General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis odd belief system that the republicans are responsible for the ACA clusterfuck.
Really?
I think that republicans are the scum of the earth, but this one? This ACA? We OWN IT.
We told you things like the UPS crap would happen, we told you that they would cut hours, we told you that parts would be delayed to suck up to big business.
The pro ACA gang here is now on another narrative. The "we meant to do that" plan. Now the UPS is the trigger to single payer.
Sad, just sad, and playing with people's lives.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)they did that all on their own. quit using ACA to beat Dems for greedy insurance companies and employers. That's a Republican talking point.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)We all know when they were PRIVATE talks with Obama, they were kind, gentle souls.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)what an insane thing it is.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)and you can tell us all about it.
NutmegYankee
(16,210 posts)Oh right - Nothing!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)a long time.
Apparently, the ACA caused all of that too.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Their spouses who are eligible for insurance through their employers will also be covered by their employers' health insurance.
Thanks the ACA, they can rest assured that it will have the same guaranteed coverages mandated by the ACA.
And this only affects non-union UPSers. Anyone covered by a labor agreement (Teamsters) this doesn't apply. But as I remember my 21 + yrs as a Teamster, the health and welfare required any working spouses who were offered insurance to purchase it. Then our insurance would serve as backup for any coverages beyond the spouse coverage.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)we use hub's co for our insurance. I work for a small biz that offers high premiums on a 5K deductible policy.
If his employer forces me off due to the avail of a highdollar/low benefit policy @ my company, it'll cost us 200 a month more, minimum, and that's without any actual healthcare expense I may incur.
NutmegYankee
(16,210 posts)Seriously, you're blaming ACA ( I prefer Obamacare because I think it's going to work and be popular in the future) for something a greedy company could/would/can do anyway. The company is just using Obamacare as an excuse to cover their incessant greed. They want to make people hate it!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Might as well just turn on FOX news as opposed to reading some of the shit folks will post here against Obama and his administration.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)for years. It's action comes as no surprise to this poster. Farsighted companies started preparing for implementation of the ACA just after the law was approved. Some companies allowed under 26 year old children to be added back to the parents coverage BEFORE that feature was required by law. I think that UPS will be an outlier and will be forced back in line once it's business suffers.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Via the FedEx/UPS Maximum Profitablilty Act or whatever they call it.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but isn't it predictable that they WOULD do so in order to avoid millions in extra expenses?
Yesterday the Assistant Superintendent spoke at our Kiwanis meeting, showing us the budget for the school district. It is $68,000,000. He said that they expect extra expenses of $1,000,000 in the future - because of the costs of complying with the ACA.
UPS is probably much bigger than our school district. What are the costs for THEM to comply with ACA? Do you expect them to eat those costs, or try to avoid those costs?
The super great thing about it though, from the perspective of the ruling class, is that they can both stick it to the workers AND blame the Democratic Party for the pain.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)and insurance companies were going to continue to be dicks to their customers. This isn't an ACA issue. This is a "fuck workers for every last red cent of profit" issue.
It is ludicrous to say without ACA the companies wouldn't have canceled their spouse policies anyway IF the spouse has coverage elsewhere because they were already doing it prior to ACA. It's right there in an article I posted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023506791
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 21, 2013, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)
option allowed by the Democratic Party leadership. This crap was predicted by virtually every health care group not profiting from the insurance scam, and they were vociferously shouted down and specifically excluded at every step along the way to implementing the Heritage Foundation's horrible plan to place insurance companies at the center of health care in America.
You've forgotten (or not) that Speaker Pelosi did everything in her power during the session previous to the President's election to keep any and all actual health care bills from even being discussed, going so far with HR. 676 as to actually block the CBO assessment from being done, once it was forced out of committee in spite of all her efforts to bury it.
And as time goes on, and as it gets worse and worse, the next excuse is going to be that the plan all along was to create a system so horrible that it will force us to implement an actual health care plan.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)that people are suffering and dying needlessly, and all for nothing more than to save face. Just horrible.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I still have no idea where I go, in terms of a website, to find out how much I will be paying under the California exchange.
There was a website I was using for a while; now it is gone.
We are less than 130 days away from this being the law of the land. Yet we individuals don't know what to make of the ACA, and sop we don't have needed information. Can we manage the situation? Or can't we? (At least for individuals, it is confusing. However it is not so confusing for the Big Insurers, who have complained and gotten their goal posts moved by the Obama administration.)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Once the benefits of the ACA are clear, the public at large will be more willing to move on to better options like universal coverage. I like the idea of like minded states clustering under the ACA to set up regional exchanges that offer high level, affordable coverage for citizens in those states. State like the New England states and west coast states like California, Oregon and Washington would benefit mightily from setting up regional exchanges. Having a good shell to work from beats having nothing at all. Nothing at all was what the far Left was getting by insisting on "pure" health care reform when large swaths of the populace at large were not onboard with that change. Democratic leaders got it right, their detractors are still lost with no way of getting back to a realistic mindset.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)until you convince yourself, but that still doesn't make it true. It was the only plan not blocked by the leadership. We were here and the media covered it endlessly, it was all over Kos and I'm sure it was all over DU as well.
It is (hopefully) somewhat better than nothing, but it was the only plan allowed as all the others were blocked from consideration by the Democratic Party leadership for over a year before the President was even elected. They didn't want to fight for us, they wanted to extort the industries that would have been effected.
There is a big difference between possible and allowed.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)but the ODS runs deep.
Sid
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Maybe they get get that taken care of one of these days. What would ODS fall under, mental health issues?
I do find it amazing that those with ODS continue to jump from one thing to another as far a issues go, but they are so consistent in blaming the president for everything they think is wrong!
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)is how ODS can be applied so easily the other direction - especially to those who see a direct threat to the President's reputation every time someone points out something isn't working quite as advertised by the Administration.
Useful term, ODS. Unfortunate that your ACA certified health insurance probably won't cover the cost of the long-term therapy.
IL Lib
(190 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Shooting fist in a barrel.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I will report back.
Warpy
(111,529 posts)and the insurance companies are enjoying their final feast on the sick before the ACA kicks in.
HOWEVER, and it's a big one, all the work still needs to be done. Hospitals will see more patients instead of fewer and with more people working, companies will see more business.
This is just a blip, an aberration because of the uncertainty of what change will bring. It's Chicken Little, screaming that the sky is falling and managing to shoo them all into whatever shelter part time employees can provide.
If people are made to work 15 minutes short of full time so companies can deny them benefits, that will be the first thing that is corrected.
It took many tweaks to refine Medicare. It will likely take as many to refine the ACA. Eventually, insurance giants will simply pull out of low profit markets and we'll get back door single payer.
For now, it's a blind panic as employers prepare themselves for the worst and will correct things when the worst doesn't happen, only the desertion of their best workers in favor of full time work.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Once the insurance companies are in for good in 2014...it's over.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Short-sighted people like yourself will not understand how big of a deal that is.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)And that's before one considers executive compensation and salaries to people employed there for purposes tangentially related to health care.
