How will Obamacare affect those who already have good coverage?

[Ann.without.an.e]

I just don't understand obamacare :( It really doesn't make sense to me.

 

We have good health insurance that is paid largely by dh's company. Will Obamacare change our rates or what is covered? We have great benefits but not high wages. Will it force us into government healthcare? We can't afford the insurance rate hikes I am hearing about but we already have good coverage so I am confused if it even applies to us?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You should not experience many, if any, changes. Your rates will likely increase, which would have happened with or without the ACA.

[Butter]

I don't claim to know everything. I'm not sure anyone does. I don't think Obamacare will change what is covered other than adding things (like well visits or birth control pills if they weren't already covered). Rates, however, it does sound like they are going up. All the analyses say they are. Whether that will be faster than they were previously, I don't know. It should not force you into government insurance *unless* your husband's employer changes how they cover people. Some companies are changing to only offering employee coverage (no families). Some are taking to penalty and dropping coverage all together. I think those are more the exceptions than the rules, though. From what I understand government insurance would be from a variety of insurances that you can buy, not coverage directly from the government like Medicare and Medicaid.

[Georgiana Daniels]

We had great coverage too--HAD. At this point, our premiums stayed relatively the same (hubby's company absorbed most of the increase) but our deductibles went WAY UP and our coverage went DOWN.

 

Sad.

[nmoira]

It depends. We're currently covered under a "Cadillac" plan, which might mean a relatively small scaling back of benefits in a couple years when the Cadillac plan tax kicks in (applied only to premiums over a certain threshold, not the entire premium). In our case, it's likely a slight tweaking will take care of the problem.

 

FWIW, having moved here from Canada, a "Cadillac" plan still drives like a Yugo.

[LisaKinVA]

I think you have to separate impacts (unintended consequences) from policy. If you have a "Cadillac" policy (high-end), you may be taxed on the benefits. There are items mandated for coverage...if your policy already covers them, you may or may not see an increase in your premiums (that may, or may not, be an unintended consequence...our rates went up, but it cannot be directly attributed to Obamacare). If you are part of the group that makes too much money for subsidized health care, but required changes to health care makes it more costly for your company to insure its employees rather than pay the fine for not offering coverage, you will be in the big pool of people without affordable health insurance coverage (unintended consequences of the policy). All you can really do is ask.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Another sad thing--not for people who are already covered, though--is that fewer companies are hiring full time employees. That way they don't have to offer coverage. My adult child and her husband have three part time jobs between them (one of them as an asst mgr) because no one except gov't jobs are hiring for full time/benefits eligible.

[Forgiven]

All I know is that it has been bad for us already! I work full time, so I have coverage through my work. We had excellent--the best--health care (I work for an Insurance brokerage). As soon as Obamacare was passed, we started getting emails about the changes that we'll see in our healthcare. Because of Obamacare, our company insurance will not cover certain things now. We now will have to rely on Obamacare for certain things. It's horrible.

[magnificent_baby]

I think everyone's coverage will increase dramatically in the next few years. The way our homeowner's insurance agent explained (she sells health, too), is that there will be equal coverage for everyone beginning in 2014 (IIRC). For example, a 50 year old single male will have to have maternity coverage on his policy, apparently so no one is left out. :scared: This will increase his rate and employer cost as well.

Also, because no one can be denied, I think insurance companies will be going broke. IMO, I think it's all a part of a bigger plan for government run healthcare. 

[iquilt]

We are business owners and buy our own insurance. We are already paying more with fewer benefits and this trend will continue into 2014.

[Momof3littles]

I'm pretty much a progressive democrat, fwiw, and I'm realizing we're probably about to get slammed.

 

DH's employer is a small business. THey would fund DH's insurance fully, but to add on our family it is 12k yr. As a result, we've been purchasing on the private market the last few yrs. We have a higher deductible plan that works well for us, and we pair it with an HSA. We've been quite happy with that combination overall. However, our plan can't be grandfathered in as we joined after March 2010. As a result, our plan will now have to cover maternity, mental health, etc. We currently have a maternity coverage exclusion. I suspect that our rates will jump sharply as a result of those changes. I understand why those protections were written in, but they are going to probably make our higher ded. plan out of compliance, and no longer an option.

