|
Sir Tonk posted:Doe anyone this that it is actually a viable strategy for these companies to be so cynical? Don't you tend to lose the best possible employees when you restrict hours like that and end up having to spend a bunch in turnover costs? I was actually going to work for him over the summer between semesters, but at that rate it's a waste of my time. Companies can react to high turnover by streamlining the hiring and training of new employees. Most businesses that would be looking to make more people part time already have high turnover, so it's probably a negligible change for them. Essentially they always leave the "now hiring" signs up, hire most people who apply, and simplify the job to the point that most people can do it with almost no training. Alternately, they take advantage of people who can't afford to quit and don't have insurance right now anyway. When I worked in retail they changed how things operated so that no one but the store manager was full time. This included the person who balanced the books, handled the money, and did all of HR for the store. They gave her 25 hours a week to avoid the company health plan and reduce other benefits. She was old enough to not get hired elsewhere, and needed the job, so she stuck around. Locally they tried to give her a second job in the store to keep her hours up, but corporate put a stop to that eventually. It's very hard to argue that they did not know what they were doing, and were prepared for people to quit because of it.
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Part of the original numbers I believe also assumed in a sane world every state would expand Medicaid. Eh, we don't know that yet. Personally, in the coming fight between state Republicans' greed and their obstinacy, I'm betting on greed winning out every time.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:Eh, we don't know that yet. Personally, in the coming fight between state Republicans' greed and their obstinacy, I'm betting on greed winning out every time. Rick Scott is taking the cash, I'm not so sure the rest will hold out past their next reelection bid and they might be waiting for opinion to shift after the law really gets going next year. The Duke of Ben posted:
Totally agree there, but this seems like a strategy that would only work in areas like food service and very mindless low level positions where a new employee can learn everything in a few hours. Hiring a bunch of idiots somewhere like an auto parts chain has negative effect of losing of all the old-timers that knew every part for every car every produced (exaggerating a little here) and increases the time it takes to look stuff up. For example, Ford used the same oil filter on most of their V8's for at least thirty years. When the counter person doesn't know that, it increases the time they're either on the phone, or with someone in person trying to figure out what it is they need. Maybe I just look at these things differently, but I still thinks it's a bad strategy for a companies like O'Reilly and AutoZone to do something like this. The people they currently have at the counter are bad enough and it's almost entirely because of their refusal to pay a decent wage. These stores were full of shadetree mechanics through the 90's, but they're almost all gone as wages have stayed stagnant and/or gone down. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 20:10 on May 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Maybe I just look at these things differently, but I still thinks it's a bad strategy for a companies like O'Reilly and AutoZone to do something like this. The people they currently have at the counter are bad enough and it's almost entirely because of their refusal to pay a decent wage. These stores were full of shadetree mechanics through the 90's, but they're almost all gone as wages have stayed stagnant and/or gone down. Companies will adapt as trends go against them. How they adapt will depend a lot on the material circumstances of their profession. In the retail store I worked at, enough lifers with no other job prospects stayed on to allow the company to save a ton of money while delaying a real plan. Maybe they introduce a new paradigm once most of the legacy employees are off the books that is a step down from the old way, but still better than what they are offering now. Maybe an auto parts store switches to a significantly smarter computer system that allows even intrained people to find the right parts. I was in AutoZone a couple months ago looking for an obscure part to a vehicle, and they typed in the relevant information and got a bin number of where to find the item. 5 minutes after I got there, I had the part I needed, and the guy didn't need to know anything more than the average person could learn in 30 minutes.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
I just realized that the new applications don't ask for smoking status, which is kind of a big deal considering it was the only lifestyle factor upon which insurers could charge a surcharge. The surcharge isn't cheap, either: According to the AP:quote:For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 annually. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums. Here's the real kicker: Even smokers subsidized under state exchanges would have to pay the penalty; subsidies cannot be used toward the smoker's penalty. On the other hand, the Act allows individual state exchanges to charge more or less for smokers. In any case, the AP figures that older people who smoke might be priced out of insurance, especially when combined with the 3x community rating for younger people: quote:First, the law allows insurers to charge older adults up to three times as much as their youngest customers. http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/3358387-74/health-smokers-law I guess that since the penalty will be a state-based decision the question will be added to applications for particular states that adopt it. And I bet the mighty tobacco lobby will exert some muscle at the state level as the states make this decision.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Here's a question: How does the PPACA effect veterans that're on disability (low percentage) and receive free health care for life at the VA? Does this count as already having health care and negate any fines? I know Dallas asked HHS if they could opt in to the Medicaid expansion and bypass the state government. I assume that went nowhere but we can dream. Perry is an rear end clown; people in the medical industry and large counties are already giving the state lawmakers a huge earful over it; they will cave eventually - those dollars are too important to the state economy. Employers are often doing stupid counter-productive things because some bean-counter can make a budget line item go down in the spreadsheet. The fact that it actually harms the business (say by pissing off customers) is irrelevant as neither he, nor his manager, nor the CEO's golden parachute are bothered but they all get credit for "streamlining" and "reducing expenses". Reference: Wall Street and all MBAs within the past 30 years.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