Is this similar to arrangements in any of the industrialized nations?
alc
(1,151 posts)Any insurer that cares about profit will raise the cost of health care by covering everything and not negotiating good rates then battle regulators.
If regulators win the insurance companies say "we wanted to cover EVERYTHING, but ACA is making us drop coverage for X,Y, and Z and also cause our reimbursement rate to be such that a lot of providers won't see you unless you pay a lot out of pocket.". It's the ACA's fault.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)The ACA was the greatest gift to corporations in our nation's history. Understand that NOTHING like this has ever been done before -- a law REQUIRING that everyone purchase a product from private companies, regardless of cost, regardless of how little the product does, regardless of how poorly they are treated, whether they want it or not. And while the penalties today aren't that bad, they will be. Oh yeah, you better fucking believe they will be.
Imagine if this were the Fast Food Rescue Act and every American were required to drop a thousand a month buying barely edible frankenfood. Imagine sitting at the counter watching pimple faced teens spitting in your food, but you damn well better fucking buy it even if it goes straight into the trash. It's the LAW.
It's got some cool SOUNDING provisions. For example, our fast food franchises cannot refuse to sell you a burger. Nothing says they cannot charge you a hundred bucks each, but you won't starve if you have the money.
THAT'S the ACA.
tridim
(45,358 posts)DERP.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)which it shouldn't based on reporting, would be to create an incentive for the cartel to pay more of allowable charges.
The real benefit of the MLR is much more subtle than the popular selling points. The real benefit is by definition it forced some reckoning on what actually constitute medical expenses because one had to be had to know which was 20 and which is 80. That is important and will have some containment benefit on its own though it will be at the margins rather than the big driver of cost containment some make out and almost certainly not crippling the ability of the cartel to make big, big money leading to the for profits all just folding their tents because there is no money to be made (a lie told by those that don't grasp typical margins to folks that have the same hole in understanding).
Actually, I'm not seeing how profits don't increase. That 20% becomes very close to a guaranteed pot, if the 80% intrudes on it we have an easily justified increase and more and more of that 20% can go to profits rather than commissions to agents (probably going extinct because who needs them?), the pat of those who support them, underwriting, probably lots of the customer service force, much of the advertising budget becomes worthless, marketing departments will shrink.
The cartel is being modernized in such a way that it will likely see massive shrinkage in personnel cost. That is another subtle benefit, if down the line somebody really comes after the cartel they will have significantly less jobs to hold as a hostage.
I'm still convinced that this isn't the reform we were looking for but it does maybe push and nibble in ways that might set the table for a more direct successor effort, at least in some important ways.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)and lost.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)as the real benefit not the cap.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)lotsa of payola opportunities in getting those regs changed. Our CONgress and Senate will find a way, godblessem.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)What, exactly, do you think the pre-ACA situation was? Insurance companies "on the ropes"? That they were worse off back when they could yank coverage when someone started costing them money?
The ACA is step 1. There will be many more steps.
IronLionZion
(45,700 posts)Any company that makes hiring decisions primarily on taxes or mandated benefits isn't going to be very successful. Depending on the business, its more of a cost-benefit analysis where they want to attract the best talent they can afford by offering attractive packages including benefits and job security.
The best workers will demand insurance coverage and keep applying to other jobs until they get it.
job mobility:
Many of the most experienced professionals approaching retirement age in firms like law, accounting, consulting, etc. would eagerly go freelance for better work/life balance if they can have affordable individual plans rather than being locked into a firm mainly for the health insurance. It happened in Massachusetts. I personally know folks who have done it. There is also an unrelated trend towards staff augmentation through contract/consulting/temp workers. There are firms who specialize in getting experienced semi-retired workers.
more patients issue:
Private equity actually did something useful for a change. They have been investing heavily in urgent care centers and walk-in clinics in a big way. I have seen tons of them sprout up here in MD. I had called tons of private practices trying to get a weekend appointment for a physical a few years ago and decided to go to an urgent care center instead because of their extended hours. I've stuck with it. This is the future of this country and it will take pressure off of crowded emergency rooms and private family practices while charging lower prices due to efficiencies of scale. Endless screaming about the "nursing shortage" has filled the ranks of nursing schools who have graduated lots of new nurses and physican assistants who need jobs and experience. Here's an opportunity. The goddamn Republicans of all people are advocating plans to encourage medical schools take on extra students who want to be general practice doctors due to the shortage.
What's wrong with more patients at health care providers? These folks had no access before and they finally do. Many for the first time in their lives. There's pent up demand for physicals and lab testing and cancer screenings and resulting job opportunities in the healthcare provider fields. A-hole republicans worry about waiting longer to get an appointment when many Americans have been waiting their entire lives.
There is hope and change in health care reform. Get everyone covered and then forward towards single player
Warpy
(111,529 posts)I don't know where they're expecting insured patients to go for routine things, I haven't had insurance since 1987. I suppose acutely ill people need to get by the dragon at the front desk to see a doc at his office or go to the more profitable ER and clog that up with non emergency illness and accident.
10 years ago there were two pages of ads for nurses in the local paper. Last week there wasn't a single one. You'd think nurses weren't needed any more.
In addition, the average age of bedside nurses has been going up for decades as the bottleneck at the educational level gets more acute. Masters and PhD prepared nurses make much more in practice than they do as educators. Most can't really afford to throw themselves on the altar of self sacrifice to educate new nurses. Admission is therefore extremely competitive and schools haven't been able to graduate enough nurses to fill the need for many years.
The only thing that has changed is that new nurses aren't being hired and experienced nurses are having trouble finding jobs. I can only conclude (since there aren't any fewer patients) that hospitals have instituted Draconian hiring freezes because they're frightened of the ACA.
The hiring freeze is nation wide. The closing of urgent care centers is local. Both are caused by scared little rabbits in administration who believe all the doom and gloom coming out of Republican news sources that tell them they'll all be wearing barrels and selling pencils on street corners for revenue after January first.
IronLionZion
(45,700 posts)over here in MD there are postings for home health aides and nurses for old age homes. A friend of mine has a charity that takes nursing students and recent graduates to underserved areas to get experience for those who can afford unpaid or low-paid work to start.
I sure hope there's a solution to the nursing problem since there certainly appears to be a need for more nurses, and plenty of people who want to be nurses. Maybe the nursing schools need better intern/residency programs or partner with charities and old folks homes.
Warpy
(111,529 posts)Didn't you see that part? That's the reason for the bottleneck, most nurses who are qualified to be instructors can't take the pay cut.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)I love living in this state and I love our health care offerings. Costs have dropped and results have improved since our current Democratic Governor and our over-whelmingly Democratic legislature took over implementation of health care reform after Romney tried to literally kill the law that he was backed into approving. A true measure of health care results are the number of old people staying put in a state, even when they can afford to move, Massachusetts has for a number of years after health care reform had old people choosing to stay and live in the state instead of migrate. The draw for old people appears to be a quality of life one, their overall health is better and is gained at a lower out of pocket cost to them. And young people are drawn to the state too because of quality of life, one of which is among the lowest health care costs for young people in the nation.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And seeking to excuse Republicans from their attempts to sabotage implementation of the law of the land.
