Obamacare: Reducing jobs to part time

[_Eric]

funny how Democrats talk about him being black ore than anyone else...hmmm

actually it is more accurate to state that he is "Mulatto".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto

but i suppose that does not carry the same political weight with Democrats...they are so proud of their little Buckwheat, how they love to parade him around.

[_Analytics]

Analytics I'm not trying to be combative, just picking your brain. What will happen with graduate students. Will they simply be required to take out more loans to pay for health insurance?

A great thing for graduate students is that they'll be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they turn 26.

If that isn't an option, it's simply a question of their income. If he is living off of student loans, he'd qualify for free insurance through expanded Medicaid. If he is making enough money (thorugh a part-time job, spouse), he might make too much to qualify for Medicaid and will qualify for some big tax credits to take the bite out of the premium.

I think graduate students will prove to be huge winners with this.

[_cinepro]

Cinepro is just spouting a right wing talking point pushed by Fox News. This is the criticism that led Cain to say as President, he wouldn't sign a bill longer than three pages.

Not only is the law explained on that website, but there are dozens of websites, books and even youtube videos devoted to explaining the law.

For the record, I haven't watched Fox News in years (I don't have cable).

My criticism is based on conversations I've had with my accountant, my business partners, and my (employment law) lawyer, as well as reading articles on the internet. The theory of the Affordable Health Care act is easy enough, but when we do the math and the cost to our company exceeds our annual profit for some years past, that's a problem.

[_Jaybear]

My criticism is based on conversations I've had with my accountant, my business partners, and my (employment law) lawyer, as well as reading articles on the internet. The theory of the Affordable Health Care act is easy enough, but when we do the math and the cost to our company exceeds our annual profit for some years past, that's a problem.

Your competitors are bound by the same law. If you can't comply with the law and offer competitive pricing, then maybe you are in the wrong business, or maybe you need to fire your accountant.

[_Analytics]

conveniently, you omit other "basics"
like
that employers with a certain amount of employees will have to offer coverage..or pay a penalty...and if any employee opts out of that coverage due to its costs then there is a penalty.

First of all, what you are talking about here isn't part of the basic conceptual elements of the law. The basic conceptual element of the law is what I described and nothing more. Second, of course I did go on to describe some of these non-basic things.

Third, if you want to talk details rather than argue about whether any given provision is "basic", let's talk details. The way you describe the penalties is inaccurate. It’s important to understand that the penalties only kick in if one of the employees who doesn’t get minimum coverage from work buys his own coverage in the individual market and gets tax credits to help pay for it. So for example, if Jaybear’s law firm were to drop its health insurance coverage, the firm probably wouldn’t have to pay a penalty, because everybody who works there makes too much money to qualify for the government subsidy.

An employer will also have to provide vouchers for specific employee income levels.

That is false. The employer may choose to give vouchers so that the employee can purchase insurance on the exchange, but they don’t have to. Providing the voucher is the same cost as providing the insurance—no extra cost for the employer. It’s just a way that can help a poorly paid employee better-afford their contribution.

AND...should an employer offer what is determined to be a "low value" coverage....yes....a penalty....

False. Large employers need to pay an assessment if they don’t offer their employees an affordable level minimum coverage. It is simply false to divide that single requirement into multiple pieces and imply the single assessment represents multiple penalties.

…provide what is deemed a 'high value" plan and a tax is imposed...

Are you talking about the excise tax on Cadillac plans? Cry me a river.

.health plan "value" will be required to be reported on every employees W-2 form.

Reported, but not taxed. Allowing employees to see the full cost of their health insurance is a bad thing how?

Larger employers have to automatically enroll employees, while currently no guidelines exist for that...just the requirement and penalty.

False. The guidelines exist and can be found here:

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr12-01.html

There is no penalty. The details of the requirement haven’t been fully worked out yet. Until they are, there is no requirement.

Flex spending, Medical spending, and Health spending accounts will be capped....this government does not trust you to control that money.

This is nothing more than lowering the limit on tax deductions and tax-advantaged plans. You are free to do whatever you want with your money.

Employers can create wellness programs that qualify for discounts....but as they are determined by the Secy of Health/Human services.

Are you suggesting that the government should provide incentives for employers to create wellness programs, but that the government shouldn’t determine what qualifies???

yep, done here...obvious that your posts are just going to be full of msnbc talking points and with little "basic" information about the actual issue.

It’s ironic that you equate factual information taken directly from official government sources as “msnbc talking points.”

[_cinepro]

Your competitors are bound by the same law. If you can't comply with the law and offer competitive pricing, then maybe you are in the wrong business, or maybe you need to fire your accountant.

I have one competitor who relies much more on independent contractors. That is certainly an option we're looking at, but obviously we can't convert our existing employees to IC's, so I would have to fire a bunch of people and replace them. Probably not what was intended when the law was enacted.

Ultimately, I suspect my employees will have to share the cost with reduced wages, along with some price increases.

[_ajax18]

but obviously we can't convert our existing employees to IC's, so I would have to fire a bunch of people and replace them.

Why wouldn't an owner just fire people then replace them with Independent Contractors? Is it just the threat of paying unemployment benefits?

Ultimately, I suspect my employees will have to share the cost with reduced wages, along with some price increases.

Will you have to raise prices more than your competitor working through independent contractors? How long can you stay in business under those circumstances?

[_Analytics]

Your competitors are bound by the same law. If you can't comply with the law and offer competitive pricing, then maybe you are in the wrong business, or maybe you need to fire your accountant.

I have one competitor who relies much more on independent contractors. That is certainly an option we're looking at, but obviously we can't convert our existing employees to IC's, so I would have to fire a bunch of people and replace them. Probably not what was intended when the law was enacted.

Ultimately, I suspect my employees will have to share the cost with reduced wages, along with some price increases.

The cost of insurance, or the cost of the assesment? Just curious.

[_Kevin Graham]

You can easily tell that subgenius hasn't even read on this subject beyond the Right Wing media's misleading attacks on it. But hardly surprising, as this is the same guy who posted that Facebook graphic about Obama receiving every vote in one Ohio county!

The tin-foil hatters are out and about.

It’s ironic that you equate factual information taken directly from official government sources as “msnbc talking points.”

LOL! Project much?

bcspace, meet your "mini-me."

[_Analytics]

but obviously we can't convert our existing employees to IC's, so I would have to fire a bunch of people and replace them.

Why wouldn't an owner just fire people then replace them with Independent Contractors? Is it just the threat of paying unemployment benefits?

Ultimately, I suspect my employees will have to share the cost with reduced wages, along with some price increases.

Will you have to raise prices more than your competitor working through independent contractors? How long can you stay in business under those circumstances?

There are a lot of moving pieces to this. Even if the competitors are "small businesses," the owners and contractors still need to pay for their own health insurance. If cinepro purchases group insurance for his employees and his competitors purchase insurance on the exchanges, then cinepro ought to get the better deal on the cost of insurance, and having employees could be a competitive advantage.

I'd suggest that if you need to raise prices by 10% in order to provide a living wage that includes health insurance to your employees, you should just go ahead and do it. If your customers balk, send them a letter explaining why. If the choice is beteween paying 10% more in order to do business with somebody who pays a living wage and offers insurance, or saving 10% by going with somebody who pays their employees less, some will go for the cheap choice, and some will go for the quality choice. Both businesses will survive.