's mindset. I can also put myself in the mind of a kid trying to get his scheduled cancer trial treatment at an NIH facility, only to be turned down due to its closure. The anecdotal thing doesn't do us much good.
My post was not anecdotal. It is the legal parameters facing every small business decision maker across the country. Every business with employees whose hours are interchangeable, such as well, pretty much every service industry business. The very types of jobs employing people without health insurance benefits. It is a decision to have employees working over 30 hours / week and being responsible for their health insurance or face a penalty of several thousand per employee, or simply reduce their hours below the 30 hours threshold and hire a few more under 30 hours / week, and bam, no requirement to fund insurance and no penalty. It's not an anecdote. It's incentive just as much as removing your hand from a hot stove.
Actually being in the food industry right now, I can tell you that is what all the chains are planning to do.
They would rather hire more people to work less hours then hire less people and heavily increase their labor costs.
You are just going to see more people in the lower pay jobs having to work multiple jobs.
Edit: and also, republicans wanted to pass a bill to fund the NIH, but democrats declined.
+ Show Spoiler [Source] +
|
Pretty strong article from the WSJ earlier tonight,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304176904579111331134686614.html
The last paragraph was particularly interesting;
A President who really wants to limit the chance of default would take the GOP up on its Full Faith and Credit offer. Mr. Obama's refusal suggests that his real goal is to go to the edge of default, gambling that he can then either coerce total surrender or blame a default on Republicans and use it to take back control of the House in 2014. This isn't how leaders looking out for the interests of all Americans behave.
apologies if this has already been linked, I looked back a little and didn't see it posted.
|
On October 04 2013 14:27 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ? As they are already, such as UPS not covering their workers and having the plans subsidized. I am suggesting a pro rata format where the employer would pay what they could and the rest would be subsidized (if eligible). If the scale was formed so that it would be more cost effective to keep employees on full-time, I think that would address the issue of employers dropping workers to part-time.
And I'm asking you to present such a scenario fitting your idea so that it's not some abstract concept which can't be discussed or even contemplated.
|
On October 04 2013 14:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Okay, let's tack on a clause that says citizens under 18 or currently attending high school (or maybe even up to university) do not need to receive healthcare from employers. That wasn't very difficult. Ok, so just to clarify, you're saying employers are not responsible to insure or pay the penalty for employees who are students up to age, what, 22 ?
Employers would be exempt from providing insurance to people who work but are currently either underage or attending an accredited university. The employee would provide documentation of one of the two to the employer, who would submit it to whatever part of the system to receive a waiver.
|
On October 04 2013 14:32 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:27 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Okay, let's tack on a clause that says citizens under 18 or currently attending high school (or maybe even up to university) do not need to receive healthcare from employers. That wasn't very difficult. Ok, so just to clarify, you're saying employers are not responsible to insure or pay the penalty for employees who are students up to age, what, 22 ? Employers would be exempt from providing insurance to people who work but are currently either underage or attending an accredited university. The employee would provide documentation of one of the two to the employer, who would submit it to whatever part of the system to receive a waiver.
Do you disagree that this would make it much more difficult for people who are not fitting this government-defined special category of people to find employment when they have these people to compete against ?
edit: If you've ever heard Republicans or Conservatives use the term "picking winners and losers", accusing the government of meddling in the economy, this is an example of exactly that.
|
On October 04 2013 14:29 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:27 screamingpalm wrote:On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ? As they are already, such as UPS not covering their workers and having the plans subsidized. I am suggesting a pro rata format where the employer would pay what they could and the rest would be subsidized (if eligible). If the scale was formed so that it would be more cost effective to keep employees on full-time, I think that would address the issue of employers dropping workers to part-time. And I'm asking you to present such a scenario fitting your idea so that it's not some abstract concept which can't be discussed or even contemplated.
Well I don't know what the exact numbers would be obviously, but incremental in scale meaning the employer would pay into the plan based on hours/week where full-time 40/week would be the most cost effective and gradually scale down where it would be more expensive per hour. If you don't like the idea that's fine, just saying that I believe there are ways that we could address that issue.
|
On October 04 2013 14:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Okay, let's tack on a clause that says citizens under 18 or currently attending high school (or maybe even up to university) do not need to receive healthcare from employers. That wasn't very difficult. Ok, so just to clarify, you're saying employers are not responsible to insure or pay the penalty for employees who are students up to age, what, 22 ? edit: I guess it doesn't matter, exactly, but if you think about it, you will realize you are creating a preference group wherein employers will favor hiring employees for whom they are not required to incur these additional costs. This will make it more difficult for non-students to find employment, and frankly, aren't the non-students the ones who really need the work and the health insurance ?
