ObamaCare: More Part-time workers; New Normal?

[Magox]

As some of you may know, there is a stiff penalty for any business that employs over 50 people that doesn't offer health insurance to it's employees. For many businesses, this is a "game-changer", they simply cannot afford to absorb these sort of costs. So many businesses are lessening the hours from their full-time employees to part-time, you hear this not just from an anecdotal level, but now you are beginning to see some evidence that supports this in some of the more recent job numbers.

 

In the latest BLS report, Part-time employment rose this month by 441,000 as private average weekly hours fell 0.2 to 34.4 hours and average weekly earnings fell from $824.52 to $821.13 due to fewer hours worked.

 

Then of course you had Obama economic supporter Mark Zandi admit as much now you have left-leaning Jared Bernstein do so as well.

 

Jared Bernstein: Obamacare Will "Boost Number Of Jobs Higher Because Of More Part-Time Jobs"

[John Adams]

We are in the process of doing a comprehensive review of the plans we offer our employees. Among the most annoying questions that our broker (a large broker too) could not answer was "Which of these plans would be subject to the Cadillac penalty?" When he couldn't answer, we asked him to ask the insurance companies. He said that they had, and they didn't know either.

 

So here we are, a company that offers a really good health insurance plan to our 110 employees, but what we don't know is whether the plan is subject to a giant penalty. Mind you that if we have to pay the penalty, we won't:; we will just give our employees a crappier plan (and we owners will get a bunch more money, but that is not our goal).

 

Unlike Tom, I haven't read the ACA but I assume some smart guys at Blue Cross have, and they can't even decide what plans will be subject to the penalty. How opaque is this morass of legislation?

 

By the way, in the last 9 years, our health insurance costs have increased less than 10% one year (last year was 7% somehow...this coming year it will be 12%). So I'm not someone saying the private insurance system is working all that well. But I am saying that the ACA is a cluster%^&k.

Edited May 6, 2013 by John Adams

[KD in CA]

We are in the process of doing a comprehensive review of the plans we offer our employees. Among the most annoying questions that our broker (a large broker too) could not answer was "Which of these plans would be subject to the Cadillac penalty?" When he couldn't answer, we asked him to ask the insurance companies. He said that they had, and they didn't know either.

 

So here we are, a company that offers a really good health insurance plan to our 110 employees, but what we don't know is whether the plan is subject to a giant penalty. Mind you that if we have to pay the penalty, we won't:; we will just give our employees a crappier plan (and we owners will get a bunch more money, but that is not our goal).

 

Unlike Tom, I haven't read the ACA but I assume some smart guys at Blue Cross have, and they can't even decide what plans will be subject to the penalty. How opaque is this morass of legislation?

 

By the way, in the last 9 years, our health insurance costs have increased less than 10% one year (last year was 7% somehow...this coming year it will be 12%). So I'm not someone saying the private insurance system is working all that well. But I am saying that the ACA is a cluster%^&k.

I had the same experience during our last renewal -- and our rates went up over 20% after ACA passed. Brokers don't know, insurance companies don't know, and doctors sure as hell don't know.

 

Cluster!@#$ is putting it kindly. But the Kool-Aid drinkers are happy, so that's something.

Edited May 6, 2013 by KD in CT

[/dev/null]

Forward!

[Magox]

Retailers are cutting worker hours at a rate not seen in more than three decades — a sudden shift that can only be explained by the onset of ObamaCare's employer mandates.

Nonsupervisory employees logged an average 30.0 hours per week in April, the shortest retail workweek since early 2010, Labor Department data out Friday show.

Even as retail payrolls have kept rising, with rank-and-file employment up 132,000, or 1%, over the past year, aggregate hours worked have fallen 0.9% over that span.

The average retail workweek was 2% shorter in April than a year earlier, the steepest sustained decline since 1980, an IBD analysis found.

The retail workweek recovered steadily as the job market strengthened from the start of 2010 until the spring of 2012. Since then, it has been all downhill, with the apparent pace of decline accelerating in recent months.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/economy/050313-654674-retail-workweek-3-year-low-on-obamacare.htm?ref=HPLNews#ixzz2SX1AUssv

[4merper4mer]

