Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[Unabogie]

We'll see.

When they do. can you answer the question as to who will pick up the cost? You do know most large retailers don't actually pay much into an employees health benefit? They offer an option to buy into a bulk plan. It's slightly better than market but it does not come out of the bottom line. Consumer prices will rise, do you agree?

We might see. But that's not what you said. You said they were cutting back hours NOW, 15 months in advance of a rule change that they could easily institute later. So since there's no reason to do this now, anyone actually cutting back hours NOW is either doing it for political reasons or blaming Obama for something they were going to do regardless, for other reasons.

And the number of people working those hours is very small and so would NOT affect prices.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/obamacare-employer-mandate-republican

 

[DGM]

I work for the largest online retailer in the entire world and we are hiring all of our people at 40+ (Lots of over time).

BTW: Thanks for driving jobs out of the local economy.

Did I mention I voted for taxing onlines at local/state rates? I bet you love that.

 

[Newtons Bit]

********, I work for the largest online retailer in the entire world and we are hiring all of our people at 40+ (Lots of over time.

Amazon?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I know a lot of places doing it, but as plague points out, they were going to do it anyway.

Cheaper on them. As for insurance packages - sure they will, but they'd pass increased prices on anyway for any number of reasons. You'll have to excuse me if I don't particularly care if my prices go up so that more people can have health insurance.

 

[Robrob]

You answered me twice and in neither post did you address my point. There is ZERO reason for any company to change their hiring practices now, even if they thought they wanted to in order to avoid treating their employees well. None. Zip. Nada. The rules don't kick in for 15 months, so any company claiming to be scaling back hours NOW is doing it for other reasons and lying about it in order to smear Obamacare or cover up the real reasons.
Also, there's a thing called data.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/...or-pay-obamacare-mandate-in-the-data-yet.html

So far, there's absolutely no evidence that a shift has started.

Don't use facts or logic, it will only get in the way of the fanaticism.

 

[Newtons Bit]

We might see. But that's not what you said. You said they were cutting back hours NOW, 15 months in advance of a rule change that they could easily institute later. So since there's no reason to do this now, anyone actually cutting back hours NOW is either doing it for political reasons or blaming Obama for something they were going to do regardless, for other reasons.

And the number of people working those hours is very small and so would NOT affect prices.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/obamacare-employer-mandate-republican

This is actually something that makes me scratch my head. The law states that the employers have to provide coverage on Jan1. Obama says that he'll delay it.

Does that protect the corporations in a court if they're sued by their employees?

 

[Unabogie]

This is actually something that makes me scratch my head. The law states that the employers have to provide coverage on Jan1. Obama says that he'll delay it.

Does that protect the corporations in a court if they're sued by their employees?

They'd have no standing. The way the law works is that employees who don't get coverage can go on the exchange. To make up for those costs, companies have to pay a penalty to the government. They are not compelled to offer coverage, so employees wouldn't see any difference.

 

[remirol]

Part time is not temp. This has nothing to do with the 29 hour argument.

If you had actually read the article, the first paragraph says:

"Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer, announced Monday that 35,000 part-time employees will soon be moved to full-time status, entitling them to the full healthcare benefits that were scheduled to be denied them as a result of Wal-Mart’s efforts to avoid the requirements of Obamacare."

 

[DGM]

If you had actually read the article, the first paragraph says:

"Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer, announced Monday that 35,000 part-time employees will soon be moved to full-time status, entitling them to the full healthcare benefits that were scheduled to be denied them as a result of Wal-Mart’s efforts to avoid the requirements of Obamacare."

Considering this requirement will not take effect for another year. Do you think it's more publicity or a true trend?

Back to the question at hand. Once the retailers have to pay a health benefit, who's going to pay for it? You don't think the company's going to suck it up?

 

[fdbrian]

I was given 11 choices by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 9 of them are less expensive than the plan I currently have and the other 2 are not much more. I'd be glad to post the rates of each plan if anybody wants to see them. I have them saved to jpegs.

 

[remirol]

Considering this requirement will not take effect for another year. Do you think it's more publicity or a true trend?

Back to the question at hand. Once the retailers have to pay a health benefit, who's going to pay for it? You don't think the company's going to suck it up?

