Healthcare Coverage May Be Unaffordable for Low-Wage Workers

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
(AP) - It's called the Affordable Care Act, but President Barack Obama's health care law may turn out to be unaffordable for many low-wage workers, including employees at big chain restaurants, retail stores and hotels.

That might seem strange since the law requires medium-sized and large employers to offer "affordable" coverage or face fines.

But what's reasonable? Because of a wrinkle in the law, companies can meet their legal obligations by offering policies that would be too expensive for many low-wage workers. For the employee, it's like a mirage -- attractive but out of reach.

The company can get off the hook, say corporate consultants and policy experts, but the employee could still face a federal requirement to get health insurance.

Many are expected to remain uninsured, possibly risking fines. That's due to another provision: the law says workers with an offer of "affordable" workplace coverage aren't entitled to new tax credits for private insurance, which could be a better deal for those on the lower rungs of the middle class.

Some supporters of the law are disappointed. It smacks of today's Catch-22 insurance rules.

"Some people may not gain the benefit of affordable employer coverage," acknowledged Ron Pollack, president of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group leading efforts to get uninsured people signed up for coverage next year.

"It is an imperfection in the new law," Pollack added. "The new law is a big step in the right direction, but it is not perfect, and it will require future improvements."

Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, the 2-million-member service-sector labor union, called the provision "an avoidance opportunity" for big business. SEIU provided grass-roots support during Obama's long struggle to push the bill through Congress.

The law is complicated, but essentially companies with 50 or more full-time workers are required to offer coverage that meets certain basic standards and costs no more than 9.5 percent of an employee's income. Failure to do so means fines for the employer. (Full-time work is defined as 30 or more hours a week, on average.)

But do the math from the worker's side: For an employee making $21,000 a year, 9.5 percent of their income could mean premiums as high as $1,995 and the insurance would still be considered affordable.

Even a premium of $1,000 -- close to the current average for employee-only coverage -- could be unaffordable for someone stretching earnings in the low $20,000's.

With such a small income, "there is just not any left over for health insurance," said Shannon Demaree, head of actuarial services for the Lockton Benefit Group. "What the government is requiring employers to do isn't really something their low-paid employees want."

all of it here
Healthcare Coverage May Be Unaffordable for Low-Wage Workers

 

[Stephanie]

more wonderful news..you voted for it
link in article at site

SNIP:
Feds to Grab $130B in Fines from Employers Thanks to Obamacare

by Ben Shapiro 13 Jun 2013, 10:57 AM PDT 11 post a comment


The federal government is set to pick up $130 billion in penalties over the next decade from companies once Obamacare kicks in, according to estimates provided by the government. Those penalties will land on companies that either don’t provide employees health insurance or what the government considers to be “inadequate” health insurance.


Here’s how it works. If you’re a company with 50 or more full-time employees, and one of your employees is spotted getting a tax credit for coverage in a state-based health insurance exchange, you’ll pay $2,000 per employee past 30. In other words, if just one of your workers receives a tax credit, you’ll shell out $40,000 minimum. The fine maxes out at $140,000 for a company with 100 employees in 2014.


all of it here
Feds to Grab $130B in Fines from Employers Thanks to Obamacare

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There was never a doubt that low income workers would be subsidized via taxpayer money.
There is no way a WalMart worker (and any other low income earner) can afford health insurance without serious financial assistance..a.k.a. the rest of us pay their way.
So, once again the middle-class will get screwed.

 

[Stephanie]

one of the comments of many with this article

Feds to Grab $130B in Fines from Employers Thanks to Obamacare

KJinAZ • 2 hours ago −

There goes your next few raises, if you work for one of these places. Maybe they'll just fold up shop instead. That should do wonders for our unemployment problem...IDIOTS

another comment

There goes a lot of American's chances for full-time employment!

Exclusive - Wal-Mart's everyday hiring strategy: Add more temps
Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com...

And Wal-Mart isn't the only large employer in the U.S. that already doing this or planning on doing this. Local stores are already doing this where we live; even the managers / supervisors are only working part time at any single place.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

one of the comments of many with this article

Feds to Grab $130B in Fines from Employers Thanks to Obamacare

KJinAZ • 2 hours ago −

There goes your next few raises, if you work for one of these places. Maybe they'll just fold up shop instead. That should do wonders for our unemployment problem...IDIOTS

another comment

There goes a lot of American's chances for full-time employment!

