Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[Lurker765]

I see what you mean. But businesses need employees to operate so i don't think companies could "not hire people"...they would go out of business, right?

Some current companies are choosing that route. The coal company that fired employees just recently has chosen to lessen their output to reduce costs. In some cases having less employees might make the companies more efficient. Or they might try to make their existing employees do the work of the fired employees by working more unpaid hours each week. This will be capitalism at work -- whoever adapts to the new environment the best will succeed.

[Lurker765]

Currently employers offer it as a "benefit" to the employee - it is part of the competition to attract employees. True they could decide not to offer the benefit to the employee (as some employers currently do). Now the cynic in me says every employer will decide either pay the less of the fine or the cost of the benefit to the employee. Either way its costing them $2k.

So people without medical insurance will now be required to go out and purchase insurance from carriers that "have promised to reduce the expense". How can one expect a poor person or young person - that works in a job where they currently get no medical benefits - to all of a sudden be able to afford the additional expense of "discounted medical insurance". Again - if they have to choose between putting food on the table or paying a monthly premium - food wins every time.

It just seems in my mind that this policy doesnt take into account that there are a number of people in this world that are barely making it, and are without medical insurance. In a few months, well they will be working the same job, maybe working the same number of hours, for an employer than may find it cheaper to not provide the benefit - and how will they be able to afford to pay for insurance?

The employee isnt getting anything more to cover this expense - but now they are mandated that they have to get coverage.

Going forward it will still be offered as a "benefit" to the employee and as part of the competition to attract employees. Either today or two years from now most employees would prefer to work at a company that offers a good health plan at a discount to what they could purchase on their own.

I don't understand how people think that companies that currently can cut insurance at no cost RIGHT NOW will start doing so once they can cut insurance and pay a $2000 penalty will decide that being able to cut it for free is not a good idea, but cutting it and paying $2000 to the government is better.

The poor or young person that works in a job where they currently get no medical benefits will now have to purchase health insurance. If they are indeed below the poverty line then they will qualify for Medicaid. If they are poor, but not that poor, they will qualify for financial assistance based on a sliding scale of household income.

Some of this assistance money will come from companies like Papa Johns who will be paying $2000 for each of their employees. Some of the other money comes from the savings the government bargained with the insurance companies for.

In other cases (as per the link I provided: http://healthreform.kff.org/the-basi...flowchart.aspx ) you are not given a penalty for skipping out on health insurance as an individual. For example, you have to pay more than 8% of your income for health insurance.

I think there is no instance where an employer will find it cheaper to not provide the benefit. If an employer is providing health benefits TODAY then they must find it worthwhile in attracting talent to their company. This same situation occurs in the future with the added incentive that if they discontinue health insurance it will cost them $2000 more in penalties than it did in the past.

From what I can tell a lot of thought went into the different scenarios people have put forth. And this is why it is so damn complicated.

Edited to add:
Health insurance is also not a wasted product. It is like any other insurance product. People are currently required to have car insurance if they have a vehicle. Health insurance provides a benefit to the person even more so than car insurance does since it will allow people to go get something checked out before it becomes an issue that can bankrupt a person.

In addition, having pre-existing conditions and such covered allows more capitalism. People are no longer tied to their employer for health insurance which allows people to form their own companies, consulting gigs, etc knowing that they can get health insurance for themselves or their family.

[baldgriff]

Employers can very easily pass the cost of benefit to the employee though. Again please forgive my cynicism, but now that the Gov. will charge them $2000 they very easily can say "I can provide you the benefit and will pay what I would have to pay the govt if I didnt." They can easily just figure in $2k per employee for benefits - everything over that is paid by me.... It will happen.

I guess I will wait to see how this all shakes out, but ultimately Insurance Companies and most business have bottom lines to meet - and they will figure out how to manage this.

[Lurker765]

Employers can very easily pass the cost of benefit to the employee though. Again please forgive my cynicism, but now that the Gov. will charge them $2000 they very easily can say "I can provide you the benefit and will pay what I would have to pay the govt if I didnt." They can easily just figure in $2k per employee for benefits - everything over that is paid by me.... It will happen.

I guess I will wait to see how this all shakes out, but ultimately Insurance Companies and most business have bottom lines to meet - and they will figure out how to manage this.