I really hate to be the guy trying to defend against anecdotes, but my younger brother just posted the following on his Facebook (he's basically the #2 of a relatively successful small business in Texas):quote:To Barack Hussein Obama (and those who voted for him): I just know this poo poo is going to come up (again) next time we're all eating a meal under the same roof. I don't know anything about business expenses, I'm a research scientist... is it really possible that small businesses are being forced into this position even if they wanted to be the good guys, or is it essentially a "marginal increases to the bottom line are more important than healthy, happy employees" situation? I've read the OP but it looks like short of convincing my family that healthcare is a right and PPACA is here to stay, I've got no profitable (ha!) position from which to debate. Should I just not bother? Does he have any points that are worth agreeing with?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
You could ask him what the actual financial cost would be, and why it couldn't be offset by a change in wages since having insurance is a financial perk. You could also ask him if he plans to make himself hourly and give up insurance as well.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Veritas posted:I really hate to be the guy trying to defend against anecdotes, but my younger brother just posted the following on his Facebook (he's basically the #2 of a relatively successful small business in Texas): It's not just small businesses; the LAT has a piece today on some city workers' hours being cut back. That said, as the story also points out, most parttime workers will be eligible for Medicaid or for subsidies to purchase exchange insurance.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:It's not just small businesses; the LAT has a piece today on some city workers' hours being cut back. How much of that is legitimate financial concern or just being spiteful at now having to give full-time employees health insurance? Many of these companies hate the employer-based insurance coverage because it's quite costly and don't want to provide it for most of their employees. Yet I'm sure as heck sure they would never endorse and will actively fight against any sort of single-payer/universal system that would relieve them of that burden. I'm also very sure that if Romney were elected, replaced Obamacare with Romneycare (in essence zero differences except in name only) those Facebook posts don't exist and would instead be in praise of a REAL health care reform, It literally comes down to hatred of the President.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Veritas posted:I just know this poo poo is going to come up (again) next time we're all eating a meal under the same roof. I don't know anything about business expenses, I'm a research scientist... is it really possible that small businesses are being forced into this position even if they wanted to be the good guys, or is it essentially a "marginal increases to the bottom line are more important than healthy, happy employees" situation? I've read the OP but it looks like short of convincing my family that healthcare is a right and PPACA is here to stay, I've got no profitable (ha!) position from which to debate. Should I just not bother? Does he have any points that are worth agreeing with?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
The Angry Bum posted:How much of that is legitimate financial concern or just being spiteful at now having to give full-time employees health insurance? Many of these companies hate the employer-based insurance coverage because it's quite costly and don't want to provide it for most of their employees. Yet I'm sure as heck sure they would never endorse and will actively fight against any sort of single-payer/universal system that would relieve them of that burden. Spite mostly, or they priced insurance once back in the day, got major sticker shock, and assume they can't afford it. From the description, it sounds like they'd quality for some nice tax credits for offering health insurance and the premiums will probably be less than they assume, especially in 2015 or whenever the small business exchanges start up. The law caps the percentage of premiums that can go to profit; with so many people entering the market the premiums will have to come down. Long-term growth in costs is another issue but comparing equivalent small business rates pre and post reform I have a hard time believing they won't be much more affordable. Edit: in the long run, splitting the business (and all the extra accounting/legal stuff required to balance the books) or screwing employees (which will hurt productivity or cause your best people to go elsewhere) will cost far more than taking the credits and providing insurance, or just paying the per-employee penalty and letting them buy on the exchange. So from that perspective, it is really just a combination of pure ignorance and spite. Simulated fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Veritas posted:I really hate to be the guy trying to defend against anecdotes, but my younger brother just posted the following on his Facebook (he's basically the #2 of a relatively successful small business in Texas): You might point him to this story: Olive Garden Owner's Profits Fall After Attempt to Dodge Obamacare Backfires
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
edit: nm.
Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 14:12 on May 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You might point him to this story: Olive Garden Owner's Profits Fall After Attempt to Dodge Obamacare Backfires Someone that would write such a childish letter can't possibly be concerned about something as noble as profit. You could probably show these people a way that it could be budget-neutral and they'd still go on about socialist kenyan presidents yadda yadda and cut hours just to spite the majority of the country that supports it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Here is some more information about the sort of insurance plans you'll see when PPACA starts. California health insurance cost estimator California plan design summary, platinum/gold/silver/bronze California detailed plan design, platinum/gold/silver/bronze I'm impressed that the California Silver plans manage to slip in routine care under the $2,000 deductible. In my state, Aetna has filed to sell silver plans on the exchange, with names like Aetna Classic 5000, and gold plans like Aetna Premier 2000. The 5000 and 2000 bits almost certainly refer to the deductible. Though I'll have to wait to see what the exchange actually looks like to see what kind of coverage they offer. Dr. Gaius Baltar fucked around with this message at 09:14 on May 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
Sorry, I've been out of it lately. Got promoted recently, during an extremely busy part of our project and been swamped with trying to adjust to the new responsibilities. So I've pretty much been MIA from the forums for a while. There's been a lot of good info provided recently that I'm going to try to add to the OP soon, as well as finish cleaning it up and adding in some information I got via emails from people.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
Veritas posted:I really hate to be the guy trying to defend against anecdotes, but my younger brother just posted the following on his Facebook (he's basically the #2 of a relatively successful small business in Texas): My take on that letter is that he raises some good issues with PPACA, but I doubt we'd agree on why they're a problem. I'm in the camp with some of the other people here who think employer-based insurance is a bad idea in general. I blame it for a lot of the mentality in the US that says "health insurance is a perk for having a good job". There may have been a time that was true, but getting healthcare without health insurance isn't feasible anymore. I'd much rather see the means for paying for healthcare detached from employment. Also, it seems counter to part of what PPACA is trying to accomplish. If the goal is to drive down costs via a free market approach in which customers can pick and choose their insurance plan, why are we trying to push employers to make that choice for them? It seems like it would make more sense to get rid of employer based plans, have everyone pick from the Exchanges, subsidize everyone based on income/family size, and pay for those subsidies with progressive taxes on individuals' incomes and businesses' profits. I doubt your brother would agree with what I want, but the "criticize Obama's major achievement" pleasure response may overwhelm the "this smells like socialism" response in his brain. Who knows? Another problem his screed raises is a big problem with how Congress does all kinds of things: hard, fixed points. If you're on one side you benefit/get penalized and on the other nothing happens. This is a really stupid way to do things, but they do it all the time, especially with social benefits like TANF or the Obamacare subsidizes or business mandate penalties. If they want to penalize businesses for not providing their workers with insurance, the penalties should be assessed by total labor-hours worked in a month, not "full time employee head count". That way the penalty naturally grows or shrinks with the business, rather than creating these stupid, arbitrary limits that businesses try to stay under. I mean, why is it 50 employees instead of 60 employees? Because 50 feels nicer, it's a nice round number that's exactly half of 100, so it seems good. Its totally arbitrary, there's no research saying 50 employees is a magic number. I suspect your brother feels that the answer to this is for government to stay out of business regulation entirely, where as I take more of a view that if the government is going to interfere with business it should do so in an intelligent manner. However, all of that being said, this reads like an emotional "gently caress you" letter. There's obviously some reason the business currently hires salaried employees instead of part-timers, so they are going to take some measure of pain to switch everyone to part-time workers. Is that business cost worth the benefits of avoiding the relatively mild penalties inflicted by Obamacare? For some businesses it almost certainly is, but for others its not. But I feel pretty confident that your brother hasn't sat down to assess this decision for the company he works at. This is all about saying, "look at me, I'm smarter than Barack HUSSIEN Obama, and I'm not scared to rub it in the world's face". His point about splitting the company into smaller companies each less than 50 employees really drives this home for me. First, I'm pretty sure such a plan won't work. I seem to remember reading that the rules are that all businesses owned by the same person/partnership/legal entity get added together for determining the employee count. So the only way splitting the company would work was if the current owner was willing to let other people own parts of his business without him having any control or direct benefit. But I could be wrong, and I don't have time to track down the rules governing that at the moment. But if I am wrong it only gets dumber. Because if they can split into a bunch of sub-50 employee businesses, all of those business are exempt from the business mandate and have no