Exclusive - Wal-Mart's everyday hiring strategy: Add more temps
Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com...

And Wal-Mart isn't the only large employer in the U.S. that already doing this or planning on doing this. Local stores are already doing this where we live; even the managers / supervisors are only working part time at any single place.

Companies everywhere are hiring temps and "seasonal" employees.
My son is working this summer at Lowes...he is working 9-10 hour days, 6 days a week while non-seasonal workers can't work over 32 hours, most not getting over 28.
Seasonal employees are not counted in Obamacare regulations.
Companies everywhere are also cutting part-timers hours and hiring more to make up the difference...again to avoid Obamacare.
Just another example of government f*cking up anything they touch.

 

[Stephanie]

well, we are told, Obama knows best...

You know that saying, you sleep with dogs you get fleas?

enjoy your fleas..

 

[Stephanie]

OBAMACARE

 

[Greenbeard]

But do the math from the worker's side: For an employee making $21,000 a year, 9.5 percent of their income could mean premiums as high as $1,995 and the insurance would still be considered affordable.

It would be considered affordable in the sense of meeting the employer's obligation under the law--the employer would not be fined. It would not be considered affordable for the individual employee, who would be exempt from the mandate penalty if they chose not to buy the company plan (and thus would be eligible to buy a catastrophic plan in the exchange if they wished). Anyone who has to pay more than 8% of their income for coverage is exempt from the mandate penalty.

The gap between the 8% and 9.5% numbers for people with offers of employer-sponsored coverage was supposed to be bridged by employee free choice vouchers. Someone above the 8% threshold (but below the 9.5% threshold at which point they get access to exchange subsidies and the employer gets fined) would get to take their employer's contribution and use it to shop for any plan of their choice in the exchange.

Thankfully that option was repealed after the GOP took back the House! Sorry, Example Employee!

The federal government is set to pick up $130 billion in penalties over the next decade from companies once Obamacare kicks in, according to estimates provided by the government. Those penalties will land on companies that either don’t provide employees health insurance or what the government considers to be “inadequate” health insurance.

If I'm reading the OP correctly, the insinuation is that the bar is set too low, allowing employers to get away with providing inadequate coverage without being fined (i.e. staying below the 9.5% threshold but still offering something their employees can't afford).

In which case the threshold should be higher and those employer penalties should be much higher than that.

Do we want stricter requirements for employers or not?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There was never a doubt that low income workers would be subsidized via taxpayer money.
There is no way a WalMart worker (and any other low income earner) can afford health insurance without serious financial assistance..a.k.a. the rest of us pay their way.
So, once again the middle-class will get screwed.

For the five thousandth time, that describes the current socialist system. Under EMTALA, you lazy bums who don't want to pay your own bills can just walk away, forcing the rest of us to pay for your care.

Companies everywhere are hiring temps and "seasonal" employees.
My son is working this summer at Lowes...he is working 9-10 hour days, 6 days a week while non-seasonal workers can't work over 32 hours, most not getting over 28.
Seasonal employees are not counted in Obamacare regulations.
Companies everywhere are also cutting part-timers hours and hiring more to make up the difference...again to avoid Obamacare.
Just another example of government f*cking up anything they touch.

This started in the early 70s. Full time employee's hours were cut so the employer wouldn't have to pay full time benefits.

It had nothing to do with ObamaCare then and doesn't now.

Will the ignorant rw's ever stop posting the WRONG information?

Nope.

 

[usmcstinger]

Many big Unions have come to realize that Obama Care will have a severe negative impact on their members.
Now, some unions upset over Obamacare - CBS News
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/24/unions-upset-with-unexpected-consequenceh Unions Turn Against ObamaCare: We Were Duped! | Independent Journal Review
Some unions now angry about health care overhaul - Yahoo! Finance

 

[longknife]

You mean that Obama's socialized medicine program is going to rely on the top 1% for $$$$$?

 

[tap4154]

Many big Unions have come to realize that Obama Care will have a severe negative impact on their members.
Now, some unions upset over Obamacare - CBS News
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/24/unions-upset-with-unexpected-consequenceh Unions Turn Against ObamaCare: We Were Duped! | Independent Journal Review
Some unions now angry about health care overhaul - Yahoo! Finance

I suspect we will have more uninsured next year as many employees are downgraded to part time and kicked off employer coverage, and as individuals like me are FORCED to upgrade to a much more comprehensive and expensive policy that WE DO NOT WANT.