To avoid penalties, employers must offer insurance that covers at least 60% of the actuarial value of the cost of
benefits. The coverage also must be affordable to employees, meaning an individual employee’s premium
cannot exceed 9.5% of their household income. If the coverage offered does not meet the affordability
standard, employees may receive tax credits to purchase insurance on their own through the exchange. If this is
the case, small employers will either have to pay $3,000 per employee receiving the tax credit, or pay $2,000 per
employee excluding the first 30 workers (whichever amount is less).


But, you are right. We will have to wait and see how this all shakes out.

The goal of this from what I can tell is to prevent health care coverage from getting phased out of companies as businesses look for places to reduce costs. Individuals currently cannot purchase health coverage from themselves separate from their work if they have pre-existing conditions. This is a major problem. Even if they don't have pre-existing conditions it is often more expensive since you are not participating as part of a group plan and have less leverage for lower rates.

Why is health coverage tied to having a job that provides it as part of your benefit plan? What is the logic in this? Do you buy your car through your work from the list of cars they provide? Do you go to the company store after your mining shift?

Having it possible for employees to have something that is the #1 cause of bankruptcies covered is a good thing. Having it so that a working poor person who works at Denny's can get coverage for their diabetic kid is a good thing.

In Colorado the theater shooting maimed quite a few young people who have no health insurance. Do you just say "that is too bad, you should have thought of that before going to watch Batman"? Or is hoping that the hospital and charities will cover their bills any better?

Encouraging companies over 50 people in size to provide a health care option for their employees is a good thing. Society pays both financially and emotionally for free loaders (whether that person wanted to free load or not is moot).

Is Medicare a bad thing? When it was started people were upset about government health care. They were happy with old people just getting old and dying if they couldn't find some health insurance through their pension plan since no insurance company will voluntarily cover old geezers at any kind of reasonable monthly fee.

[Gregg]

When I was young and starting to work insurance was not important to me. I would rather have none and taken the cash. Getting married and having a pregnant wife changed that idea in a hurry. Still I wonder how many young singles are happy about being forced to get insurance?

[Mithrandir]

Highmark averaged profits of $450 million in each of the last two years. yet they raise their rates. What gives?

[Lurker765]

When I was young and starting to work insurance was not important to me. I would rather have none and taken the cash. Getting married and having a pregnant wife changed that idea in a hurry. Still I wonder how many young singles are happy about being forced to get insurance?

I was the same way. But, the young people are what the insurance companies want. They don't want old or sick people. The only way they can cover the costs of healthcare is to include young people in the pool.

Also, young people have accidents too. And if something terrible happens to them they are just out of luck and hope that someone in their family can take care of them for the rest of their life. The Colorado theater shooting victims are currently going through this for example.

When you were young nothing happened to you and your lack of insurance was a wise decision for your money. But, if you had gotten in a car crash with an uninsured drunk motorist you would probably not be posting on this board today. Your health bills would have driven you bankrupt and any rehab would not be covered. Your student loans would not have been voided in the bankruptcy you declared and you wouldn't have been working while recovering from your injuries.

Insurance isn't free, but it is useful. No one wants to pay for it unless they need it. But, everyone pays when someone gets emergency medical treatment and they don't have any insurance.

If a young person wants to skip out on insurance they can still do so under Obamacare. If you are a waiter working at Dennys and can't afford the premium you can pay $95 or 1% of your income (whichever is greater) in 2014 to NOT have health insurance. That is the price for the year for a single adult. It goes up in 2015 to $325 or 2% and finally to $695 or 2.5% in 2016 and beyond.

[Lurker765]

Highmark averaged profits of $450 million in each of the last two years. yet they raise their rates. What gives?

Exxon made $$$$$ billions in each of the last two years. and yet they raise their rates. What gives?

That's what companies do. They try to make more money. That is why people are crying about the rising costs of health care and that something must be done about it. You can not buy gas if you wish, but you can't avoid going to the hospital if you get cancer. Or you die.

[Mithrandir]

Exxon made $$$$$ billions in each of the last two years. and yet they raise their rates. What gives?

That's what companies do. They try to make more money. That is why people are crying about the rising costs of health care and that something must be done about it. You can not buy gas if you wish, but you can't avoid going to the hospital if you get cancer. Or you die.

Last i checked Exxon wasn't a non-profit.