reason at all to limit their employees to being part-time. Sarion fucked around with this message at 15:09 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Ender.uNF posted:I know Dallas asked HHS if they could opt in to the Medicaid expansion and bypass the state government. I assume that went nowhere but we can dream. Perry is an rear end clown; people in the medical industry and large counties are already giving the state lawmakers a huge earful over it; they will cave eventually - those dollars are too important to the state economy. Mississippi Health Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney (a dyed in the wool Republican) with remarkable foresight, had a bill passed through the Mississippi legislature making him the exclusive decision maker on whether to set up a state based exchange. He felt strongly that the federal government should not come in and tell Mississippi how to handle its healthcare. He made as much progress, and more than most, creating a healthcare marketplace that treated well the interests of the insurance companies and consumers. Ultimately, HHS decided that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant could still trash the program and denied the application. Mike Chaney felt betrayed and said the decision was political. He's right. Left alone, he would have made it work. And HHS bureaucrats sincerely tried to help him make it work. But HHS and the White House thought that Republican operatives would bypass him, get their claws into it, wreck it, and hold it up as a failure of ObamaCare. So they cut loose MississippiOne. It was the smart decision, but it doesn't feel right. So anyway, about Dallas getting their own little health care marketplace or Texas swallowing a conservative idea implemented by a democratic president: 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 02:19
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:Eh, we don't know that yet. Personally, in the coming fight between state Republicans' greed and their obstinacy, I'm betting on greed winning out every time. Don't. They'd all secretly prefer to be king of an ashpile than one of many lords in a prosperous, healthy nation. A demoralized, desperate, and impoverished electorate is much easier to kick around and manipulate. They are formally opposed to your well-being and share absolutely none of your interests. I too wish they were as selfish as they aspire to be. But they're actually intensely interested in making sure no one gets more than they're entitled to according to the GOP rubric of human worth.
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Mississippi Health Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney (a dyed in the wool Republican) with remarkable foresight, had a bill passed through the Mississippi legislature making him the exclusive decision maker on whether to set up a state based exchange. He felt strongly that the federal government should not come in and tell Mississippi how to handle its healthcare. He made as much progress, and more than most, creating a healthcare marketplace that treated well the interests of the insurance companies and consumers. Oh I knew the Dallas marketplace idea wouldn't fly, but healthcare is a major industry here and there will be millions upon millions of dollars spent on local races to make sure it gets approved. The wheels are already starting to get greased and the lobbying has begun, but it may take a few years. For the actual Texas legislators, it will be a purely greed or self-preservation issue. The framing will be switched after the law takes effect and the whole thing will be "we are leaving money on the table", especially if Democrats can retain the presidency and/or senate (meaning zero chance of repeal). Plus look for some angry backlash once people actually see people in other states getting healthcare while they get squat so Perry can up his conservative street cred.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Regulations Is there a list of the grandfathered plans? I'm on a State Health Plan with BCBS and they won't cover preventative healthcare unless you are obese, have diabetes or a heart condition. Or are a minor dependent.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Ender.uNF posted:I know Dallas asked HHS if they could opt in to the Medicaid expansion and bypass the state government. I assume that went nowhere but we can dream. Unfortunately, it probably did go nowhere. As Medicaid is a joint Federal-State program, I don't think the Federal government could legally expand Medicaid in just Dallas without Congress making a change to Medicaid via legislation. But I could be wrong, so if you find out any more about where this went I would be interested to know about it. LeeMajors posted:Is there a list of the grandfathered plans? I'm on a State Health Plan with BCBS and they won't cover preventative healthcare unless you are obese, have diabetes or a heart condition. Or are a minor dependent. I couldn't find a list, but here's a document put out by the DHHS about Grandfathered plans: http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/are_you_in_a_grandfathered_health_plan_04072011.pdf It sounds like you are on a grandfathered plan; but they're required to disclose it in the plan materials they provide. So if you have a copy of the materials that sent out last year, or if you can pull up a copy online, or get a copy from work, it should say in them that they are grandfathered.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Is there a list of the grandfathered plans? I'm on a State Health Plan with BCBS and they won't cover preventative healthcare unless you are obese, have diabetes or a heart condition. Or are a minor dependent. I am fairly sure that the policy docs show that it's a 'grandfathered' plan, usually up near the top. This was the case with my old BCBS-Nebraska plan before we switched over to BCBS-California this year. I'm still in Nebraska, but my insurance card clearly shows BCBS California on the back. Is this one of the PPACA changes? Or have companies always been able to cover employees under group plans issued in the HQ state, even if the employees aren't?