We make just a bit more than 400% of the fed. poverty level for a family of 5, and as a result, we won't be eligible for subsidies.

It sounds like the small business exchanges may end up pricier than originally thought. Some younger, healthier small businesses are opting to self insure, and some are speculating this could make the small business pool skew older and sicker. As a result, I've seen estimates that the premiums in the small business exchange may be 25% higher than initially thought.

We are very fortunate that DH works for an otherwise amazing company. They are thriving, even in this economy. But I don't know what we'll do to close the gap, because we're looking at a doubling or tripling of our premium, from what I can tell. And I don't think we'll be able to keep our current high ded. plan with a maternity exclusion. We certainly aren't poor, but we aren't wealthy enough to easily absorb what would be equivalent to our mortgage jumping 50% per month. We're already trying to determine what we'll need to do. Downsize? Move? Pick up another job? Change jobs? Interestingly, DH could return to his previous industry, where insurance is much better. But there is an increased risk of layoffs in that industry as compared to his current job.

 

edited to add: I agree premiums have been rising for a long time, predating ACA. I know we used to have a near Cadillac plan years ago and paid almost nothing to add our family on. That same company now charges about 4k+/yr in premiums to our friends who still work there. That's been going on for almost a decade (higher deductibles, copays, etc. along with the increase in premiums. And that large company self-insures). DH's current employer had premiums for families of 11k-12K year that predated the ACA by several years. What is changing for me personally is the option to buy a higher deductible plan that excludes maternity. THat was an affordable (to us) option that fit our family's needs well. The alternatives right now are going to be sharp increases for us.

[Lady Florida.]

There is no "government health care" unless you receive Medicaid or Medicare. ACA is not government health care. It's health insurance reform. Others have already answered your question, but no one addressed the fact that ACA isn't actually health care or insurance.

[Violet Crown]

I can't say this is due to the ACA, but we are fighting a substantial denied claim by our previously satisfactory insurance. The medical people involved are outraged at the denial and encouraging us to keep fighting. I'm hearing a lot of similar stories lately. What's the use of paying for good insurance if they won't pay claims? As I say, the ACA may not be to blame, but it's an obvious move for insurance companies that are feeling squeezed.

 

ETA: I'm not anti-ACA, except insofar as it seems like a stupid half-way alternative to a sane single-payer system. This experience is only hardening my views.

[beaners]

I mentioned this on a different thread, but my husband's employer is cutting insurance for ALL hourly employees. Their current coverage ends in September because the plan doesn't meet parts of the law. The company hasn't yet decided if they can afford to provide a different plan or if it will be cheaper to pay the fines. That's on top of the company plans to hire more part-time and fewer full-time employees.

[gardenmom5]

my dh is an agent. in WA state - rates are going up for *everyone*. (expect more of that after stating that insurance companies can't charge smokers more - even though they cost more in payouts.) already it has decreased when children can be enrolled in policies. It used to be totally open enrollment, now there are six week periods two or three times per year and that is it. same for some medicare policies.

[SKL]

Full disclosure: there is much more I *don't* know about this law than what I *do* know. That said, from what I've heard, the government will offer a low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) insurance choice. Many employers will cease providing group health insurance because the fine for non-coverage is lower than the cost of coverage. Hence even if you have good insurance through your employer now, you might lose it and have to buy into what everyone else gets. The ultimate goal is to essentially end up as a single-payer system, and this is how the trend will start.

[Mergath]

All I know is that it has been bad for us already! I work full time, so I have coverage through my work. We had excellent--the best--health care (I work for an Insurance brokerage). As soon as Obamacare was passed, we started getting emails about the changes that we'll see in our healthcare. Because of Obamacare, our company insurance will not cover certain things now. We now will have to rely on Obamacare for certain things. It's horrible.

 

I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the emails. As Kathy said, "Obamacare" isn't an insurance plan. It's legislation. You can't have it cover anything.

[Momof3littles]

If you are curious, you can check here http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html to see if subsidies are even an option for you. If you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level, there aren't subsidies available.

 

Vermont is one of the first states to list the cost of coverage in their marketplace, and if you don't qualify for subsidies, IMO it isn't all that affordable. I suspect that will be the case for many states.