Recent poll showed that 66% of those now uninsured aren't interested in enrolling in Obamacare, and IMO most young folks will just pay the fine, or avoid the fine by not having an IRS refund that it can be stolen from.

Many poor folks have family members working under the table, so won't want to apply to the IRS for subsidies, inviting scrutiny of the household income. In fact they already get free healthcare in many existing programs and community clinics, so they don't give a damn about Obamacare.

IMO the entire house of ACA cards will fall down on this inept POS WH, and I'm gonna ENJOY watching the fallout as BO's "signature accomplishment" blows up in his lying, socialist face!

 

[Greenbeard]

Many big Unions have come to realize that Obama Care will have a severe negative impact on their members.

Those unions that are complaining seem to more worried about the union itself than the members. One of your links sums it up well:

"If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?" Laszewski said. "In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer."

Union members can now get affordable, union-quality health plans without necessarily having to go through union-negotiated plans.

If securing those benefits was a major draw of that particular union, then obviously that's not good for the union. Even though it is good for the members, who now have choices instead of having to rely on the union.

 

[tap4154]

Many big Unions have come to realize that Obama Care will have a severe negative impact on their members.

Those unions that are complaining seem to more worried about the union itself than the members. One of your links sums it up well:

"If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?" Laszewski said. "In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer."

Excuse me, Mr Paid Obama Forum Shill, but that was not a union spokesman saying that. Bob Laszewski is a "health care industry consultant", putting words in the union's mouth. In other words; he's a paid shill like you, but shilling for the FAT CAT insurance companies that will benefit from the federal mandate.

Hilarious how you're spinning his already spun words LOL!

 

[Greenbeard]

Excuse me, Mr Paid Obama Forum Shill, but that was not a union spokesman saying that. Bob Laszewski is a "health care industry consultant", putting words in the union's mouth.

You need a "union spokesman" to explain to you why unions want to retain control over their members' access to health benefits?

Here's a hint: if their members can get good health plans without the union, they may not need the union.

 

[tap4154]

Excuse me, Mr Paid Obama Forum Shill, but that was not a union spokesman saying that. Bob Laszewski is a "health care industry consultant", putting words in the union's mouth.

You need a "union spokesman" to explain to you why unions want to retain control over their members' access to health benefits?

Here's a hint: if their members can get good health plans without the union, they may not need the union.

OFA doesn't teach you shills how to read?

Unions already have great HC plans, but the ACA is adding so much more mandated costs that they fear employers will just pay the fine and dump employees into the exchanges, where they will get far less coverage.

Quote:

"We're concerned that employers will be increasingly tempted to drop coverage through our plans and let our members fend for themselves on the health exchanges," said David Treanor, director of health care initiatives at the Operating Engineers union.

BTW, I'm not union, and don't want the federal or state gov't to be my "union". No reason in the World that my HC insurance choices and purchases should be controlled by ANY government entity, in America.

 

[dblack]

For the five thousandth time, that describes the current socialist system. Under EMTALA, you lazy bums who don't want to pay your own bills can just walk away, forcing the rest of us to pay for your care.

And for the five thousandth time, if the wealth redistribution inherent in EMTALA is really what gnaws at your stingy ass, then fix the fucking law. Repeal or change it to eliminate the cost shifting.

The answer to bad laws isn't more bad laws - unless of course your goal is simply to increase government power without solving anything.

 

[Political Junky]

SNIP:
(AP) - It's called the Affordable Care Act, but President Barack Obama's health care law may turn out to be unaffordable for many low-wage workers, including employees at big chain restaurants, retail stores and hotels.

That might seem strange since the law requires medium-sized and large employers to offer "affordable" coverage or face fines.

But what's reasonable? Because of a wrinkle in the law, companies can meet their legal obligations by offering policies that would be too expensive for many low-wage workers. For the employee, it's like a mirage -- attractive but out of reach.

The company can get off the hook, say corporate consultants and policy experts, but the employee could still face a federal requirement to get health insurance.