We are in the process of doing a comprehensive review of the plans we offer our employees. Among the most annoying questions that our broker (a large broker too) could not answer was "Which of these plans would be subject to the Cadillac penalty additional contribution for having employees receive extravagant coverage while the masses suffer?" When he couldn't answer, we asked him to ask the insurance companies. He said that they had, and they didn't know either. had also not been deemed worthy by the administration of knowing how plans are defined. The reason for this is that they are evil and thus not deserving to know and should be happy when they are told whenever the administration gets around to it. As part of the streamlining offered by the ACA that notification will come in the same envelope with their fine and penalty for not complying with the fees associated with the administration's classification contained in the same envelope.So here we are, a company collection of evil capitalists that offers a really good health insurance plan an exploitative pittance to our 110 employees beholden minions but and what we don't deserve to know is whether the plan is subject to a giant fair penalty adjustment to help everyone be covered. Mind you that if we have to pay the penalty adjustment, we won't:; we will just give our employees a crappier plan (and we owners will get a bunch more money which will soon be taken away from us one way or another , but that is how not our goal will be portrayed).Unlike Tom, I haven't read the ACA but I assume some smart guys at Blue Cross have, and they can't even decide what plans will be subject to the penalty. How intentionally opaque is this morass of legislation so that the administration will have more say in implementing what is fair for years to come for the betterment of all America?By the way, in the last 9 years, our health insurance costs have increased less than 10% one year (last year was 7% somehow...this coming year it will be 12%). So I'm not someone saying the private insurance system is working all that well. But I am saying that the ACA is a cluster%^&k. Please check Subsection D, Clause 94-1-9-b.17-T-4-92 for the table detailing contributions for the use of vulgarity while describing the ACA and mail your payment by the end of the week.

I have edited your post above to clarify a few things and help you understand professor Commie Obama's new ACA. The first A is for affordable which means if you have a dollar he would like to take it. Edited May 6, 2013 by 4merper4mer

[B-Man]

MEGAN MCARDLE ON HEALTH INSURANCE: How the Oregon Study Should Change Our Thinking.

 

I think that this would tell us something different: not that health care is bad, but that

health insurance doesn’t actually improve access to necessary treatment that much

. If someone else covers the cost, it can help with the financial burden of health care. But uninsured people will mostly find a way for the most important treatments, the ones we know improve health, from stitches to control bleeding, to antibiotics, to blood pressure medication. It’s the expensive stuff on the frontier–the stuff that’s as likely to be useless, or harmful, as it is to help–that the uninsured mostly forego.

A bunch of people sarcastically asked whether I was planning to drop my health insurance. The answer is no, because my employer pays for it. But if the question is “Has this caused you to revise downward your estimate of the value of health insurance?” the answer has to obviously be yes. Anyone who answers differently is looking deep into their intestinal loops, not the Oregon study. You don’t have to revise the estimate to zero, or even a low number. But if you’d asked folks before the results dropped what we’d expect to see if insurance made people a lot healthier, they’d have said “statistically significant improvement on basic markers for the most common chronic diseases. The fact that we didn’t see that means that we should now say that health insurance, or at least Medicaid, probably doesn’t make as big a difference in health as we thought.

Certainly, this bolsters

my belief that health insurance should provide financial protection from catastrophic events, not wrap-around first-dollar coverage.

Those who used to read me on The Atlantic may recall that the McArdle Plan for Healthcare involved the government picking up the tab for any medical expenses above 15-20% of income: simple, progressive, and aimed at the actual problem we know health insurance can fix. Unfortunately, Obamacare made that sort of coverage functionally illegal.

 

Not enough opportunity for graft. Or control

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/168335/

[keepthefaith]

We just got our rates today for our upcoming annual renewal. Company of about 13 people and the renewal rate (Blue Cross) for the same coverage will increase by 51%. Our increases over the past 3 years have averaged about 25% per year. Other than everyone getting a year older, not much has changed and nobody here has had a large claim. Welcome to Obamacare people.

[John Adams]

We just got our rates today for our upcoming annual renewal. Company of about 13 people and the renewal rate (Blue Cross) for the same coverage will increase by 51%. Our increases over the past 3 years have averaged about 25% per year. Other than everyone getting a year older, not much has changed and nobody here has had a large claim. Welcome to Obamacare people.

 

ACA didn't help but it's hardly the sole problem in this morass.

[Doc]

Again, $4T (and counting), higher premiums, less coverage, more people working part-time, maybe 10M more people being covered, and doctors leaving the field in droves. What's not to love?

[DC Tom]

Again, $4T (and counting), higher premiums, less coverage, more people working part-time, maybe 10M more people being covered, and doctors leaving the field in droves. What's not to love?

 

Okay...where are we getting $4T from now? That sounds suspiciously like it was generated by the same "projected accrual accounting" method that people used to inflate Iraq War costs.

[Doc]

 

 

Okay...where are we getting $4T from now? That sounds suspiciously like it was generated by the same "projected accrual accounting" method that people used to inflate Iraq War costs.

Okay, maybe not $4T, but we'll see where it shakes out. It was almost $2T 14 months ago and that was based on estimates that are usually off. And they're talking about needing even more money to implement it.