 

We aren't wealthy, but without subsidies, we're looking at paying 2-3x what we currently pay for a higher deductible plan paired with an HSA. That plan won't be affordable (most likely, IMO) once they have to cover mental health, pregnancy, no pre-existing condition exclusion, etc.

[StephanieZ]

Well, so far, for us, as small business employers who have always provided strong insurance for our staff and ourselves . . .

 

Our premiums have stabilized. Last year, for the first time in the history of our business ownership, rates stayed the same, and we didn't have to shop insurance. This year, they went up about 5-8% for identical coverage, which was the best we've faced other than the no increase last year.

 

One year, at the end of 2011, we got free insurance for a month and a half at the end of the year due to the rebate rules for health expenditures! The business didn't have to pay, and we passed the savings proportionately to our staff, so we all got a premium holiday for about six weeks!

 

Wellness care no longer has a deductible or copay, and more wellness services are covered without copay or deductible. So, mammograms, vaccine visits, etc are zero cost to us.

 

Due to the small business credits, the fed govt is giving us a tax credit that works out to about a quarter to a third of our costs for the staff insurance (not our family cost, though) so, when rates went up some this year, we ate it instead of passing it on to our staff. We used to allocate $225 per staff member per month in our budget, but now we are ok with spending more since the govt is picking up the tab.

 

I don't know what will change when the exchanges roll out. As a small business owner, I am ecstatic to know we will have a reasonable option no matter what. Before now, I have always known that if anyone of our group got seriously chronically ill with cancer, etc, we might well lose our entire policy since the insurance rates would likely go up to a level that a completely unaffordable for our small business. Our ability to get affordable and decent coverage has always hinged on our young, healthy staff. Now, we have more confidence in our ability to keep coverage.

[Momof3littles]

deleted duplicate post

[Momof3littles]

Well, so far, for us, as small business employers who have always provided strong insurance for our staff and ourselves . . .

 

Our premiums have stabilized. Last year, for the first time in the history of our business ownership, rates stayed the same, and we didn't have to shop insurance. This year, they went up about 5-8% for identical coverage, which was the best we've faced other than the no increase last year.

 

One year, at the end of 2011, we got free insurance for a month and a half at the end of the year due to the rebate rules for health expenditures! The business didn't have to pay, and we passed the savings proportionately to our staff, so we all got a premium holiday for about six weeks!

 

Wellness care no longer has a deductible or copay, and more wellness services are covered without copy or deductible. So, mammograms, vaccine visits, etc are zero cost to us.

 

Due to the small business credits, the fed govt is giving us a tax credit that works out to about a quarter to a third of our costs for the staff insurance (not our family cost, though) so, when rates went up some this year, we ate it instead of passing it on to our staff. We used to allocate $225 per staff member per month in our budget, but now we are ok with spending more since the govt is picking up the tab.

 

I don't know what will change when the exchanges roll out. As a small business owner, I am ecstatic to know we will have a reasonable option no matter what. Before now, I have always known that if anyone of our group got seriously chronically ill with cancer, etc, we might well lose our entire policy since the insurance rates would likely go up to a level that a completely unaffordable for our small business. Our ability to get affordable and decent coverage has always hinged on our young, healthy staff. Now, we have more confidence in our ability to keep coverage.

 

THat is encouraging, since DH works for a small business. The company he works for won't benefit from the tax credits from what I'm reading because they are just under 50 employees. It sounds like the credits are only for companies with fewer than 25 employees, but i'm not sure about that?

 

Are you concerned about the trend toward some small businesses choosing to self insure if they perceive their workforce to be younger and healthier? I've read that that trend could possibly drive up premiums on the SHOP exchange by 25%, but I believe that was in Forbes. I don't know how likely that is, but have read a few articles expressing that it is a concern.

[stripe]

I have had nothing but improvements as a result.

[edelweiss]

Full disclosure: there is much more I *don't* know about this law than what I *do* know. That said, from what I've heard, the government will offer a low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) insurance choice. Many employers will cease providing group health insurance because the fine for non-coverage is lower than the cost of coverage. Hence even if you have good insurance through your employer now, you might lose it and have to buy into what everyone else gets. The ultimate goal is to essentially end up as a single-payer system, and this is how the trend will start.

 

 

This is what I suspect (and fear) will happen as well.