Many are expected to remain uninsured, possibly risking fines. That's due to another provision: the law says workers with an offer of "affordable" workplace coverage aren't entitled to new tax credits for private insurance, which could be a better deal for those on the lower rungs of the middle class.

Some supporters of the law are disappointed. It smacks of today's Catch-22 insurance rules.

"Some people may not gain the benefit of affordable employer coverage," acknowledged Ron Pollack, president of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group leading efforts to get uninsured people signed up for coverage next year.

"It is an imperfection in the new law," Pollack added. "The new law is a big step in the right direction, but it is not perfect, and it will require future improvements."

Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, the 2-million-member service-sector labor union, called the provision "an avoidance opportunity" for big business. SEIU provided grass-roots support during Obama's long struggle to push the bill through Congress.

The law is complicated, but essentially companies with 50 or more full-time workers are required to offer coverage that meets certain basic standards and costs no more than 9.5 percent of an employee's income. Failure to do so means fines for the employer. (Full-time work is defined as 30 or more hours a week, on average.)

But do the math from the worker's side: For an employee making $21,000 a year, 9.5 percent of their income could mean premiums as high as $1,995 and the insurance would still be considered affordable.

Even a premium of $1,000 -- close to the current average for employee-only coverage -- could be unaffordable for someone stretching earnings in the low $20,000's.

With such a small income, "there is just not any left over for health insurance," said Shannon Demaree, head of actuarial services for the Lockton Benefit Group. "What the government is requiring employers to do isn't really something their low-paid employees want."

all of it here
Healthcare Coverage May Be Unaffordable for Low-Wage Workers

How is that different from healthcare before ACA?

 

[dblack]

SNIP:
(AP) - It's called the Affordable Care Act, but President Barack Obama's health care law may turn out to be unaffordable for many low-wage workers, including employees at big chain restaurants, retail stores and hotels.

That might seem strange since the law requires medium-sized and large employers to offer "affordable" coverage or face fines.

But what's reasonable? Because of a wrinkle in the law, companies can meet their legal obligations by offering policies that would be too expensive for many low-wage workers. For the employee, it's like a mirage -- attractive but out of reach.

The company can get off the hook, say corporate consultants and policy experts, but the employee could still face a federal requirement to get health insurance.

Many are expected to remain uninsured, possibly risking fines. That's due to another provision: the law says workers with an offer of "affordable" workplace coverage aren't entitled to new tax credits for private insurance, which could be a better deal for those on the lower rungs of the middle class.

Some supporters of the law are disappointed. It smacks of today's Catch-22 insurance rules.

"Some people may not gain the benefit of affordable employer coverage," acknowledged Ron Pollack, president of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group leading efforts to get uninsured people signed up for coverage next year.

"It is an imperfection in the new law," Pollack added. "The new law is a big step in the right direction, but it is not perfect, and it will require future improvements."

Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, the 2-million-member service-sector labor union, called the provision "an avoidance opportunity" for big business. SEIU provided grass-roots support during Obama's long struggle to push the bill through Congress.

The law is complicated, but essentially companies with 50 or more full-time workers are required to offer coverage that meets certain basic standards and costs no more than 9.5 percent of an employee's income. Failure to do so means fines for the employer. (Full-time work is defined as 30 or more hours a week, on average.)

But do the math from the worker's side: For an employee making $21,000 a year, 9.5 percent of their income could mean premiums as high as $1,995 and the insurance would still be considered affordable.

Even a premium of $1,000 -- close to the current average for employee-only coverage -- could be unaffordable for someone stretching earnings in the low $20,000's.

With such a small income, "there is just not any left over for health insurance," said Shannon Demaree, head of actuarial services for the Lockton Benefit Group. "What the government is requiring employers to do isn't really something their low-paid employees want."

all of it here
Healthcare Coverage May Be Unaffordable for Low-Wage Workers

How is that different from healthcare before ACA?

It's not. The entire point of ACA was to preserve the status quo - to prevent change.

 

[daveman]

It's not. The entire point of ACA was to preserve the status quo - to prevent change.

I disagree. The point of the ACA is to crash the system entirely, thus causing people to insist the government take over healthcare.

Single-payer has been the goal all along. Completely socialized medicine, with the government making every single decision regarding your healthcare from cradle to grave.

And that is ALWAYS a failure.