Wonders never cease.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Company gets to exorcise people off HC.
ACA gives them opportunity.
We did the ACA.
So when more and more and more companies do this...nothing to do with the ACA.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)their vile attempts to sabotage the ACA.
You're serving as their useful something here.
The reason UPS is ending those benefits? Not Obamacare.
"We believe your spouse should be covered by their own employer -- just as UPS has a responsibility to offer coverage to you, our employee," the memo states.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/companies/ups-obamacare/index.html
Thank you for serving as a propaganda ally for ruthless corporations and the Republicans party.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)pnwmom
(109,031 posts)whether they dropped family members or if they offered coverage at all. The only limitation till now has been provided by collecting bargaining agreements.
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)Mandated health insurance purchasing is one of them
The ACA could have been sold as necessary insurance reform without sticking it to everyone
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Mandated health insurance purchasing is one of them
The ACA could have been sold as necessary insurance reform without sticking it to everyone
...defies reality.
Bottom line: Obamacare really is for the 99%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023441345
Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372091
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)leftstreet
(36,119 posts)You call members names, but whenever someone tells you to go fuck yourself s/he gets the post deleted
I don't understand that
Are you fucking someone important around here?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)yes. I am in an intimate relationship with the person organizing swooner talking points for DU. This person and I enjoy an open relationship...The person of whom I speak is also on a very intimate level with the DU high command.
Now you know your paranoia was well placed. It isn't who you know. It's who you fuck.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)asap. Maybe then my alerts on these freepers will get some traction.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)observer. I am sure the post got alerted and a sane jury saw nothing wrong with it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)We tried that in New York state, and the result was a disaster.
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)Or better yet, mandate wealth
Anyone with less than $6 million in savings has to pay a penalty
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)leftstreet
(36,119 posts)The inflated co-pays
The budget-crushing deductibles
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)They have already sent me 2 rebate checks.
But lying about the ACA will certainly increase your neo-DU cred... Knock yourself out.
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)You're just...rolling in it
tridim
(45,358 posts)Are you claiming that the National Mortgage Settlement and the ACA's 80/20 law aren't real?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The last statement you made appears to be based more upon emotion than fact. Exchanges will be open to anyone that wants to participate in them, regardless of their wealth. My experience in Massachusetts is that our exchange covers a wide range of participants, from companies to poor families. Emotion is a tactic that a person who is devoid of facts use. I have facts from living in the only state that has had health care reform implemented for nearly a decade, I love what I not only experience personally, but witness.
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)You found a post from 8-22 to plant a disingenuous reply? Bored?
No, home ownership is not mandated. You risk no fine from the IRS if you refuse to buy a house
Cha
(298,313 posts)Response to Safetykitten (Original post)
Cali_Democrat This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406920
You appear to be defending them.
The UPS claim is bullshit. It's like all the other corporate/RW noise about employers dropping people.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You are stating that the Republicans bear no responsibility for difficulties in implementing the ACA, when the Republicans are actively trying to sabotage it.
And then you are endorsing the lies of corporate America re: Obamacare.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is implemented as well as possible.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)correctly and as well as possible?
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)your part are magical.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for not doing it.
Have you forgotten the part where we try to defeat them in elections by pointing out the bad stuff they do?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we felt each time Democrats supplied just enough votes to get the evil Republicans policies passed, wasn't just coincidental after all.
All the evil the Republicans did we thought would be addressed and fixed by electing Democrats. Instead, we were told right off the bat that the evil the Republicans did was not going to be dealt with, that we were going to 'look forward'.
And then we woke up. It was necessary to see the whole system exposed so from that pov, we did do the right thing, the people I mean.
You say the Republicans are evil. They are. What do you intend to do about the evil they perpetrated against millions of innocent men, women and most tragically (I can show you the photos and the most recent reports) children.
Do you agree that we are best off 'looking forward' from War Crimes?
I want ALL war criminals prosecuted. I don't them bombed I want the world to see the trials, the details, how they did it, why they did it, who was behind them, where they got their money. So that it never happens again.
I suspect that bombing them is a way it clean up any 'evidence' that come out in a trial.
I don't care who is implicated, if the participated in War Crimes, no matter how, funding, supporting in any way, they are complicit and they are evil.
Try Assad in a court of law IF he is guilty, which is pretty dubious as far as this latest incident is concerned. No one has seen any evidence. The US can no longer use the 'we can't show you because of National Security, just trust us'. It isn't and never should have worked.
Prosecute ALL war criminals, or shut up about other countries, let others with clean hands deal with them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. They don't get credit for anything except trying to repeal it and deny people health care coverage.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023441345
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)so theres one huge pro lie
and we seem to forget the 39 democrats who voted no
from the wiki
The newly amended bill eventually passed the House of Representatives at 11:19 PM EST on Saturday, November 7, 2009, by a vote of 220-215. The bill passed with support of the majority of Democrats, together with one Republican who voted only after the necessary 218 votes had already been cast. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill. All members of the House voted, and none voted "present"
lol at none voted present
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)Response to Safetykitten (Original post)
Cali_Democrat This message was self-deleted by its author.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Why are you defending them?
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)I only wish it had gone into effect much sooner, so the edges would already be smoothed out..
It's our vehicle to full coverage for all, via taxes.. single-payer-universal coverage..like the rest of the civilized word has had for DECADES...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Someone is disappointed that too many people actually understand the ACA.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Soon, they won't be able to deny anyone with a prexisting condition.
And ... if your company decides to drop all coverage (as many had before the ACA) you'll still have access to coverage.
I know you are rooting for failure, but it isn't going to happen.
We are now starting to hear stories of how the ACA helped average Republican voters. That's going to happen more and more.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)voters see the benefits of health care reform to them, there is almost nothing holding back a move toward universal coverage. I love watching video of republican town halls, their own voters are ripping them new ones.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)What then?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)before the ACA.
And they still can do it.
As for "what then"?
More people will move onto the exchanges, and their pre-existing conditions won't stop them from getting coverage, which is what used to happen before the ACA.
Or does that point escape you? Before the ACA, if your employer cut back on health coverage, and you lost yours, you had no recourse. You went on the open market, and they could exclude you for any "pre-existing condition". And you were screwed.
That's no longer the case thanks to the ACA.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)you probably will not get written up.
October 1st you will. December 15 the payment is due. January 1st you have insurance, no pre-existing. That is of course if the pre-existing is delayed.
Now watch the fun as you try to get care. Give it a shot.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... see, come January 1st, you would still NOT have insurance without the ACA.
With the ACA, you will.
It would be better if it was all in place now, but still better than the alternative on the table, which is nothing.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)issue and you will. Think of us, the little people.