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Found this thing on how PPACA will effect vets, if anyone is interested: http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill97.pdf quote:Meets the individual responsibility requirement. Well that's awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Found this thing on how PPACA will effect vets, if anyone is interested: Thanks. I think someone asked about this earlier and I forgot to answer them. And I've added that link to the OP along with a bunch of the other links people have posted here recently. Such as Willa's post with the application forms, and Dr. Gaius Baltar's links to California's plan definitions/calculator. Also, I have a better understanding of how the minimum requirements of coverage are determined now, so when I get a chance I'll improve that section of the OP and include links to the California plans there to use as examples of what people can expect.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
I'm a broke grad student with a lovely high deductible plan through Anthem. I am well below the poverty level needed for Medicaid, but right now I cannot apply due to college students being banned from Medicaid. My state is expanding Medicaid coverage. Will I be able to get Medicaid next year? Or am I screwed for 1) Being a student and 2) Already having health insurance?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:For very small hospitals that are the only one around in rural areas, they don't have to worry because they get higher reimbursement rates since (the reasoning goes) it would be really lovely if the only hospital in an area closed. IIRC this is supposed to change in 2014. It was supposed to happen this year but was pushed back after complaints by small/rural hospitals but in 2014 smaller rural-ish hospitals will get reimbursed less than they used to by Medicare. Not sure about Medicaid but that doesn't really matter. Little to no money is made for hospitals off of Medicaid patients. What you'll likely see are more "health plazas" (think glorified medical strip mall with little to no critical care services, no overnight beds, and no ER and will also have more typical business hours as well) to service the rural or small areas. They'll likely be owned or partnered with a hospital and/or 3rd party EMT service and refer patients to the big facilities for surgeries and specialty care. This is because smaller hospitals aren't really cost effective anymore, they usually aren't ran very well, and much of their patient population is on Medicaid since they're too poor to afford regular health insurance. Even now BTW many are barely hanging on. I'd expect you to see lots of them going under in the next couple of years. AFAIK being a non-profit does help but usually amounts to the hospital getting to avoid paying most or nearly all of their taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
Avalanche posted:I'm a broke grad student with a lovely high deductible plan through Anthem. I am well below the poverty level needed for Medicaid, but right now I cannot apply due to college students being banned from Medicaid. My state is expanding Medicaid coverage. Will I be able to get Medicaid next year? Or am I screwed for 1) Being a student and 2) Already having health insurance? Under the new expanded Medicaid rules, the only thing that matters is income level. If you make less than 135% FPL, you can get medicaid. No more rules about students or requiring women to be pregnant or any of that crap. You're poor, you qualify.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
What about college-aged dependents; does that influence whether the student is covered under parental plans or eligible for independent coverage? edit: Age 26 and under, I mean.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What about college-aged dependents; does that influence whether the student is covered under parental plans or eligible for independent coverage? Do you mean, if you're under 26 and could be on your parents' plan, are you disqualified from Medicaid under the new expansion? I am pretty sure the answer is that it doesn't matter, but it might be worth double checking. Edit: I've looked around and can't find anything definite either way. Everything I find says the only factor is income (133%, not 135%, oops), nothing mentions any exceptions to this. Also, everything I've read makes it sound like you can stay on your parents' plan if you wish, but nothing says you have to use it. If you want to use Medicaid, employer-provided insurance, or buy it on the Exchanges with a subsidy you can. At least that's what I've been led to believe. If anyone can find something that spells this out either way it would be good to have since I suspect a fair number of the people on SA fall into the "adults under 26" category. PC LOAD LETTER posted:IIRC this is supposed to change in 2014. It was supposed to happen this year but was pushed back after complaints by small/rural hospitals but in 2014 smaller rural-ish hospitals will get reimbursed less than they used to by Medicare. Not sure about Medicaid but that doesn't really matter. Little to no money is made for hospitals off of Medicaid patients. Rural health care is a big problem, I think it is in all (large) countries, too. Of course it's made that much worse by America's for-profit-private-insurance system. Unfortunately it's an area that I think didn't get enough attention in PPACA; though there are some improvements in there. In any case, the things you touched on that I wanted to add to were the reduced payments and medicaid payments. I assume you're referring to the Disproportionate Share Hospital bonus currently paid to hospitals that see above average numbers of Medicare (and Medicaid?) patients. Under PPACA this bonus money paid to these hospitals will