Employers

Penalizing Low Income Households

ObamaCare provides strong incentives for firms to avoid hiring workers from low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized insurance in the exchanges is based on household income, and firms can be penalized if one of their workers gets subsidized coverage in an exchange. Thus, firms have a strong incentive to find workers who won’t qualify for subsidized coverage, which may also lead to invasions of privacy. For instance, a restaurant might find it better to hire young waiters from upper-income neighborhoods, as opposed to low-income areas, because they would be less likely to qualify for subsidized insurance in the exchanges. ObamaCare therefore is penalizing the very households it was supposedly passed to help.


The Employer Mandate | ObamaCare Watch

"can be", "may also lead", "might find it"

Anything definitive? Or just more fear?
 
Penalizing Low Income Households

ObamaCare provides strong incentives for firms to avoid hiring workers from low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized insurance in the exchanges is based on household income, and firms can be penalized if one of their workers gets subsidized coverage in an exchange. Thus, firms have a strong incentive to find workers who won’t qualify for subsidized coverage, which may also lead to invasions of privacy. For instance, a restaurant might find it better to hire young waiters from upper-income neighborhoods, as opposed to low-income areas, because they would be less likely to qualify for subsidized insurance in the exchanges. ObamaCare therefore is penalizing the very households it was supposedly passed to help.


The Employer Mandate | ObamaCare Watch

"can be", "may also lead", "might find it"

Anything definitive? Or just more fear?

you don't have to believe me. just wait, and while you wait come up with some alternate excuses. it's what you guys are good at,, excuses.
 
Penalizing Low Income Households

ObamaCare provides strong incentives for firms to avoid hiring workers from low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized insurance in the exchanges is based on household income, and firms can be penalized if one of their workers gets subsidized coverage in an exchange. Thus, firms have a strong incentive to find workers who won’t qualify for subsidized coverage, which may also lead to invasions of privacy. For instance, a restaurant might find it better to hire young waiters from upper-income neighborhoods, as opposed to low-income areas, because they would be less likely to qualify for subsidized insurance in the exchanges. ObamaCare therefore is penalizing the very households it was supposedly passed to help.


The Employer Mandate | ObamaCare Watch

"can be", "may also lead", "might find it"

Anything definitive? Or just more fear?

you don't have to believe me. just wait, and while you wait come up with some alternate excuses. it's what you guys are good at,, excuses.

So you can't back up your opinion? Ok. You want us all to just wait it out and magically you will be proven right? Fine.

Good luck with that.
 
Penalizing Low Income Households

ObamaCare provides strong incentives for firms to avoid hiring workers from low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized insurance in the exchanges is based on household income, and firms can be penalized if one of their workers gets subsidized coverage in an exchange. Thus, firms have a strong incentive to find workers who won’t qualify for subsidized coverage, which may also lead to invasions of privacy. For instance, a restaurant might find it better to hire young waiters from upper-income neighborhoods, as opposed to low-income areas, because they would be less likely to qualify for subsidized insurance in the exchanges. ObamaCare therefore is penalizing the very households it was supposedly passed to help.


The Employer Mandate | ObamaCare Watch

"can be", "may also lead", "might find it"

Anything definitive? Or just more fear?

you don't have to believe me. just wait, and while you wait come up with some alternate excuses. it's what you guys are good at,, excuses.
fearforsale320x240.jpg
 
yep,, a 15 member death panel is in the OBAMATAX.. we'll tax ya til we kill ya.

081309_darkow.jpg

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

They'll resort to things like the rescissions that we saw earlier. Or dumping, actually dumping employer groups from the rolls. So the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes."



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]​
 
I didn't say they would lay off employees. I said they will be less apt to hire.

Actually, what you said was ...

got an answer today and I predict unemployment will skyrocket.

So you think unemployment will "skyrocket" due to companies just stopping hiring? "Skyrocket" is a poor choice of words.

Course, this doesn't change my question. What do you see in the law that leads you to believe employers will stop hiring?

Because the cost of hiring will go up.

.....ONLY if health-insurance companies welsh on their "promise" (not to increase rates; in-exchange for more participants, via the Supremos).

Another option (for consumers) would be health-insurance exchanges, to get lower/competitive-rates.....ALSO benefiting employers!!

Yeah...you "conservatives" will have to be more-directly involved in getting your insurance, in the future (and, everyone knows how you hate that thinkin'-stuff).​
 
Actually, what you said was ...



So you think unemployment will "skyrocket" due to companies just stopping hiring? "Skyrocket" is a poor choice of words.

Course, this doesn't change my question. What do you see in the law that leads you to believe employers will stop hiring?

Because the cost of hiring will go up.

Assuming this is true, and none of you are even attempting to prove it true, why would employers not pass this cost along to consumers? You say they would with tax increases. Why not with added costs? Why the difference?
 
This ruling leaves some uncertainty and business doesn't like uncertainty. The insurance companies are beaming though.

If business doesnt like uncertainty they shouldnt start a business

They will deal with uncertainty, they will grow conservative in their expansion and hiring and spending. It is what business does.

Don't we ALREADY know that??!!!

"The President keeps talking about the economy being 'bad.' Now, things don't seem bad, but let's just hold off on any new hires until we see how this pans out. And, let's hold off on all non-vital purchases, just for the time being."


 
got an answer today and I predict unemployment will skyrocket.

Those Statists on these boards that have a job? Thier chances to join the unemployment rolls just went up dramatically...or losing thier 'provided by employer' heatlhcare.

Oh. So you think employers will actually fire people?

What in the law will make that happen?

If it comes to survival of a company or closing thier doors? You BET they will offload people, or not have the benefit of a policy.
 
Obamacare has just lost a major chunk of its funding.

All those folks who were going to be forced to buy insurance now don't have to.

The Medicaid expansion has been found unconstitutional.

I'd hate to be Barry and have to tell the American people that they wll now be paying another tax to cover someone elses hc.

When you consider loads of Americans didn't want this bill I doubt they will be pleased when they are told it is now another tax.

I know I'm not.

Aw, gee......no details.

Whatta "surprise".


handjob.gif
 
Those Statists on these boards that have a job? Thier chances to join the unemployment rolls just went up dramatically...or losing thier 'provided by employer' heatlhcare.

Oh. So you think employers will actually fire people?

What in the law will make that happen?

If it comes to survival of a company or closing thier doors? You BET they will offload people, or not have the benefit of a policy.

And again ... what in the law will cause this dire decision to occur?
 
If it comes to survival of a company or closing thier doors? You BET they will offload people, or not have the benefit of a policy.

And again ... what in the law will cause this dire decision to occur?

Higher premiums Insurance Companies can charge.

No not "can charge" will charge! Talked to our insurance plan provider this morning and he disclosed the age of our employees would be impacted by the risk pool we are currently in, in short, 5%-10% increase this fall, then in 2014 the guaranteed issue portion of the law comes into effect, anyone that submits an application is covered. The annual premium is driven by risk pool claims, it is anticipated claims will skyrocket which translates to substantial individual and small business rate increases.

Most if not all insurance providers anticipated this would happen and adjusted rates over the past 12 months to soften the blow, however, after 2014 the number of claims per risk pool will dictate rates. Hold on to your hat it will be cheaper not to insure employee's and pay a fine.
 

Forum List

Back
Top