I think the goalposts are all the way down the tunnel and out into the parking lot by now. But your question was already answered:

We might see. But that's not what you said. You said they were cutting back hours NOW, 15 months in advance of a rule change that they could easily institute later. So since there's no reason to do this now, anyone actually cutting back hours NOW is either doing it for political reasons or blaming Obama for something they were going to do regardless, for other reasons.

And the number of people working those hours is very small and so would NOT affect prices.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ate-republican

 

[Emily's Cat]

********, I work for the largest online retailer in the entire world and we are hiring all of our people at 40+ (Lots of over time).

Unless you can provide any evidence. However, considering I am registering and training the employees that we are bringing in, I am going to say that you're just guessing or maybe have a specific example. Broad sweeping generalizations are bogus though, and your statement is a lie in error.

ETA: Which just goes to show that it's not the ACA causing people to decrease their hours, it's the employers that are more concerned about their bottom line. I am lucky enough where I work for a company that doesn't engage in such stupid and childish behavior. It must be a real bitch to work for a company that acts like that. My wife, also, runs a tech support desk for McDonalds nationwide. They also are hiring people at full 40 hour weeks. In fact, I can't think of a place off the top of my head that ISN'T hiring at full time, at least in my area.

From what I can tell in my part of the country, the cutting of hours seems to be occurring, but seems to be most common in smaller employers. Very few large employers have done this so far. We recognize that there is a risk that they might do so, which would fundamentally affect our business model. So far, however, it has been concentrated in smaller, non-franchised businesses.

In many cases, it's a good thing for the employees - there've been a few of our groups that we've talked to directly, who decided to cut hours because it ends up being a net benefit to both of them. The employer no longer has the cost of insurance for the employees, prices on the exchange are comparable to what the employee was paying toward their employer-provided health care, and a large number of their employees are expected to qualify for subsidies - which they wouldn't be eligible for if they have employer coverage.


ETA: Fixed your post due to personal preference. It really irks me when people approach every error as a "lie". People make mistakes, people are misinformed, or misunderstand, people have erroneous beliefs. All of these can lead to false statements that are NOT lies. Lies are purposeful misinformation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You answered me twice and in neither post did you address my point. There is ZERO reason for any company to change their hiring practices now, even if they thought they wanted to in order to avoid treating their employees well. None. Zip. Nada. The rules don't kick in for 15 months, so any company claiming to be scaling back hours NOW is doing it for other reasons and lying about it in order to smear Obamacare or cover up the real reasons.

I disagree with your conclusion - companies have inertia in many cases. A smart employer would shift hiring practices to achieve that end, rather than drastically cutting the hours of current full-time employees. To do that without great upheaval and outcry takes advance planning. Even a delay of a year or so probably wouldn't halt a horse that's already running. It's the rational way to approach that objective while avoiding a PR nightmare.

Now, in my opinion, it is unlikely in most cases to be politically motivated - in other words, I think it unlikely to be some "smear Obama" plan. More likely, its simple economics. If the employees are paid minimum wage or near, then there's a high likelihood that they would qualify for a subsidy in the exchange. Having them be part time, and thus not eligible for employer-provide health benefits, allows those employees to purchase through the exchange at a rate that is likely to be lower than what they would have paid through their employer. It also simultaneously reduces the cost to the employer.

• Back in late 2010, my company explored all the options we thought might be likely actions in response to ACA. WE came up with several:
• Cutting hours to part-time (or shifting hiring)
• Reclassifying job roles
• Stopping coverage of dependents (or greatly increasing their costs to be prohibitive)
• Reducing staff to fall under the 50 employee cap
• Splitting into several subsidiary companies, each under the 50 employee cap

I think we had a few others, but I can't recall what they were.

 

[balrog666]

I disagree with your conclusion - companies have inertia in many cases. A smart employer would shift hiring practices to achieve that end, rather than drastically cutting the hours of current full-time employees. To do that without great upheaval and outcry takes advance planning. Even a delay of a year or so probably wouldn't halt a horse that's already running. It's the rational way to approach that objective while avoiding a PR nightmare.

Now, in my opinion, it is unlikely in most cases to be politically motivated - in other words, I think it unlikely to be some "smear Obama" plan. More likely, its simple economics. If the employees are paid minimum wage or near, then there's a high likelihood that they would qualify for a subsidy in the exchange. Having them be part time, and thus not eligible for employer-provide health benefits, allows those employees to purchase through the exchange at a rate that is likely to be lower than what they would have paid through their employer. It also simultaneously reduces the cost to the employer.