[Annie G]

Full disclosure: there is much more I *don't* know about this law than what I *do* know. That said, from what I've heard, the government will offer a low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) insurance choice. Many employers will cease providing group health insurance because the fine for non-coverage is lower than the cost of coverage. Hence even if you have good insurance through your employer now, you might lose it and have to buy into what everyone else gets. The ultimate goal is to essentially end up as a single-payer system, and this is how the trend will start.

 

 

 

This is what we expect from dh's employer, which is a Fortune 100 company. They have already increased the premiums and raised our deductibles. Last year our family max out of pocket was $5000. This year we have to pay $6000 before the insurance company pays anything. And premiums went up more than 25%. And this is probably just the beginning...it would be WAY cheaper for his employer to just stop providing coverage and pay the penalties.

 

Some people benefit from the reform. Some come out about even. And some will be hurt. That's just how it is.

[Seasider]

You should not experience many, if any, changes. Your rates will likely increase, which would have happened with or without the ACA.

 

 

Hmmm. Since the ACA passed, dh's employee contribution has increased markedly. Our prescription drug plan copay has exploded. Our dental reimbursable items have decreased. New hires for the corporation (dh has been there 20+ years) have an entirely different pay (compensation/insurance) structure, implemented not long after passage.

 

I know that one could follow the numbers trail and declare it has nothing to do with the way the ACA operates. But it appears very clearly to be some faction - corporate or insurers - setting up some kind of hedge, kwim?

 

FWIW, I definitely believe that healthcare in America needed a drastic overhaul. I just don't think that those who already have good coverage will see little change in the cost & content of their plans under the ACA.

[StephanieZ]

 

THat is encouraging, since DH works for a small business. The company he works for won't benefit from the tax credits from what I'm reading because they are just under 50 employees. It sounds like the credits are only for companies with fewer than 25 employees, but i'm not sure about that?

 

Are you concerned about the trend toward some small businesses choosing to self insure if they perceive their workforce to be younger and healthier? I've read that that trend could possibly drive up premiums on the SHOP exchange by 25%, but I believe that was in Forbes. I don't know how likely that is, but have read a few articles expressing that it is a concern.

 

 

Yes, the credits we get are just for tiny (under 25 employees) and also low wages (avg under 25k per full timer) businesses, but they only last through 2014 anyway.

 

I don't know abut the self insure business. There are no penalites or under 50 employees employers anyway, so there is no pressure from the govt to provide insurance. If, when the exchanges roll out, our employees are most or all eligible for highly subsidized insurance from the govt, then there is a question about why would we pay $300-500/mo if the employee can buy the same coverage for $20-50. If that were the case, then we would all be better off giving the staff $100/mo raises and having them buy their own highly subsidized insurance. I have heard that suggestion from more than one insurance agents. The agents are bumming because that would cut into their sales if businesses do this. I believe this is the exact reason those credits were created, to discourage us from dropping coverage.

 

When the exchanges roll out in October, we, as small employers, will be crunching the numbers to decide what is the best choice for all of us. We have been morally committed to making sure our staff has access to insurance, and we have had the personal necessity to provide our own family's coverage, so we will be sure to do likewise in the future. If it is through a group plan, fine, or if we give raises and dump everyone on the exchanges, fine. Either way, our own family will be in the same boat as our staff, and we will chose the option that provides the best coverage as we always have. As employers, we are excited to have more good options, as we have always had very few choices because of our small size.

[Mom23Boys]

Full disclosure: there is much more I *don't* know about this law than what I *do* know. That said, from what I've heard, the government will offer a low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) insurance choice. Many employers will cease providing group health insurance because the fine for non-coverage is lower than the cost of coverage. Hence even if you have good insurance through your employer now, you might lose it and have to buy into what everyone else gets. The ultimate goal is to essentially end up as a single-payer system, and this is how the trend will start.

 

 

 

What I don't understand is why companies whose plans fit within guidelines would quit offering coverage because the fine is cheaper, when they already offered coverage that they didn't *have* too? There was no fine before, so they could have not offered it and saved money then, right?

 

I can see if they don't fit and they have to add a ton of stuff and increase the company cost then it may make more sense to not offer coverage and just pay the fine.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Hmmm. Since the ACA passed, dh's employee contribution has increased markedly. Our prescription drug plan copay has exploded. Our dental reimbursable items have decreased. New hires for the corporation (dh has been there 20+ years) have an entirely different pay (compensation/insurance) structure, implemented not long after passage.

