Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I could imagine that an employer might do that if they were operating on a tight margin, and the additional healthcare costs introduced by Obamacare crosses a threshhold in which such "drastic" measures are necessary.

You could imagine that. Though I'd imagine the evidence probably doesn't back it up.

My company's plans are all ACA compliant and the premiums went down this year.

This is from a Salon piece fact checking a Fox news interview:

"Under the Affordable Care Act, Bill must simply offer his employees a chance to share in the cost of an insurance plan. The worker’s share can legally be as high as 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income. Once Bill has made this offer to an employee, if the employee declines the coverage then Bill is off the hook and doesn't have to pay a penalty.

And sadly, Bill might be correct that his wage earners (who earn $8.50 to $10 an hour) can’t afford to spend as high as 9.5 percent of their salaries sharing the cost of an insurance plan."

Bill had a 290 employee car wash business. None of his employees were actually losing health care (since he wasn't providing it before). I have a hard time believing that our imaginary landscape contractor was already providing health benefits to his 250 full time employees.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I could imagine that an employer might do that if they were operating on a tight margin, and the additional healthcare costs introduced by Obamacare crosses a threshhold in which such "drastic" measures are necessary.

You could imagine that. Though I'd imagine the evidence probably doesn't back it up.

My company's plans are all ACA compliant and the premiums went down this year.

Equivalent (or better) level of coverage?

What's better?

Full-time job, no healthcare
Part-time job, govt mandated healthcare

Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I could imagine that an employer might do that if they were operating on a tight margin, and the additional healthcare costs introduced by Obamacare crosses a threshhold in which such "drastic" measures are necessary.

You could imagine that. Though I'd imagine the evidence probably doesn't back it up.

My company's plans are all ACA compliant and the premiums went down this year.

Equivalent (or better) level of coverage?

The same exact plans. The renewal premiums were less.

Do you think your experience is typically of what most people are experiencing?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:47:00 PM (view original):
What's better?

Full-time job, no healthcare
Part-time job, govt mandated healthcare

You're begging the question.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:47:00 PM (view original):
What's better?

Full-time job, no healthcare
Part-time job, govt mandated healthcare

You're begging the question.

Someone with a full time job and no health care isn't "losing their coverage." Which is what we are talking about now.

 

I'm changing the subject.   Which one of those two options is better for a non-skilled worker?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Do you think your experience is typically of what most people are experiencing?

Most business owners I talk to are seeing a variety results. It has more to do with the type of plans offered. I have a PPO with a deductible. The cost went down (really it stayed the same, the savings is something like $6 dollars a month). If you have an HMO with no deductible, it's likely that the cost will go up. But that's been a reality of the insurance market for years and has nothing to do with the ACA.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:47:00 PM (view original):
What's better?

Full-time job, no healthcare
Part-time job, govt mandated healthcare

You're begging the question.

Someone with a full time job and no health care isn't "losing their coverage." Which is what we are talking about now.

 

I'm changing the subject.   Which one of those two options is better for a non-skilled worker?

Ahem.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Do you think your experience is typically of what most people are experiencing?

Most business owners I talk to are seeing a variety results. It has more to do with the type of plans offered. I have a PPO with a deductible. The cost went down (really it stayed the same, the savings is something like $6 dollars a month). If you have an HMO with no deductible, it's likely that the cost will go up. But that's been a reality of the insurance market for years and has nothing to do with the ACA.

Is it your contention that the ACA really has no impact to the costs of businesses that provide healthcare benefits to their employees?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Do you think your experience is typically of what most people are experiencing?

Most business owners I talk to are seeing a variety results. It has more to do with the type of plans offered. I have a PPO with a deductible. The cost went down (really it stayed the same, the savings is something like $6 dollars a month). If you have an HMO with no deductible, it's likely that the cost will go up. But that's been a reality of the insurance market for years and has nothing to do with the ACA.

Is it your contention that the ACA really has no impact to the costs of businesses that provide healthcare benefits to their employees?

Yes

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Do you think your experience is typically of what most people are experiencing?

Most business owners I talk to are seeing a variety results. It has more to do with the type of plans offered. I have a PPO with a deductible. The cost went down (really it stayed the same, the savings is something like $6 dollars a month). If you have an HMO with no deductible, it's likely that the cost will go up. But that's been a reality of the insurance market for years and has nothing to do with the ACA.

Is it your contention that the ACA really has no impact to the costs of businesses that provide healthcare benefits to their employees?

Yes

Really?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:47:00 PM (view original):
What's better?

Full-time job, no healthcare
Part-time job, govt mandated healthcare

You're begging the question.

Someone with a full time job and no health care isn't "losing their coverage." Which is what we are talking about now.

 

I'm changing the subject.   Which one of those two options is better for a non-skilled worker?

Ahem.

I'll answer.    The guy with the full-time job has a better chance at providing basic necessities for his family than the part-time worker forced to purchase insurance.

The ACA is actually ******* the exact people it's supposed to help.   However, less people will be unemployed because there is no sound business reason to give unskilled workers enough hours to force the offer of healthcare coverage.   So the Prez's unemployment numbers look nicer and he can tout that he helped get healthcare coverage for all despite lowering the quality of life for many.

Fortunately, the demographic that voted for him isn't really smart enough to know that he's ******* them.  It's just big business screwing labor again.

"So the Prez's unemployment numbers look nicer and he can tout that he helped get healthcare coverage for all despite lowering the quality of life for many."

That's Barry the Socialist in action.  "We've got to spread the wealth around, Joe".