[Lurker765]

Last i checked Exxon wasn't a non-profit.

Apparently Highmark isn't either if they had a "profit of $450 million"

I don't know anything about Highmark. Sorry if I gave that impression. My guess would be that they are raising their rates in anticipation of hospitals/pharma raising theirs for the year. They probably get year ahead forecasts for expenses. Dunno.

[DMT]

I was the same way. But, the young people are what the insurance companies want. They don't want old or sick people. The only way they can cover the costs of healthcare is to include young people in the pool.

Also, young people have accidents too. And if something terrible happens to them they are just out of luck and hope that someone in their family can take care of them for the rest of their life. The Colorado theater shooting victims are currently going through this for example.

When you were young nothing happened to you and your lack of insurance was a wise decision for your money. But, if you had gotten in a car crash with an uninsured drunk motorist you would probably not be posting on this board today. Your health bills would have driven you bankrupt and any rehab would not be covered. Your student loans would not have been voided in the bankruptcy you declared and you wouldn't have been working while recovering from your injuries.

Insurance isn't free, but it is useful. No one wants to pay for it unless they need it. But, everyone pays when someone gets emergency medical treatment and they don't have any insurance.

If a young person wants to skip out on insurance they can still do so under Obamacare. If you are a waiter working at Dennys and can't afford the premium you can pay $95 or 1% of your income (whichever is greater) in 2014 to NOT have health insurance. That is the price for the year for a single adult. It goes up in 2015 to $325 or 2% and finally to $695 or 2.5% in 2016 and beyond.

The few young people I know who had massive hospital bills never paid them.

[baldgriff]

I just have a feeling that the only winners in all of this is the insurance companies. They now have a whole group of individuals that are mandated by law to carry medical coverage - even if they cant afford to have it. Plus the govt will now have to manage additional programs not just to ensure that the coverage is in place at the employer level, but also that each person has coverage. Oh and lets not forget managing the "fines" process.

What if my employers program is awful and I opt out - they could still get charged - I will likely have to pay them to opt out and then still pay out of my own pocket for coverage.....

The money comes out of my pocket either way and the pockets of those that currently cant afford it and may not be able to anyway in the future... The insurance companies are still ending up with the money (and likely more money than they were getting previously)...


Now I will openly admit - I dont have an answer, but mandating that each person has to carry health coverage makes it a requirement - rather than the "right" that some individuals think is being protected for everyone here.

[nots]

I just have a feeling that the only winners in all of this is the insurance companies.

Ding, ding, ding

[Lurker765]

I just have a feeling that the only winners in all of this is the insurance companies. They now have a whole group of individuals that are mandated by law to carry medical coverage - even if they cant afford to have it. Plus the govt will now have to manage additional programs not just to ensure that the coverage is in place at the employer level, but also that each person has coverage. Oh and lets not forget managing the "fines" process.

What if my employers program is awful and I opt out - they could still get charged - I will likely have to pay them to opt out and then still pay out of my own pocket for coverage.....

The money comes out of my pocket either way and the pockets of those that currently cant afford it and may not be able to anyway in the future... The insurance companies are still ending up with the money (and likely more money than they were getting previously)...


Now I will openly admit - I dont have an answer, but mandating that each person has to carry health coverage makes it a requirement - rather than the "right" that some individuals think is being protected for everyone here.

I would say that there are winners like a friend of mine who has had a brain tumor. She couldn't get health insurance before except as an unbelievably expensive plan. She can now quit her corporate job and do the consulting position she has always wanted to do.

I'm a winner. My daughter has asthma and if I want to start my own company I can now do so without worrying about my family health coverage without an employer. If I get laid off I won't have to purchase incredibly expensive Cobra insurance to bridge my time until I can find another corporate job. My daughter will be a winner when she gets old enough to have to worry about her own health coverage.

If you want to be negative about this you can. There are probably plenty of things that can go wrong, but since about every other first world country on the planet has gone ahead of us much of the stumbling blocks are already well known.

[GwynnInTheHall]

This whole discussion is a perfect argument for Universal healthcare--get profit out of the Health Care industry. To hell with Insurance, cover everyone equally and affordably if not for free. That way employers don't have to bother and everyone is covered. The Dems will have the next 12 years to get this done--I'm hoping they will.