NutmegYankee
(16,210 posts)Yeah, single payer would be better, but at least WE DID SOMETHING!
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)offerings and forces competition that drives down costs to the insured. I live in a state where that is a FACT.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)to shell out large out of pocket amounts with short notice. As a matter of fact, personal insurance coverage is covered largely the way it is for employees of companies that offer health care coverage, on a time basis, with small payments being made weekly or monthly. You seem to be throwing up a lot of false information, I wonder why.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)where the devotees of the ACA will finally say..."well, I suppose it had a bit of an effect...kinda, but single payer!"
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You run the ACA forward a decade or two, and it will cause significant stress on businesses that continue to offer health insurance. So more and more businesses will drop health insurance.
That's the point.
Tying healthcare to employment is fucking moronic. So the ACA creates a system that will gradually break that link. Eventually everyone will end up on the exchanges.
Which will also pick up "government options". Those options will be as effective as private insurance, but will benefit from not having to turn a profit. So they'll cost less. Which will cause more people to choose that option in states that have them, which drives the cost down even further.
Residents of states without "government options" will notice they're getting screwed. And add them. Smaller states will band together for the administration of their government options.
Eventually you get de-facto single payer. Which makes it easy to make it real single payer.
This is more-or-less how Canada got single payer - one province at a time. We will repeat that path here.
Why couldn't we just get Medicare for all? Spineless Democrats in Congress would never pass it. They were too terrified of right-wing bogeymen. With it working in the states, those bogeymen lose their power.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts), medium and small.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)If Gandolf were a third party wizard: "Republicans, I shall give you a pass!"
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)for the fact that a number of states have turned down free Medicaid money to cover millions of their citizens.
And the Democrats aren't responsible for what UPS did. Corporations have been cutting back their benefits forever. The UPS is just using ACA as an excuse.
And the ACA isn't a "clusterfuck" to the millions of Americans currently shut out of the market for any insurance, those with preexisting conditions or who got dropped from their previous companies and can't buy any new insurance; those with babies who were uninsurable if they were born with medical conditions ; and those with children who can now stay on their policies till they're 26; those lucky enough to live in states with expanded Medicaid programs; and those who will be receiving tax credits from the government to purchase policies on the exchanges.
If you knew history, you'd know that Medicare had some problems in the early years, too, but that Congress worked across the aisle to fix them. The difference now is that the Rethugs are determined not to fix any problems but to throw out the bill altogether. They are TOTALLY responsible for their own obstructionist tactics. They don't give a damn about all the Americans who this bill, as imperfect as it is, would help.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)"Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to see that the law is implemented effectively, rather than trying to sabotage it?
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Lets' get a plan in secret talks with insurance companies, written by us, or insurance companies actually, and then force it on the nation, knowing that all the facts are not there, and then delay certain parts, and call people that ARE ACTUALLY affected by it liars and tell them they don't get it, and companies are trying to shed HC because of it, and it's so fucking insanely confusing that people can't even comprehend it, then wait...this is the best part! The party, the one we hate? The one our President gets rolled over by? Again and again? That party?
Their fault!
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that the Republicans don't have an effort to see that the law of the land be implemented effectively.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)but had they, you would be against it.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The ACA is not a secret.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Drafted entirely in secret, and most of what we know comes from Madison's notes.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Do you deny that fact?
Or do you just want to change the subject?
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)I said the Republicans are responsible for preventing millions of people in Rethug-led states from getting expanded Medicaid -- among other things.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that just so happens to open in a few weeks! They even get to be part of the First-Adopters.....
I cannot believe people think change doesn't involve some pain....there will be growing pains...Lean in!
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)exchanges. My sense based upon experience from my state is that regional exchanges will lower costs for residents in the states participating, while results will be better.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)idividual states will make it more complex...and will give some states better coverage than others...which defeats the whole purpose.
Healthcare exchanges will also be FOR the uninsured...they will get subsidies.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Very useful to see who's carrying water for team RNC.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Employers find ways to get out of covering people all the time. In this case, its if a spouse has an employer that offers coverage. Basically it means, those 15,000 people will still be covered, just not through UPS.
I fail to see how this development serves as any real argument against the ACA.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Wait! That's a Democratic trending line!
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...rewriting my post title gives you something to do.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)And people think I am a downer.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And is it also not true that they are only dropping spouses who have another means of coverage?
I'd like you to answer those 2 questions and then tell me what the point of your griping is.
EC
(12,287 posts)I'll bet this has been in the planning for years. I'll even bet that there are meeting minutes somewhere where they were discussing dumping insurance altogether.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Now lets go to town on the fucking of the people that work for us. It's ok now. It's the law.
unblock
(52,570 posts)trying to get the spouse's employer to pick up the tab for insurance costs is something companies have been doing for a long time.
the only way in which obamacare is relevant is that that is how ups decided to deflect attention away from its greediness.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)people...as a gift, from us, the Democrats....Companies BAD! BAD Companies! How dare you take us up on our open screw people offer!
How dare you sirs!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Where, exactly, were companies being described as "good"?
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)and surprise, when offered a way to cull the herd, we act all surprised.
bad company.
unblock
(52,570 posts)this has zero to do with the aca, except that ups chose to lie about why they're doing this.
how is it that companies have been doing this for years, long before obamacare?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's no need for exchanges if the ACA assumed companies would provide insurance. And there's be no poorly-indexed "Cadillac plan tax" that is going to drive everyone to those exchanges. And before you start screaming about that, the badly-indexed tax is the point - tying health insurance and healthcare to employment is fucking stupid.
Seriously, you've got the screaming and running around down. Could you try to make a coherent argument instead of only screaming "BAD!!!!!".
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)As a prelude to shifting it all to single-payer.
Isn't the plan working?
tazkcmo
(7,309 posts)If not for the fact that it will bring single payer it would just be a gift to Ins. Co's. As for blaming the ACA for greed in corporate America, Bull Hockey! In the food service industry we've been going w/o ANY chance for health insc for a very long time. Those few companies that do offer it have tied the requirement of full time hours to it, usually 30-35 hrs per week so don't blame ACA for cutting folks to 29 hours cuz they've been doing that before ACA. ACA lowered the hour requirement because at those few hours, any company that cuts their employees hours that low will experience significant turn over and increased labor costs due to new hire, training and decreased productivity. So, don't get all worked up over something that's been going on for a very long time just because you've recently realized that Corps are greedy.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Which is why it sucks. I see a lot of people came in to spread the propaganda, but what it always boils down to is "Obamacare is keeping me safe, screw all the rest of you!"
Nice party line we have, isn't it?
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)And yes, you are correct, the charming part is the people with rich Democrat problems like actually having insurance (for the moment as we will see) are all for telling people without it what losers they are.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Doesn't mean we can't use it as the framework to get real healthcare.