I was addressing the point you raised about hiring student workers, but you're changing the topic now.
There's already going to what you refer to as a "preference group" for cheap labor because of basic supply and demand with labor as the item (it's the economy, stupid.jpg). Students can't fulfill every single one of those jobs, and there will be people filling them who need health insurance. However, that's why Obamacare has other systems in place such that people can still get insurance even if their employers don't provide it. I also expect that there will be someone in the system who asks "hey, I see you work at this place, why don't you have insurance from them?".
|
On October 04 2013 14:37 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:29 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:27 screamingpalm wrote:On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ? As they are already, such as UPS not covering their workers and having the plans subsidized. I am suggesting a pro rata format where the employer would pay what they could and the rest would be subsidized (if eligible). If the scale was formed so that it would be more cost effective to keep employees on full-time, I think that would address the issue of employers dropping workers to part-time. And I'm asking you to present such a scenario fitting your idea so that it's not some abstract concept which can't be discussed or even contemplated. Well I don't know what the exact numbers would be obviously, but incremental in scale meaning the employer would pay into the plan based on hours/week where full-time 40/week would be the most cost effective and gradually scale down where it would be more expensive per hour. If you don't like the idea that's fine, just saying that I believe there are ways that we could address that issue.
I'm not saying I don't like the idea. But without a scenario, how can it be discussed ? How can we even see that such a scenario can even be written to paper, let alone implemented in law ? I guess the problem with that is that are you then forcing the employee to pay the difference ? You can't just say the government makes up the difference because we are all the government. If somebody else pays for our little employee / employer scenario, then we have to pay for someone else's and we're back to having to pay 100% with no government making up the difference. If the cost can't be covered between the employer and employee combined, then it's simply not feasible.
|
It almost feels redundant to have an employer mandate (which was recently delayed) + individual mandate.
Why not cut out the employer mandate, and the now increased wages can go towards everyone buying their own plans that best suits them (more akin to car insurance)
|
On October 04 2013 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 14:15 screamingpalm wrote:
What I mean by pro rata format and gaming the system, is an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time (cost effective). The government would still make up the difference in subsidies and exemptions still apply.
Edit: exemptions as in the subsidies to businesses that cannot afford to offer coverage to their workers. From where would the government "make up the difference" ? edit: Also, I've gone into detail. If you could be less abstract with your points, it would be helpful. There isn't much substance to "an incremental scale to create incentive for employers to keep their workers full-time rather than part-time." It's really the same thing with the government making up the difference. There is absolutely no substance to it.
I'm not saying I don't like the idea. But without a scenario, how can it be discussed ? How can we even see that such a scenario can even be written to paper, let alone implemented in law ? I guess the problem with that is that are you then forcing the employee to pay the difference ? You can't just say the government makes up the difference because we are all the government. If somebody else pays for our little employee / employer scenario, then we have to pay for someone else's and we're back to having to pay 100% with no government making up the difference. If the cost can't be covered between the employer and employee combined, then it's simply not feasible.
From what I gather and with some small alterations of my own what I believe is being proposed is that instead of making it all or nothing based on the 30hr line you have employers contribute based on the hours an employee works.
Not entirely sure I know what you mean about the making up of the difference but the individual mandate would still be in place (as no one has presented (although I'm all ears) a better plan to get people with pre-existing conditions and or high risk individuals insured at a remotely viable rate) , but instead of just government subsidies picking up some of the slack (as very few people if any will not be paying anything for their premiums) the employer would bear some responsibility to ensure the availability of insurance for their employees.
So we'll say that for a typical full-time employee (based on 40/hpw employers typically contribute about 50% of the cost toward their employees premium costs.
So instead of that or nothing (part-time) have employers contribute a minimum amount based on the hours worked.
I'm not hard crunching the numbers at the moment but to give an idea it would look something like
hpw=hours per week ec=employers contribution
10-14.99 hpw = 15% ec
15-19.99 hpw = 25% ec
20-24.99 hpw = 30% ec
25-29.99 hpw = 35% ec
etc...
Obviously it could be fine tuned but it would likely be less encouraging for businesses to cut workers to part-time and even more helpful to those that are suffering from such a business practice which does seem at least slightly separated from the humanity and dignity an employee deserves from their employer.
|
On October 04 2013 14:42 Mysticesper wrote:
It almost feels redundant to have an employer mandate (which was recently delayed) + individual mandate.
Why not cut out the employer mandate, and the now increased wages can go towards everyone buying their own plans that best suits them (more akin to car insurance)
What increased wages ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