 

I know that one could follow the numbers trail and declare it has nothing to do with the way the ACA operates. But it appears very clearly to be some faction - corporate or insurers - setting up some kind of hedge, kwim?

 

FWIW, I definitely believe that healthcare in America needed a drastic overhaul. I just don't think that those who already have good coverage will see little change in the cost & content of their plans under the ACA.

 

 

Ours increased 25% the year before the ACA was signed. New hires started receiving different compensation plans at DH's employer about 8 years ago. Our increases the past few years have been the smallest we have seen. I also don't believe any aspects of ACA affected dental at all, and any changes in dental plans would be completely unrelated.

 

Some companies and insurers are blaming any changes made now on ACA, but if you look at the history of past rate changes that seems a bit suspicious to me.

[Ann.without.an.e]

If you are curious, you can check here http://www.familiesu...guidelines.html to see if subsidies are even an option for you. If you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level, there aren't subsidies available.

 

Vermont is one of the first states to list the cost of coverage in their marketplace, and if you don't qualify for subsidies, IMO it isn't all that affordable. I suspect that will be the case for many states.

 

We aren't wealthy, but without subsidies, we're looking at paying 2-3x what we currently pay for a higher deductible plan paired with an HSA. That plan won't be affordable (most likely, IMO) once they have to cover mental health, pregnancy, no pre-existing condition exclusion, etc.

 

 

 

Please explain what you mean by subsidies? Is that a reduction in what we pay for our employer based insurance or only if we drop our employer insurance and move to the other plan?

[Seasider]

We are seeing rates and deductibles increase. Adding more time for grown children to be on the plan increases cost, since they are at the age that maternity needs will be covered - so the rate for children goes up. The rest depends on the cost structure that the company has negotiated with the providers. It appears that the insurance co is offering less coverage for more premium. The biggest change we are seeing is the addition of co-insurance to hmo type of plans...that means after the co-pay, something like 15% is paid by the employee for in-network procedures after meeting the deductible, where in the past they paid zero. This will almost double our cost, and bring us up just under the point where we can deduct it on the federal taxes. I've already found it is significantly cheaper to buy my meds without insurance than it is to use my insurance -- the co-pay is high, even for basics such as amoxicillan.

 

I don't think it is affecting hiring; most companies here have the new hourly employees on a one year temp arrangement before permanent hire. Permanent hire med bennies don't kick in until a temp waiting time for many. The cos. that experience a lot of medical fraud already inspect incoming employees daily to prevent fradulent worker's comp claims and they do background checks before hiring.

 

 

 

I didn't make that connection before! Oh yes, that will definitely increase costs, considering the possibility that there could two or more childbearing-age women covered on one insured's policy.

 

A 21st century Mr Bennet could really take a hit!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

And this is probably just the beginning...it would be WAY cheaper for his employer to just stop providing coverage and pay the penalties.

 

 

And it would have been even cheaper previously to not offer any coverage at all before the penalties existed. A fair number of employers had already been going down that path to the continuing spikes in insurance premiums.

 

And FTR I personally think the ACA is poor legislation and I would have been much happier with a Medicare for all type of plan.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

One significant issue with the cost of health insurance is that by using a employer based model, the primary consumer of the health care is not one the primary decision makers which are (generally) two for profit entities. The primary consumer then is in a situation where the amount they pay and the yearly changes can be significantly affected by non-market forces. Throw in a the reality that health care has a relatively inelastic demand curve and we develop a market which will be highly inefficient.

[Annie G]

 

 

What I don't understand is why companies whose plans fit within guidelines would quit offering coverage because the fine is cheaper, when they already offered coverage that they didn't *have* too? There was no fine before, so they could have not offered it and saved money then, right?

 

I can see if they don't fit and they have to add a ton of stuff and increase the company cost then it may make more sense to not offer coverage and just pay the fine.

 

 

 

You're right- nobody was forcing companies to provide health insurance before. But to attract good employees, many companies offered a nice benefit package. When dh gets a job offer, the benefits are always a consideration. Vacation, health care, 401K, relocation package, etc. With the recent economy, the benefit packages aren't as good as they once were- with good reason. Companies don't have to offer as much to attract good employees- most people are just grateful to have a good job.