The ACA will drive everyone onto the exchanges. Where they will find government options or single-payer in the blue states. Which won't slaughter people wholesale as the Republicans claim. In fact, freed from the need to profit, they should be cheaper than the other options.
That will get de-facto single payer in those states. Which will give us the necessary ammo to get single-payer everywhere else. Just like Canada got single-payer.
Could we have done better? Not much. Too many Democrats in Congress were terrified of right-wing propaganda about single-payer. So we get the improvements that are in the ACA, and use the ACA over the long run to get single-payer.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oh wait....they got single-payer after one of their provinces showed there was nothing to fear from a "government option".
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Cognitive dissonance is in great supply here lately.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Maybe the ACA was "the best we could do". That can be argued. But there is no argument in the historical record that the framework of the ACA was a Republican plan.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Coincidence.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)...in terms of the (health insurance) exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation." - President Barack Obama, March 30, 2010.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Cuz the Heritage foundation is definitely "our friends"
<--- feel naked without the tag lately
bowens43
(16,064 posts)we are supposed to throw 10 of millions of Americans under the bus because of corporate assholes? Seriously?
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)is that health care coverage is dropped as a part of employment. Then a push for si gle coverage can be made from the starting point of ACA. Health care coverage is also one of the biggest excuses companies give for not paying a living wage. Start envisioning the future.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)concrete? ACA was the bill that made it through the process and it is still under attack from the Koch brothers and the Teabaggers. It is the law and can be built on or revised. Have you ever been involved in drafting legislation? I have and it is not as easy as you seem to think it is, especially when you know that it needs to make it past those opposed. Work on forward movement.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)That has been the system. Not all businesses have provided healthcare plans and many people were made ineligible or faced huge premiums to make the pool less costly. As a cancer survivor, I have faced this. Now I cannot be refused coverage. This is true for so many.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Which was a lot more security than they had before ACA.
The problem with your statement is that you fail to understand that the ACA has resulted in more security for more people with it than without it.
The other problem you are having is that more people understand key provisions of the ACA than you anticipated.
You tell me:
How is it "more secure" to know that you are one job away from losing all future coverage of any condition you contracted since you were last hired?
tridim
(45,358 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Congress.
uponit7771
(90,378 posts)liberal N proud
(60,355 posts)It was their way of making sure it had something terrible in the program to be able to discredit it.
If it were purely a Democratic bill, we might have single payer now.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)And all we get is the (dis)satisfaction of saying "we told you so" for years and years.
&
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023508311
Fearless
(18,421 posts)alfredo
(60,083 posts)All that did was weaken the law.
All that UPS's action will do is move more people to the exchanges.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)So most of them will have a parent + children and the spouse will have to pick up coverage. Their care will not be more affordable, it will become more costly.
This also increases their costs if care is utilized because these spouse's expenses will not be accumulating toward deductibles and max out of pockets.
These folks are restricted from the exchanges, in fact it will create more individual plans for the cartel rather than more folks on the exchanges, which are heavily firewalled. The intent is to keep people off of them if at all possible not for them to become the American marketplace for coverage.
Another crappy surprise for those of us that work for half way decent companies (and this one is the fault of the law rather than an excuse to hide behind like we've been discussing) is the section of the law that dictates the cost of coverage be reported because it kill banding which socializes costs some by having higher earners subsidize premium costs of those lower on the scale. So insurance will be less affordable for some us folks too (though I doubt many greedy ass companies do the same so the number impacted may not be too high).
Hey, folks can grasp that eggs have to be broken to make an omelet but being dismissive and defensive about real dollars in struggling folks pockets is not going to help a damn thing at all.
There also booby traps laid here because while we got zero votes in the Senate and only one in the House, we did accept TeaPubliKlan amendments in the scores (over 100) which will be poison in the well because that is what the wicked fuckers do. None of these concessions bought a single opposition vote or a moments peace or a single roadblock being removed and there will be negative impacts from playing the lame and wrongheaded "bipartisanship" game and that is wholly our side's fault for going along.
alfredo
(60,083 posts)The best thing that came out of that was to strengthen the negative narrative being built around the Republicans. That will pay off at the polls in the years ahead. If successful, the ACA will be amended and strengthened. Time is on our side.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)that is hard to describe as likely much less fact in the present environment. The entropy stacks up on our ledger and I think pretty much magic is the plan to pull out of the tailspin that this wrongheaded strategy requires.
I guess it boils down to who is we? I think our problems are rather more serious than a bit of corporate welfare that might up our health outcome rankings by a few spots in combination with maybe a few other countries taking a step or two back.
I am also not sure that obligation to the insurance cartel is necessarily an evolutionary step toward the right to health care. I'm not saying it absolutely cannot be but pretending inevitability seems less than reasonably honest to me. I can't even go so far to say it is even probable that we are moving toward a right here. The money corrupts and dictates the rules of the game.
That is just within the context of its own arena, the odds of this framework to act as some seed of a new paradigm on the side of the people are quite long.
alfredo
(60,083 posts)population. We have some motivated people, but not enough to cause real deep change.
Our lawmakers should fear our wrath more than they love corporate money. If we can do that, maybe we can get public financing for federal office races. Big progressive changes like single payer health care could be a possibility if lawmakers are not so dependent on big money.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)then our only option is the other and the fear of the other is so pervasive for Democrats that the primary process is largely locked up too since incumbents are fiercely protected for demonstrated ability to win and corporate owned politicians are prized in open seats for their ability to attract dollars and supposedly potential opposition voters.
alfredo
(60,083 posts)is a power we haven't used since the truckers slowed down the movement of goods.
babylonsister
(171,132 posts)So, will you give credit to the rethugs for this, or just who owns this?
The Remarkable Slowdown In Health Care Costs Since The Passage Of Obamacare
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/20/2498391/growth-in-health-care-costs-continues-to-decrease-since-passage-of-obamacare/
snip//
The Affordable Care Act will further encourage these reforms. In fact, a ThinkProgress analysis of the Kaiser data found that the rate of growth has slowed since the laws passage in March of 2010, though it is impossible to directly attribute the cost trend to the new law. From 2002 to 2010, family premiums for employer health coverage increased by almost 8.2 percent per year on average. Since 2011, they rose 5.6 percent per year.
Other reports have also uncovered a slowdown in cost increases. The number of double-digit rate increases requested by health insurers in the individual market has plummeted over the past four years and Medicares projected spending between 2010 and 2020 had dropped by over $500 billion. Under the new cost scenario, the entitlement program would, by 2085, make up 4 percent of the economy instead of the previously projected 7 percent.