[B-Man]

[Nanker]

http://www.mcgrathinsurance.com/node/150

 

 

"A Cadillac plan is any plan that costs more than $10,200 a year for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage, including both employee and employer contributions to flexible spending and health savings accounts, but not including vision and dental benefits. If a plan exceeds the threshold numbers by $1,000, for example, the insurer or employer would pay a $400 tax.

Towers Watson found the average cost of a family plan in 2010 was $14,988. But, given the high rate of inflation for healthcare, the price of an average plan will be far closer to the threshold by 2018. Towers Watson predicts that more than 60% of large employers’ active health plans will be subject to the tax, unless the plans are changed.

By defining Cadillac plans based on price, not on the level of benefits provided, the tax could also affect seniors, those who work in risky professions and small businesses."

Forward! And don't forget to pay your 3.8% capital gains tax to BO when you sell a capital asset, like your HOUSE!

[Gary M]

As some of you may know, there is a stiff penalty for any business that employs over 50 people that doesn't offer health insurance to it's employees. For many businesses, this is a "game-changer", they simply cannot afford to absorb these sort of costs. So many businesses are lessening the hours from their full-time employees to part-time, you hear this not just from an anecdotal level, but now you are beginning to see some evidence that supports this in some of the more recent job numbers.

 

In the latest BLS report, Part-time employment rose this month by 441,000 as private average weekly hours fell 0.2 to 34.4 hours and average weekly earnings fell from $824.52 to $821.13 due to fewer hours worked.

 

Then of course you had Obama economic supporter Mark Zandi admit as much now you have left-leaning Jared Bernstein do so as well.

 

Jared Bernstein: Obamacare Will "Boost Number Of Jobs Higher Because Of More Part-Time Jobs"

 

More part-time employees = more people just getting by = more government programs to help them.

 

ACA is a socialist success story.

[Dante]

Again, $4T (and counting), higher premiums, less coverage, more people working part-time, maybe 10M more people being covered, and doctors leaving the field in droves. What's not to love?

Obama's people themselves admit that there is going to be a major physician shortage. The number I read was 125,000 short. Their answer to this is a lot of the work qualified doctors are doing is going to be shifted to the nurses. Diluted health care for everyone!! Edited May 7, 2013 by Dante

[DC Tom]

http://www.mcgrathin...ce.com/node/150

 

 

"A Cadillac plan is any plan that costs more than $10,200 a year for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage, including both employee and employer contributions to flexible spending and health savings accounts, but not including vision and dental benefits. If a plan exceeds the threshold numbers by $1,000, for example, the insurer or employer would pay a $400 tax.

 

Towers Watson found the average cost of a family plan in 2010 was $14,988. But, given the high rate of inflation for healthcare, the price of an average plan will be far closer to the threshold by 2018. Towers Watson predicts that more than 60% of large employers’ active health plans will be subject to the tax, unless the plans are changed.

 

By defining Cadillac plans based on price, not on the level of benefits provided, the tax could also affect seniors, those who work in risky professions and small businesses."

 

Forward! And don't forget to pay your 3.8% capital gains tax to BO when you sell a capital asset, like your HOUSE!

 

 

Oh, that's brilliant. Mandate coverage for high-risk patients, but then insure the high-risk patients are taxed up the ass because you can't define "health care."

 

How does anyone support this abortion of a law?

[Doc]

Many of us feel that Obamacare was a ploy to eventually install single-payor insurance. I have a feeling however that as a result of the debacle that we're witnessing (and it hasn't even been fully implemented yet), it might end-up making it impossible to get single-payor passed in the future. Wouldn't that be ironic?

[IDBillzFan]

Many of us feel that Obamacare was a ploy to eventually install single-payor insurance. I have a feeling however that as a result of the debacle that we're witnessing (and it hasn't even been fully implemented yet), it might end-up making it impossible to get single-payor passed in the future. Wouldn't that be ironic?

 

 

Getting to single payer is likely the least of their concerns right now (and by "their" I mean the incompetent dolts who wrote and passed this thing). This law has taken out more Democrats than I would have ever imagined. One by one the idiots who voted for this law who are up for reelection in 2014 are dropping out of the mid-terms at a remarkable pace.

 

When one of the authors AND the Senate Majority Leader both consider it a "train wreck," and we're at a point where THIS is as good as Obamacare is going to get, I suspect this law is going to do more long-term harm to the Democrats than anyone ever imagined. It will likely be Obama's "signature" deal, and his legacy will forever be marked first and foremost as an incompetent product of an overly PC society.

Edited May 7, 2013 by LABillzFan

[Gary M]

Many of us feel that Obamacare was a ploy to eventually install single-payor insurance. I have a feeling however that as a result of the debacle that we're witnessing (and it hasn't even been fully implemented yet), it might end-up making it impossible to get single-payor passed in the future. Wouldn't that be ironic?

 

Obama is the king of unintended consequences.