Once Americans adjust to the idea that health care isn't a given through their job, fewer and fewer employers will bother to jump through the hoops to offer it. We grew up expecting it, but our kids won't. Once all the kinks get worked out and adjustments are made, we'll all adjust to the new system. Kind of like back when they broke up Ma Bell- we then had to BUY our own phone and be responsible for the maintenance. Now of course you think that you should buy your phone and maintain it- but back when that happened, it was an adjustment!

[Seasider]

 

 

Ours increased 25% the year before the ACA was signed. New hires started receiving different compensation plans at DH's employer about 8 years ago. Our increases the past few years have been the smallest we have seen. I also don't believe any aspects of ACA affected dental at all, and any changes in dental plans would be completely unrelated.

 

Some companies and insurers are blaming any changes made now on ACA, but if you look at the history of past rate changes that seems a bit suspicious to me.

 

 

Ha! It is definitely suspicious! To be clear, the effect I'm talking about may very well be an indirect one, with providers taking advantage of the political/economic climate to launch (further) rate increases. So, as I said, not directly trackable to ACA implementation, but certainly in reaction to it. Our changes did not occur prior to passage of the legislation, but have come down the pike at a steady stream since. Of course others may have different experiences, and of course prices would rise over time anyway, but what we've experienced is suspicious in timing and amounts to much more than "little change."

 

[Momof3littles]

Please explain what you mean by subsidies? Is that a reduction in what we pay for our employer based insurance or only if we drop our employer insurance and move to the other plan?

 

The subsidies are for individuals qualified to buy in the marketplace (aka exchange rebranded). Depending on income level, low and some middle income people qualify for a subsidy. If you make over 400% of the federal poverty line for a family size, then there is no subsidy available.

 

I believe if the employer (over 50 employees) offers insurance to the employee that is less than 9.5% of the employee's household income, he or she cannot get subsidies to buy on the public exchange. I am not clear on whether the rest of the family would be able to get subsidies or not, since the new IRS guidelines state that the 9.5% measure for affordability only applies to employee, not dependents.

[QueenCat]

It will really vary depending on your situation and what state you live in. Most people around here are doing better as far as coverage and rates with the changes that have already occurred. From what I've seen on this forum, I know some have seen increases, some have seen rates stabilize and some have seen a decrease. A lot of it depends on what you had before!

[Momof3littles]

My rates stabilized and we received some refunds and a lower deductible. But, starting in 2014 my private plan will have to cover maternity, etc. and I suspect that's when we'll get hit with a big increase.

[Mom23Boys]

 

 

You're right- nobody was forcing companies to provide health insurance before. But to attract good employees, many companies offered a nice benefit package. When dh gets a job offer, the benefits are always a consideration. Vacation, health care, 401K, relocation package, etc. With the recent economy, the benefit packages aren't as good as they once were- with good reason. Companies don't have to offer as much to attract good employees- most people are just grateful to have a good job.

Once Americans adjust to the idea that health care isn't a given through their job, fewer and fewer employers will bother to jump through the hoops to offer it. We grew up expecting it, but our kids won't. Once all the kinks get worked out and adjustments are made, we'll all adjust to the new system. Kind of like back when they broke up Ma Bell- we then had to BUY our own phone and be responsible for the maintenance. Now of course you think that you should buy your phone and maintain it- but back when that happened, it was an adjustment!

 

 

Thanks, that makes sense. The company where my DH works still offers very nice packages. Vacation, sick time, 401K and a pension plan, and great health insurance, all with good pay. It is an area that is hard to get employees. They have to pass multiple tests (throughout their career), be able to get a certain clearance level and work shift-work. All in an area that is 45 minutes away from the nearest big city (although there are several smaller ones closer) and in an area with terrible schools overall.

 

I don't see them stopping with insurance anytime soon, but I do agree as Americans adjust to the idea of not having it tied to employment, they will. I just think they will take longer than some other companies. I could be wrong, but right now it is still very much viewed as a benefit. It also benefits the company to keep their employees because they are very expensive to train and then very attractive to other companies. Not to make my DH sound more important than he is, lol, it is just a specialized area.

