I.R.S. Bars Employers From Dumping Workers Into Health Exchanges
Source: NYTIMES
Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange with a tax-free contribution of cash to help pay premiums, but the Obama administration has squelched the idea in a new ruling. Such arrangements do not satisfy the health care law, the administration said, and employers may be subject to a tax penalty of $100 a day or $36,500 a year for each employee who goes into the individual marketplace.
The ruling this month, by the Internal Revenue Service, blocks any wholesale move by employers to dump employees into the exchanges.
Under a central provision of the health care law, larger employers are required to offer health coverage to full-time workers, or else the employers may be subject to penalties.
Many employers some that now offer coverage and some that do not had concluded that it would be cheaper to provide each employee with a lump sum of money to buy insurance on an exchange, instead of providing coverage directly.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/us/irs-bars-employers-from-dumping-workers-into-health-exchanges.html?_r=0
Drop Coverage or Cut Hours? Big Companies Grapple With Obamacare
For large retail and restaurant chains the big unknown in the year ahead is how much more they'll pay for health coverage. Employers with 50 or more workers who put in 30 hours a week will be required to provide health care coverage or pay a fine, under the Affordable Care Act, also called the ACA or Obamacare. But the details haven't been settled.
"We can't really calculate what it's going to be like," said John Mackey, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Whole Foods, an outspoken critic of the Obama health reform law.
His grocery chain already offers health care to workers at the 30-hour threshold. But he said the company may be forced to reconsider its full-time staffing levels, if the final employer mandate rules still being crafted by the Obama administration require companies to offer costly benefit options.
"Say we're paying $3,200 a year for insurance for somebody, and the new regulations cost us $5,000 to insure somebody. If they work fewer hours, we just saved $5,000 per person," because there is no mandate to provide coverage for part-time workers, he explained.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100456557
TexasTowelie
(112,370 posts)Is it relevant to the article that you posted from the New York Times which is more recent?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)the more pressure there will be for a single payer system.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)the revolution. The new meme (by BOGers) is that SP is "anti-capitalism". The Turd Way has completely morphed into the Republican Party
bhikkhu
(10,722 posts)but I somehow missed the part in the orientation video (new job in March) where I had a thirty day window to sign up for the company plan and now have to wait until November. Its not all that bad as I confirmed that we can stay on the state plan, probably, but it would have been nice. Its a busy job and everyone (myself included) is very busy working, but no one said a word about the deadline, and I wasn't even able to find the company benefits website where I could have signed up until 3 months in...
TexasTowelie
(112,370 posts)couldn't process any additional information. Keeping up with health insurance changes is a minefield even when you know what you are doing (I have over 20 years of experience in insurance). For those that are novices it is easy to make costly mistakes.
bhikkhu
(10,722 posts)the first month was blur of work and learning things - processing overload. We had a benefits meeting last week where I ask how to sign up and found out I'd missed the window, and was supposed to have known all about it. Oh well...
One thing was interesting though - they said that for the first time in years there was no increase in healthcare costs; the plan's 2013-2014 costs were going to stay to same. They do it on about a 50/50 split between company contribution and employee, and the options are a "silver" plan and a "gold" plan. Neither of them are going up in cost, though they had to improve the coverage of the lesser plan to comply with the new ACA regs. It will cost me $74 a month for myself (+ more to include the kids) when I enroll in November, which is a great deal.
TexasTowelie
(112,370 posts)I'll see if I can find that thread. Pretty much what it boiled down to was that unless a single person expected their medical expenses to fall into a tight range from about $12K to $19K it made more sense to pay the lower premium costs associated with the bronze plan. I suspect that you will find the same applies for your family situation so off the top of my head I would advise going with the silver plan.
The difference by choosing the silver level compared to the bronze level amounted to about $900/year if the medical expenses fell within the $12K-$19K range; otherwise it didn't matter whether the expenses were either below or above that range. Considering that most people can't anticipate their annual medical budget accurately and that an emergency would cause the expenses to surpass the annual deductible, it made more sense to go with the lower priced plan and keep the difference in premiums in a savings account as self-insurance. Within a 2-3 year span the individual would save enough money with the lower premium to offset the price difference if one year actually fell within that range. The additional savings between the two plan levels could then be diverted to other causes such as a vacation fund or an education fund.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)calimary
(81,440 posts)to calculate and otherwise figure out ways to get around paying for their employees. In terms of time, energy, resources, and lawyers' meetings.
In much the same way I wonder how much is spent by the pharmaceutical industry - selling their new meds and therapies ("Ask your doctor if such-n-such drug is right for You!!!" that could be redirected toward lowering drug prices, or making medications available to seniors or veterans for even lower prices?
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)expect to see even more people get their hours cut.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Massacure
(7,525 posts)I gladly would have taken my former employer's subsidy and ran with it to the exchange for a plan with richer benefits had I had been given the option.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)at putting the burden on working people, will continue to appear. Everyone at my place of employment got absolutely clobbered. The administration is basically telling us, "Sorry - yo're paying the entire thing now. Go find another job if you don't like it".
At least our $10,000 out-of-pockets are going to a good cause - Priority Health's shareholders