Annual growth of medical spending has also slowed from a high of about 8.8 percent in 2003 to an average of about 3 percent per capita from 2009 to 2011, according to data reported in January by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Kingofalldems
(38,539 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)So, tell us all about it, dear. We're all ears.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Maybe it's time Democrats stopped adopting Republican concepts like public-private partnerships and job killing free trade deals.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)to ignore how to we came to a place where we have exchanges instead of single payer...and that is because of RW tactics getting any health care initiatives passed. Of course the RW are responsible for this clusterfuck. They played on public fears, they spread lies and misinformation, they even converted some blue dogs to vote it down. They filibustered the hell out of every other legislation, they almost did the same to ACA....it's stepping stone, and I'd take it over nothing. Even Utah's Mike Lee concedes that if it's not stopped before Jan 1 2014, it cannot be stopped...and changed/morphed to eventually include a more "socialize" medicine aspect to the bill.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)It has been tweaked over the years to become the must-have program of today, across all party lines.
Do you seriously think PBO could have gotten single payer through this asshole Congress ?
I sure don't. Yea, the plan is warmed over Romneycare but it is a stepping stone to eventual single payer, as many others have said.
To insist on single payer out of the gate in 2009-2010 would have gotten us nothing whatsoever. I firmly believe that.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)No, I didn't think so
Recursion
(56,582 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)For whatever foibles some Dems may or may not have had, remember, there's plenty of Republicans in Congress who had their say as well, and they did their damnedest to try to stop Obamacare from becoming a reality.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)The one entity that acted the most psycho here -- UPS --- seems to be strangely absent from your anger.
I wonder why.
bhikkhu
(10,730 posts)Its just the ones who have employed spouses with healthcare available through their own jobs. I don't see how its even an issue, and all this should work out to everyone's benefit.
I worked out the costs recently for everyone at my company, which has less than 50 people so we'll all be on our own for insurance. It works out fine, and everyone should have affordable insurance at the beginning of next year. Exchange sign-up begins in 35 days!
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Every place I go and talk to people that work at service sector jobs, retail places....they are not getting more hours, they being kept at 25 hours a week.
Last night very late at Winco. Had the opportunity to talk to another refugee of the economic crash that we still do not talk about, she is desperately trying to get over 25 hours. Not happening. Retail people are being worked to death. All because of the ACA.
My friend that was in the same field as me, runs a large group of many groups in a phone center. They tell people that there is the opportunity to have all the hours you want. What they do not tell you is that it is only for the time that will be relevant to the total hours worked, and then the cliff to avoid the penalties. Then they work 10 hours a week. They don't like it? Quit. there are more where you came from. Very large and recognized company.
You can tell all your future happy stories all you want, especially you people with HC now. Big surprised are coming, none good, and you will not be safe from the changes.
And it is ALL the Democrats fault.
SalviaBlue
(2,918 posts)We got too big for our britches and started demanding things we don't deserve.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Determining Full-Time Employees
Even though the hours of part-time workers are counted for purposes of determining whether an employer is a "large" employer, the play-or-pay penalty only applies with respect to full-time employees. Therefore, the determination of whether or not an employee is full-time versus part-time is critical.
Hours of service: For the purposes of section 4980H, a full-time employee is an employee who was employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. Taking the advice of a commenter, the IRS used the term "hours of service" in the proposed rule instead of "hours worked" because the former is a statutory term and includes not only hours when work is performed but also hours for which an employee is paid or entitled to payment even when no work is performed. In keeping with Notice 2011-36, the proposed regulations use a 130-hour standard as a monthly equivalent of 30 hours per week.
For purposes of determining hours of service, the proposed rule incorporates the guidance set forth in Notice 2011-36 providing that an employee's hours of service include the following: (1) each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment, for the performance of duties for the employer; and (2) each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment by the employer on account of a period of time during which no duties are performed due to vacation, holiday, illness, incapacity (including disability), layoff, jury duty, military duty, or leave of absence. In response to comments, the proposed rule omitted Notice 2011-36's 160-hour limit on paid leave, so all periods of paid leave must be taken into account.
The proposal provides rules for hourly employees and non-hourly employees, generally consistent with the approach outlined in Notice 2011-36. As noted above, the proposed rule provides that hours of service generally do not include hours of service worked outside the United States. This rule applies without regard to the residency or citizenship status of the individual.
The rule addresses the special issues presented by educational institutions by providing an averaging method for employment break periods that generally would result in an employee who works full-time during the active portions of the academic year being treated as a full-time employee. The IRS also included specific hours of service requirements for: employees compensated on a commission basis; adjunct faculty; transportation employees; and temporary staff members, among other special employment situations. Until further guidance is issued, employers of employees in these positions must use a "reasonable method for crediting hours of service that is consistent with the purposes of section 4980H." The IRS concludes that a method of crediting hours would not be reasonable if it took into account only some of an employee's hours of service with the effect of re-characterizing as non-fulltime an employee in a position that traditionally involves more than 30 hours of service per week. For example, it would not be a reasonable method of crediting hours to fail to take into account travel time for a travelling salesperson compensated on a commission basis, or, in the case of an instructor, such as an adjunct faculty member, to take into account only classroom or other instruction time and not other hours that are necessary to perform the employee's duties, such as class preparation time.
Measurement/stability period: The proposal codifies the "look back" method for determining the full-time status of ongoing as well as variable hour and seasonal employees. The proposed regulations define "variable hour employees" as those employees as to whom, at the time of hire, the employer cannot determine whether they will work on average for at least 30 hours a week. While this approach provides some much-needed flexibility and predictability for employers, it is nonetheless administratively challenging.◦Ongoing employees: As in the prior guidance that introduced the "look back" method, the proposed regulations provide rules for new employees and "ongoing" employees. For ongoing employees, an employer would determine each employee's full-time status by looking back at a defined measurement period (the "standard measurement period" of three to 12 months to determine full-time status for a subsequent "stability period." If an employee worked an average of 30 hours per week during the standard measurement period, the employer would treat the employee as full-time during the subsequent stability period, the duration of which would be at least the greater of six consecutive calendar months or the length of the standard measurement period. If an employee did not work an average of 30 hours per week during the standard measurement period, the employer would treat the employee as not full-time during the subsequent stability period, which may be no longer than the associated standard measurement period. Although these rules permit differing stability periods depending on the results of the measurement period, most employers are using consistent stability periods for all variable hour employees. The employer determines the months in which the standard measurement period starts and ends, provided that the determination must be made on a uniform and consistent basis for all employees in the same category.
◦Different categories of employees: Employers may use measurement periods and stability periods that differ either in length or in their starting and ending dates for the following categories of employees: (1) each group of collectively bargained employees covered by a separate collective bargaining agreement; (2) collectively bargained employees and non-collectively bargained employees; (3) salaried employees and hourly employees; and (4) employees located in different states.
◦New employees: An employer is not subject to the play-or-pay penalty for failing to offer new employees coverage for the first three months of employment. For new variable hour employees and new seasonal employees, an employer may determine whether a new employee is a full-time employee using an initial measurement period of between three and 12 months that begins on any date between the employee's start date and the first day of the first calendar month following the employee's start date. The stability period for such employees must be the same length as the stability period for ongoing employees.
◦Seasonal Employees: Although through at least 2014 employers are permitted to use a reasonable, good faith interpretation of the term "seasonal employee" for purposes of this notice, the IRS notes that final regulations may provide a specific time limit.