[Lanny]

Another sad thing--not for people who are already covered, though--is that fewer companies are hiring full time employees. That way they don't have to offer coverage. My adult child and her husband have three part time jobs between them (one of them as an asst mgr) because no one except gov't jobs are hiring for full time/benefits eligible.

 

Yes. Many employers will reduce the hours their workers work each week, from 40 hours, to 29 or 30 hours, like the company in this news article:

http://www.foxnews.c...ming-obamacare/

[Georgiana Daniels]

Yes. Many employers will reduce the hours their workers work each week, from 40 hours, to 29 or 30 hours, like the company in this news article:

http://www.foxnews.c...ming-obamacare/

 

Exactly.

 

And the sad thing is, many of these hourly workers are the exact ones that the healthcare act was supposed to help!

 

Now they're getting a double whammy--no coverage and less hours/jobs.

[Laurie4b]

We were told at work that our HR folks had been advised that premiums could go up 10-50% with a tendency to think it will be on the high end. Our workplace can afford part of that increase, but not if it's at the high end. That would leave employees with a huge hit. I am part-time there so it won't affect me. I'm covered by dh's insurance. However, there are rumblings at a lot of bigger companies around here that they may opt for the fine as cheaper than the mandated coverage. I live in a state that will not set up exchanges. I am very concerned.

[Momof3littles]

All states will have exchanges; if a state opts out then the residents will use a federally run exchange.

[duckabell]

Full disclosure: there is much more I *don't* know about this law than what I *do* know. That said, from what I've heard, the government will offer a low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) insurance choice. Many employers will cease providing group health insurance because the fine for non-coverage is lower than the cost of coverage. Hence even if you have good insurance through your employer now, you might lose it and have to buy into what everyone else gets. The ultimate goal is to essentially end up as a single-payer system, and this is how the trend will start.

 

My husband is good friends with a small business owner (around ten people) who has always tried hard to offer good coverage for his employees and treat them well. He also leans very far left. Because of the financial implications of Obamacare, he has stated he will most likely stop offering coverage. He plans to increase pay and let his employees go on the health care exchange. I think it says a lot that if he will no longer be offering his employees coverage that other small business owners will likely make a similar decision.

[delaney]

Increases in rates and not hiring full-time employees is a direct result of greed and nothing else. There is no excuse for large companies to pull that crap. The insurance companies will use any excuse to pad their pockets. We have paid less due to well care being co-pay free. We got a refund last year from the company as well. Oddly if we had true universal healthcare we wouldn't need this conversation. Ironic, right?

[Pawz4me]

Full disclosure: there is much more I *don't* know about this law than what I *do* know. That said, from what I've heard, the government will offer a low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) insurance choice. Many employers will cease providing group health insurance because the fine for non-coverage is lower than the cost of coverage. Hence even if you have good insurance through your employer now, you might lose it and have to buy into what everyone else gets. The ultimate goal is to essentially end up as a single-payer system, and this is how the trend will start.

 

 

It's been pointed on here before that this approach is totally illogical.

 

Pre-AFA, a company paid no fine for not providing health insurance. Nothing, nada, totally voluntary to offer insurance benefits. Of course most companies did provide insurance coverage in order to attract the best employees. But if they chose not to, they were not penalized by a fine.

 

Now under the AFA the same company will choose to pay a fine rather than providing that same insurance that they were voluntarily providing before? And lose the "benefit" of attracting quality employees. Why? The phrase "cutting your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind.

[StephanieZ]

 

 

What I don't understand is why companies whose plans fit within guidelines would quit offering coverage because the fine is cheaper, when they already offered coverage that they didn't *have* too? There was no fine before, so they could have not offered it and saved money then, right?

 

I can see if they don't fit and they have to add a ton of stuff and increase the company cost then it may make more sense to not offer coverage and just pay the fine.

 

I am not certain of anything, and I won't be until the plans roll out in October, but here is how I have heard it from a couple of insurance agents. . .

 

Say my business has always provided our staff insurance. We do this b/c it is the right thing to do, and also b/c we know it is hard/impossible/unaffordable for our staff to get insured if we don't do it for them. So, we do it b/c it helps us recruit/retain staff as well as being the right thing to do.

