Obamacare, Healthcare, etc.

[archibaldcrane]

Doesn't your employer have less incentive to cut your health insurance now than he did before Obamacare?

[Demosthenes11]

I'm not really sure how this increases the cost for businesses in any way - can someone explain that to me?

[Tyche]

If premiums go up. And if they refuse to offer it.

[Demosthenes11]

with the cap on insurer profit and the other changes, are there any studies that show an expected increase in premiums and by how much? It seems like absolute speculation and nothing more.

[archibaldcrane]

Well, there are other things to drive premium increases - requirements that insurance plans MUST cover some things they didn't used to have to cover, and adding plenty of more-expensive-to-insure pre-existing condition customers could both affect that. CBO suggested that comparing a plan to itself with the same benefits before and after would be a wash.

And yeah, if an employer of 50+ people didn't offer health insurance before, they will have to either offer it or pay a penalty - so that does increase costs for those employers.

[archibaldcrane]

Don't cry too hard for employers. If you're a big company (50+ employees is fairly sizable) and you don't offer health insurance, honestly, fuck you - and I say this as someone who doesn't get health insurance from my line of work.

[Demosthenes11]

I've honestly never heard of a company that big not providing healthcare. ffs, my company is a startup and has 4 employees counting the cofounders and we have health/dental

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Don't cry too hard for employers. If you're a big company (50+ employees is fairly sizable) and you don't offer health insurance, honestly, fuck you - and I say this as someone who doesn't get health insurance from my line of work.

Why is it the employer's job to provide you with health insurance?

[Tyche]

Digging in a bit, it looks as if the fine for employers is $2,000 per employee after the first 30 employees. So a company with 100 employees will have to pay $140,000. That's significantly less the cost of health insurance, so the businesses will save money by not offering health coverage. The employees can then hit the exchanges and possibly get cheaper insurance as well.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, because I may be completely off.

[AidenCarby]

Sure is rustled jimmies in here.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Digging in a bit, it looks as if the fine for employers is $2,000 per employee after the first 30 employees. So a company with 100 employees will have to pay $140,000. That's significantly less the cost of health insurance, so the businesses will save money by not offering health coverage. The employees can then hit the exchanges and possibly get cheaper insurance as well.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, because I may be completely off.

You're wrong b/c Obama said if you like your health insurance you get to keep it. Your post implies otherwise.

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/Al...0Provision.pdf

That's a chart created by the I think the plaintiffs. Maybe it helps.

[Tyche]

Employers Will Drop Health Plans. The ACA requires individuals to have insurance with certain mandated benefits likely costing $15,000 or more for family coverage in 2016. Economists generally agree employee benefits are a dollar-for-dollar substitute for wages. That implies the pay of a previously uninsured $30,000-a-year worker will be cut 50 percent to compensate for the cost of mandatory health insurance. Further, the only tax subsidy this worker will receive is the ability of his employer to pay the premiums with pretax dollars. That is worth about $3,000.
On the other hand, if this worker can get the same insurance through the newly created health insurance exchange, the federal government will pay a total subsidy potentially worth more than $15,000. It follows that every worker at this income level will want to work for a firm that does not offer health insurance and pays higher cash wages instead.
Thus, employers will have an incentive to drop their health plan in order to offer competitive wages. Employers with more than 50 workers who do not offer health insurance will have to pay a $2,000 fine for all but the first 30 workers — well worth the opportunity to obtain a $15,000 benefit for every employee. Many employers will organize in such a way as to take advantage of the subsidy. Low-income workers will congregate in companies that do not provide insurance; high-income employees will work for firms that do provide it. Firms that ignore these worker preferences will not be competitive.
Conclusion. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 19 million people will take advantage of subsidies in the exchanges. It assumes most individuals will continue to obtain coverage at work or through the newly expanded Medicaid program. However, former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin estimates that the number of people who will take advantage of the exchange subsidies is close to 57 million. Indeed, in a survey of its clients, the consulting firm McKinsey & Company found that at least 30 percent of companies would be better off dropping employee health coverage. The potential loss of employer health coverage is just one of the unintended consequences of the ACA.

I pulled the info from here.

[Tyche]

You're wrong b/c Obama said if you like your health insurance you get to keep it. Your post implies otherwise.

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/Al...0Provision.pdf

That's a chart created by the I think the plaintiffs.

You can't keep it if it doesn't exist (i.e. your employer stops offering it). Unless, of course, the government subsidizes it in exchanges. The government isn't going to force corporations to continue their current coverage.

[Raytheon]

Digging in a bit, it looks as if the fine for employers is $2,000 per employee after the first 30 employees. So a company with 100 employees will have to pay $140,000. That's significantly less the cost of health insurance, so the businesses will save money by not offering health coverage. The employees can then hit the exchanges and possibly get cheaper insurance as well.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, because I may be completely off.

To my knowledge that is correct.

To answer someone's question regarding why the premiums may go up: ObamaCare essentially removes the risk-based system that has been in place with the free-market model. Insurance companies/health providers now being forced to take and treat stage 4 brain cancer patients are going to be spending a shit ton of money on dying people because it's their 'right'.

The healthy will pay for the sick, those who bring home bread will feed the poor, the young will take care of the old... Nobody takes care of themselves anymore.

[kuronosan]

One question: are you a fucking retard?

I'm really hoping your comment is leaning more towards "no one will have to worry about taking care of themselves because we all take care of each other" and not "now no one needs to bother taking care of themselves because someone else will do it for them"

[Jaybar]

It's even better when a Christian implies that viewpoint. Because, you know, Christianity teaches you to help your fellow man and enemy. Err, I mean Socialism does.

[shaddix]

I have some motivation now to smoke drink and eat like shit so I get my money's worth out this someday.

[archibaldcrane]

Why is it the employer's job to provide you with health insurance?

Because if we aren't just going to do single-payer, shit works better that way.

[Kanriel]

To my knowledge that is correct.

To answer someone's question regarding why the premiums may go up: ObamaCare essentially removes the risk-based system that has been in place with the free-market model. Insurance companies/health providers now being forced to take and treat stage 4 brain cancer patients are going to be spending a shit ton of money on dying people because it's their 'right'.

The healthy will pay for the sick, those who bring home bread will feed the poor, the young will take care of the old... Nobody takes care of themselves anymore.

Pretty sure the way it works now is that the hospitals are now getting paid no matter what. And if that's happening and they're not writing off millions of dollars a year, they can lower their prices on things. Which means the vast majority of people have far cheaper coverage, which covers the people who were getting coverage but not paying.

My question is what type of enforcement is there? Is there now an ability for the hospital to make sure people do pay their bills? Can they be reported to the government and fined there for not paying?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Because if we aren't just going to do single-payer, shit works better that way.

The reasons our system is fucked up is because it's an employer based model.