◦Status changes and rehires: A new variable hour or seasonal employee who has a change in employment status during an initial measurement period is treated as a fulltime employee as of the first day of the fourth month following the change in employment status or, if earlier and the employee averages more than 30 hours of service per week during the initial measurement period, the first day of the first month following the end of the initial measurement period (including any optional administrative period applicable to the initial measurement period). If an employee does not earn an hour of service for 26 consecutive weeks and is rehired, his or her status (as a full-time, variable, or seasonal employee) will be re-determined at the time of rehire.
◦Administration periods: Employers have the option of using administration periods of up to 90 days between the measurement period and stability period to determine which ongoing employees are eligible for coverage, and to notify and enroll employees. The employer can use an administrative period of up to 90 days for new variable hour and seasonal employees, which may not extend beyond the last day of the first calendar month beginning on or after the one-year anniversary of their start date.
◦Payroll periods: The IRS recognized the problem associated with reconciling payroll periods with the measurement period and that an adjustment may be needed at the beginning and end of the measurement period. The proposed regulations address this by permitting adjustments for cases in which the measurement period begins or ends in the middle of a payroll period.◾For payroll periods that are one week, two weeks, or semi-monthly in duration, an employer is permitted to treat as a measurement period a period that ends on the last day of the payroll period preceding the payroll period that includes the date that would otherwise be the last day of the measurement period, provided that the measurement period begins on the first day of the payroll period that includes the date that would otherwise be the first day of the measurement period.
◾For example, an employer using the calendar year as a measurement period could exclude the entire payroll period that included January 1 (the beginning of the year) if it included the entire payroll period that included December 31 (the end of that same calendar year), or, alternatively, could exclude the entire payroll period that included December 31 if it included the entire payroll period that included January 1.
◦Transition Relief: Employers that intend to utilize the look-back measurement method for determining fulltime status for 2014 will need to begin their measurement periods in 2013 to have corresponding stability periods for 2014. The IRS acknowledges that employers intending to adopt a 12-month measurement period, and in turn a 12-month stability period, will face time constraints in doing so. Therefore, solely for purposes of stability periods beginning in 2014, employers may adopt a transition measurement period that is shorter than 12 months but that is no less than 6 months' long and that begins no later than July 1, 2013, and ends no earlier than 90 days before the first day of the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2014 (90 days being the maximum permissible administrative period).
Anti-abuse rules: The preamble to the proposed rule notes: "The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware of various structures being considered under which employers might use temporary staffing agencies (or other staffing agencies) purporting to be the common law employer to evade application of section 4980H." The agency states that final rules are anticipated to include anti-abuse rules to address such situations. For example, "if an individual performs services as an employee of an employer, and also performs the same or similar services for that employer in the individual's purported employment at a temporary staffing agency or other staffing agency of which the employer is a client, then all the hours of service are attributed to the employer for purposes of applying section 4980H."
How the Play-or-Pay Penalty Is Assessed
Applicable large employers will be required to offer to their full-time employees (and their dependents) "minimal essential" health benefit coverage or pay a penalty if any full-time employee receives a federal subsidy to purchase insurance through a health exchange. This penalty will be $2,000 for each full-time employee in excess of 30 employees. Covered employers that do offer minimum essential coverage, but fail to provide minimum value (i.e., the plan's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is not at least 60% of those costs) or provide coverage deemed unaffordable (i.e., the cost of coverage exceeds 9.5% of the employee's compensation), will pay the lesser of $2,000 for each full-time employee (minus 30) or $3,000 for each full-time employee who receives a premium tax credit to enable them to purchase coverage through the future health insurance exchanges.
95 percent standard: The proposed regulations provide some unanticipated flexibility to employers. The proposed rule states that an employer will satisfy its obligation to offer "minimum essential coverage" to its full-time employees (and their dependents) if it offers such coverage to all but 5 percent of its full-time employees (provided that an employee is treated as having been offered coverage only if the employer also offers coverage to that employee's dependents, as discussed below). The rule specifically permits this failure to offer coverage to up to 5% of the full-time employees to be intentional (although employers need to be cautious that the failure does not run afoul of an employee nondiscrimination prohibition). An employer with fewer than 100 full-time employees can exclude as many as 5 individual full-time employees under this rule, even though that would be more than 5%.
Dependent coverage: The proposed regulations provide that employers must offer "minimum essential coverage" to full-time employees and their "dependents" to avoid paying a penalty. The proposed regulations define an employee's dependents as a child (as defined in IRC section 151(f)(1)) who is under 26 years of age. The term "dependent" does not include an employee's spouse. Thus, the proposed regulations recognize the growing trend among employers not to extend coverage to spouses, particularly those who can access coverage from their own employers. For those employers who do not currently provide dependent coverage, the IRS acknowledges that expanding their health plans to add dependent coverage will require substantial revisions to their plans and to their procedures for administration of the plans. To provide employers sufficient time to implement these changes, the IRS is providing transition relief with respect to dependent coverage for plan years that begin in 2014. Accordingly, any employer that takes steps during its plan year that begins in 2014 toward satisfying the section 4980H provisions relating to the offering of coverage to full-time employees' dependents will not be liable for any assessable payment under section 4980H solely on account of a failure to offer coverage to the dependents for that plan year.
Calculation of the penalty: The penalty is calculated for each calendar month. For employers not offering minimum essential coverage, the amount of the payment for the month equals the number of full-time employees the employer employed for the month (minus up to 30) multiplied by 1/12 of $2,000. If the employer is related to other employers in the controlled group, then the 30-employee exclusion is allocated ratably (based on each employer's number of full-time employees) among all the related employers. The payment for the calendar year is the sum of the monthly payments computed for each month for which coverage was not offered.
Failure to pay premium: An employer will not be subject to the penalty for an employee whose coverage under the plan is terminated during the coverage period solely due to the employee's failure to make a timely payment of the employee portion of the premium.
Affordability safe harbor: Employers may take advantage of one of three safe harbors to determine whether the plan they offer is affordable."◦An employer will not be subject to an assessable payment under section 4980H(b) with respect to a full-time employee if that employee's required contribution for the calendar year for the employer's lowest cost self-only coverage that provides minimum value during the entire calendar year (excluding COBRA or other continuation coverage) does not exceed 9.5 percent of that employee's Form W-2 wages from the employer for the calendar year. Application of this safe harbor is determined after the end of the calendar year and on an employee-by-employee basis, taking into account the Form W-2 wages and the required employee contribution for that year. For an employee who was not a full-time employee for the entire calendar year, the Form W-2 safe harbor is applied by adjusting the employee's Form W-2 wages to reflect the period when the employee was offered coverage, and then comparing those adjusted wages to the employee share of the premium during that period.
◦Employers may instead choose to use a safe harbor based on the rate of pay if it does not exceed 9.5 percent of an amount equal to 130 hours multiplied by the employee's hourly rate of pay as of the first day of the coverage period (generally the first day of the plan year).