 

So, for instance, for now, I've been paying 300/mo per staff member, and they've also been paying their share of, say 100/mo. This buys them a decent policy. No choices for them, but I've chosen it, and it's decent. If I didn't do this, it is 99% sure they'd remain uninsured or go find a job that gave them insurance, b/c buying in the open market is a PITA and expensive, too. They don't have 400/mo to buy insurance, and even if I gave them that 300/mo in cash to do it, and even if it DID only cost them 400 in the open market, they only earn 2000/mo, and I know them well enough to know that they aren't going to take 400 of it and buy insurance with it. This is pretty much how today's insurance market (and for the past 10 years) has worked at OUR small business.

 

OK, so if the way the ACA market is set up makes it so that those same employees, who only earn, say 24k, can go out and buy health insurance themselves on the exchange and be highly subsidized, so they could buy that same $400 policy for $100 or less. WELL, now it is stupid for me, the employer, to kick in my $300 share. Why not keep that $300, or give my employee a raise, or do both? The gov't ends up behind, but the employee and employer end up ahead.

 

The employer penalties only apply to larger (over 50 ppl) employers, and the penalties are relatively small, anyway.

 

SO, depending on the final rates that come out in the exchanges and the complex tax rules on employer and employee (varying greatly by size of employer as well as wages of employees), it MIGHT be a better deal for everyone to simply let employees individually buy their insurance on the exchanges.

 

Personally, as a small business employer of some young and relatively un-financially-savvy folks, many of whom are barely out-of-dad's house when they start working for us, I plan to be proactively involved in helping them get good insurance whether or not we keep a business group plan or have them go it alone. If we have them go it alone, we will hire an insurance consultant to come in and meet with them as a group and individually to help them choose their insurance and to assist them with paperwork. I don't want to have uninsured folks working for us; we've BTDT, and it is heartbreaking AND bad for business. If it's hard to figure out at first, I'll make sure they get help. I see this as a big business opportunity for current health insurance agents, lol. "Health Insurance Exchange Consultant" will be a growth job market, lol.

[melmichigan]

Yes. Many employers will reduce the hours their workers work each week, from 40 hours, to 29 or 30 hours, like the company in this news article:

http://www.foxnews.c...ming-obamacare/

 

How is that going to work with this statement? "As a business owner, you also face shared responsibility if you employ the equivalent of 50 full-time employees—for example, a combination of 100 part-time employees who work 15 hours a week."

[VeritasMama]

Increases in rates and not hiring full-time employees is a direct result of greed and nothing else. There is no excuse for large companies to pull that crap. The insurance companies will use any excuse to pad their pockets. We have paid less due to well care being co-pay free. We got a refund last year from the company as well. Oddly if we had true universal healthcare we wouldn't need this conversation. Ironic, right?

 

Your blanket statement is not accurate. Our insurance premiums did not increase, my husband works for large much hated company, and they haves so far absorbed the added costs. That is not greed.

 

Small to mid sized businesses simply can not afford to absorb those types of costs. These are your neighbors, they are not acting out of greed when they raise prices or cut hours, but a need to stay in business.

 

Greed does exist, but to disparage an entire industry and therefore the people who work in insurance or emoy people is not fair or accurate. Running a business is difficult enough in this economy without being demonized for it.

 

I grew up on govt run health care, Tricare. I also lived in a town next to Canada that had an entire industry built around providing cancer treatments to Canadians. I NEVER want to be on govt run health care again, though I am aware that our system is broken, I pray we don't end up with a public only system when this thing finally crashes and burns.

[Random]

There is no "government health care" unless you receive Medicaid or Medicare. ACA is not government health care. It's health insurance reform. Others have already answered your question, but no one addressed the fact that ACA isn't actually health care or insurance.

 

Technically, you're correct. But, most people's reality has been that the ACA is a federally regulated national health insurance takeover. What's the difference? It's not health insurance, but it dictates how every health insurance policy in the country is managed.

[TranquilMind]

We had great coverage too--HAD. At this point, our premiums stayed relatively the same (hubby's company absorbed most of the increase) but our deductibles went WAY UP and our coverage went DOWN.

 

Sad.

 

 

Same boat here. Ridiculous. Massive deductibles -they call it "patient participation" (hey...I thought I was participating by paying the huge premiums in the first place!) are the wave of the future.