• Back in late 2010, my company explored all the options we thought might be likely actions in response to ACA. WE came up with several:
• Cutting hours to part-time (or shifting hiring)
• Reclassifying job roles
• Stopping coverage of dependents (or greatly increasing their costs to be prohibitive)
• Reducing staff to fall under the 50 employee cap
• Splitting into several subsidiary companies, each under the 50 employee cap

I think we had a few others, but I can't recall what they were.

A great many of these "small" companies, particularly restaurant chains and franchisees, may have several hundred employees, including waiters/waitresses who get paid less than the minimum wage. To suddenly be faced with paying thousands of dollars per employee for ObamaCare would simply wipe them out (and note that if they could just charge the customer more, they would already be doing that). The only rational response is to reduce 90% of the employees to part-time, that is to say, the non-essential and easily replaced ones; there is no other feasible solution to be had.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A great many of these "small" companies, particularly restaurant chains and franchisees, may have several hundred employees, including waiters/waitresses who get paid less than the minimum wage. To suddenly be faced with paying thousands of dollars per employee for ObamaCare would simply wipe them out (and note that if they could just charge the customer more, they would already be doing that). The only rational response is to reduce 90% of the employees to part-time, that is to say, the non-essential and easily replaced ones; there is no other feasible solution to be had.

Lame.

Did you have an actual argument based on fact?

 

[Kopji]

I liked the advice that recommended everyone take a deep breath and relax.

Larger companies are probably already offering health care that is similar to ACA and with some adjustments will easily come along with the program. To be competitive at that level (over 50 employees) you are already operating in a tougher neighborhood. You need to be attractive so that your people stay, and don't jump to your competition that is offering health care. There are tools in ACA to benefit small businesses and importantly - entrepreneurs who can start new companies without too much worry about creating custom healthcare plans. This will be good for the US - there are already stories about people who would have started their own company if they could only keep their healthcare. Those people now have more freedom to try that start-up business.

US healthcare costs have been rising for years and something needed to be done. The ACA is not perfect but I don't really think that Corporate America is going to be where most complaints come from. Large enterprises like stability and predictability in healthcare costs.

To balrog's question, a company like McDonalds typically has two parts: a corporate part and a franchise part. Corporate employees are different and probably already have healthcare. If you google McDonalds healthcare you will find that they did most of their hand waving in 2010 and now seem fairly content.

http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/corporate_careers/benefits/highlights_of_what_we_offer.html

Most employees at a local fast food franchise would be under the 50 person limit.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for large companies with poor healthcare programs. Walmart used to be one of these. They paid their employees little and sent them to Medicaid for coverage. It was ALREADY like the rest of us subsidizing their healthcare, when the company could well afford it. They changed their ways and lived through it. I think if Walmart can do it than any large (cheapo) US company could.

http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/working-at-walmart/opportunity-benefits

 

[DGM]

Are the subsidies a direct reduction in how much you pay per month or a credit against the tax you pay at the end of the year? My Google foo is weak today and I can't seem to find the answer. If it's the latter, this plan is screwed.

 

[Kestrel]

Are the subsidies a direct reduction in how much you pay per month or a credit against the tax you pay at the end of the year? My Google foo is weak today and I can't seem to find the answer. If it's the latter, this plan is screwed.

Insurance buyers are given a choice of how to take the subsidies.

1. Paid directly to the insurance company on a monthly basis. The consumer pays the remainder of the insurance premiums.

2. The consumer pays the full premium to the insurance company and gets a tax credit at the end of the year.

 

[DGM]

Insurance buyers are given a choice of how to take the subsidies.

1. Paid directly to the insurance company on a monthly basis. The consumer pays the remainder of the insurance premiums.

2. The consumer pays the full premium to the insurance company and gets a tax credit at the end of the year.

Thanks. Is there a site where this is clearly explained (including how it effects your tax filing)?

Someone also said this is added to the taxable income. In other words it will reduce your refund at the end of the year (no clue if this could be true).

Again, confusion seems to be the norm here.

 

[malicus]

Botched roll-out confirmed, apology given (BBC)

Fixable by end of November?