◦Alternatively, employers may use a safe harbor based on the federal poverty level.
Additional Transition Rules
Fiscal year plan years: If an employer maintains a fiscal year plan as of December 27, 2012, and offers affordable, minimum value coverage to a full-time employee no later than the first day of the 2014 plan year, no section 4980H penalty will be due with respect to that employee for the period prior to the first day of the 2014 plan year. The relief applies with respect to employees of the applicable large employer member (whenever hired) who would be eligible for coverage, as of the first day of the first fiscal year of that plan that begins in 2014 (the 2014 plan year) under the eligibility terms of the plan as in effect on December 27, 2012.
Multiemployer plans: Employers participating in multiemployer plans face unique considerations that the proposed rule does not address. Although the IRS provides a transition rule intended to provide an administratively feasible means for employers that contribute to multiemployer plans to comply with section 4980H, a number of questions and challenges remain. Under this transition rule, an applicable large employer member will not be treated as failing to offer the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage to a full-time employee (and the employee's dependents) and will not be subject to a penalty with respect to a full-time employee if: (1) the employer is required to make a contribution to a multiemployer plan with respect to the full-time employee pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement or an appropriate related participation agreement: (2) coverage under the multiemployer plan is offered to the full-time employee (and the employee's dependents); and (3) the coverage offered to the full-time employee is affordable and provides minimum value. Although this transition rule is stated as relief, it literally may turn an affordability issue into a more serious failure to offer coverage. Further clarification is sorely needed.
Comments on the proposed rule must be received by March 18, 2013. Comments may be submitted electronically through the federal eRulemaking portal or sent by mail to: CC A:LPD R (REG-138006-12), Internal Revenue Service, room 5203, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Written comments may also be hand-delivered to: CC A:LPD R (REG-138006-12), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
In addition, the IRS intends to hold a public hearing on the proposed rule on April 23, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. Suggested topics the IRS should address at this hearing must be submitted by April 3, 2013.
What This Means for Employers
The release of the long-awaited proposed rules provides a degree of much-needed clarity for employers facing the 2014 trigger of the play-or-pay penalty. However, the challenge to prepare for full implementation of ACA remains great. The proposed rules confirm the flexibility and safe harbors outlined in previous guidance. Yet, employers must contend with significant administrative burdens and make key strategic considerations in the months ahead.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)As the Affordable Care Act reaches implementation, questions remain regarding how contingent faculty will be treated when the act fully takes effect in 2014. The AFT has been in discussions with the U.S. Treasury Department on many aspects of the ACA and its definition of full time for the purpose of the employer penalty, but the department wants to hear from individuals, too.
Some colleges have jumped the gun on this unresolved issue, cutting back on the number of hours they are assigning to part-time faculty.
The Treasury Department has requested comments by March 18 this year. It is important that adjuncts, their unions, and faculty and staff colleagues communicate their experiences and concerns.
Here is information about the ACA and how you can contact the IRS.
Defining full time
Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act levies penalties against large employers (those with at least 50 employees) that do not offer affordable health coverage to their full-time employees. The law defines a full-time employee as one who works at least 30 hours per week on average. On Jan. 2, Treasury issued proposed rules regarding the determination of full-time status for the purpose of the employer penalty for failing to provide full-time employees with health coverage. Even though these are proposed rules, employers can rely on them unless final rules are issued. Note that the Affordable Care Act does not supersede collectively bargained language, including contract language on benefits eligibility or teaching load.
The AFT is weighing in
We know that some institutions are capping teaching loads for part-time and adjunct faculty in response to the the individual institutions interpretation of ACA regulations. Many of these caps assume a definition of full time for contingent faculty that does not exist in federal law or policy. Federal regulators have not determined an equivalency between credit hours taught and hours worked per week.
The rules proposed on Jan. 2 mention the situation of adjunct faculty, but do not resolve the question of how their full-time status should be determined. The proposed rules do, however, require employers to use a reasonable method for crediting hours of service for adjuncts. The rules state that it would not be a reasonable method of crediting hours
to take into account only classroom or other instruction time and not other hours that are necessary to perform the employees duties, such as class preparation time (Federal Register, p. 225). You can read the full text of the proposed rules as published in the Federal Register at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-02/pdf/2012-31269.pdf.
The AFT plans to comment again, urging Treasury to stay true to the spirit of the Affordable Care Act, which envisioned widespread access to affordable health coverage. Our comments will argue that:
1.Federal regulators should not allow the law to be used as cover for bad employer behavior. The law should not be used improperly to reduce faculty workload, and Treasury should clarify that this was not the intent of the law or regulations.
2.Colleges and universities must not be permitted to reduce contingent faculty course loads and shirk the responsibility of providing health coverage under the guise of complying with the ACA, which was intended to lead to more healthcare coverage, not less.
3.Contingent faculty members must be treated as professionals.
We would like to see guidance from federal regulators that incorporates these principles either in the rules or in other guidance directed at institutions of higher education.
Now its your turn: How to submit comments
Our case will be stronger if Treasury Department receives significant comments. To that end, we encourage individuals and local unions to submit comments on this issue. You are welcome to incorporate ideas from the paragraph above or our previous comments, or craft your own letter. Because of the diversity of situations on different campuses, it would be helpful for Treasury to receive comments from many different locals and affiliates.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Community College Of Allegheny County will cut the hours for some instructors to avoid paying for their health insurance coverage under new Affordable Care Act rules.
CCAC President Alex Johnson announced in an email to employees last week that the school would cut course loads and hours for some 200 adjunct faculty members and 200 additional employees.
The Affordable Care Act -- nicknamed Obamacare -- classifies employees who work 30 hours or more per week as full-time, and CCAC would be required under the new law to provide employer-assisted health insurance to those employees.
Instead, temporary part-time employees, such as clerical, computer, seasonal and other positions, will be limited to working 25 hours per week, and adjunct instructors will only be able to teach 10 credits per semester. Permanent part-time employees, already eligible for health care coverage, will be unaffected. The Pittsburgh-based college estimates the move will save it from spending an additional $6 million.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)A psychotic nightmare of IRS guidelines, insurance company fuckery, new cottage industries of healthcare "guidance" advisors, a never ending advancement of even more complexity and hoop jumping, and then there will be the big "consolidation, and no, there will not be Medicare for all. Do you think for one moment that the pig trough that the insurance companies will and have been feeding at will be taken away? We will have this for the rest of our lives.
The majority of comments on this thread are made by people who have insurance. Or Obama purists that will not tolerate this being rightly dumped on him. Go take your comments to a local emergency room and tout them there. I am sure the intake person would LOVE to here how you see everything being just hunky-dory.
Maybe you can talk to one of the part-timers there.
Oh and you think the surprises before 2014 are over? Think again.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)with the ACA or it NEVER would have crossed Obama's desk for a signature!
This is Republicare, Democare, Obama Care combined.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.