continue to increase year to year, it's just set to be a smaller increase than it used to be. So they shouldn't actually be getting paid less than they are now. And for this year and next, Medicaid payments have been increased to match Medicare payments. And I hope, but for now it's all hope, that Congress will feel compelled to extend the Medicaid payment increase rather than cut back payments to doctors a year after (tens of ?) millions of Americans join Medicaid. Sarion fucked around with this message at 00:21 on May 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Do you mean, if you're under 26 and could be on your parents' plan, are you disqualified from Medicaid under the new expansion? I am pretty sure the answer is that it doesn't matter, but it might be worth double checking. Dependents cannot get a subsidy on the exchange if they have access to affordable coverage through an employer. Note that 'affordable' coverage is a technical term and can actually be quite unaffordable to dependents, since affordability is only based on the cost for 'Employee Only' coverage, and not for 'Family' coverage. The actual final rules do not appear to be up, but here's a summary. http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.or...ember_209727353 As for Medicaid: I would assume that, if someone is a dependent, then their Medicaid status must follow that of the family and so they would be unable to go on Medicaid by themselves. esquilax fucked around with this message at 01:31 on May 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
So, here's my question. If an employer health plan is offerd, do you *have* to take that instead of buying insurance on the exchanges? I'm in Washington State, if that matters at all. Because here's my situation. I'm in a good FTE job now, with good FTE health insurance. But, I'm probably going to quit that next summer, so I can take college classes closer to home. In the meantime, I'll just try to pick up short term contract software work, that'll fit in with my Calculus classes. Now, contracting firms are notorious for their horrid insurance, and I have conditions that require daily medication. So, I'd rather pay out of pocket for a consistent health care plan through the exchange and know what my meds, etc. will cost, rather than having to switch from Aetna to Blue Cross to CIGNA, etc. and have to deal with changing copays, meds restrictions, etc. (I already got kicked off of the ADHD med that worked really well when my insurance was switched by work, so now I'm on a generic that only works sort of well instead. I'm still bitter.) Of course, the other option is to take out COBRA for 18 months, but I have two years of classes to go, so that'll run out before then.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
The offered plan would have to meet the new standards under PPACA--for both coverage and the percentage of your income that you pay toward it--in order to compel you to purchase it or pay the fine. If the employer (in this case, the contracting firm) is exempted from coverage--or pays the employers' penalty--you'd be eligible for coverage under Medicaid or the exchanges, as I understand. Unless the government carves out further exemptions, I don't see those barebones plans currently offered to freelancers as qualifying under PPACA.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The offered plan would have to meet the new standards under PPACA--for both coverage and the percentage of your income that you pay toward it--in order to compel you to purchase it or pay the fine. If the employer (in this case, the contracting firm) is exempted from coverage--or pays the employers' penalty--you'd be eligible for coverage under Medicaid or the exchanges, as I understand. Ok, nice. Thqnks for the info. I wish my college offered a plan, but it's a Community College, so no go. However, without this Health Care Reform? I wouldn't be going back to college at all. So yay for that! Qu Appelle fucked around with this message at 05:44 on May 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Sarion posted:I assume you're referring to the Disproportionate Share Hospital bonus currently paid to hospitals that see above average numbers of Medicare (and Medicaid?) patients. Under PPACA this bonus money paid to these hospitals will continue to increase year to year, it's just set to be a smaller increase than it used to be. So they shouldn't actually be getting paid less than they are now. I know for this year and I think last one too Medicare has already reduced by quite a bit how they much reimburse for many DME provided services/equipment but I'm pretty sure that was unrelated to the PPACA so what I'm talking about certainly could be too.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 05:57
|
|
So there's going to be a national non-profit health insurance company? I read it in the OP but don't really believe it. Are the Republicans at least going to mandate that it be run by the most incompetent political appointees they can roust out of Wyoming to be sure that its costs are still in line with the rest of the industry? This would only seem fair. Or will hospitals simply be blackmailed by the private health insurers to keep them from doing business with the co-op.Willa Rogers posted:Nope; the non-profit option was bargained away as part of this year's tax deal. Shocking. Why do I ask if I always know the answer in my heart :'( agarjogger fucked around with this message at 06:39 on May 12, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Nope; the non-profit option was bargained away as part of this year's tax deal.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Dependents cannot get a subsidy on the exchange if they have access to affordable coverage through an employer. Note that 'affordable' coverage is a technical term and can actually be quite unaffordable to dependents, since affordability is only based on the cost for 'Employee Only' coverage, and not for 'Family' coverage. Sorry, I didn't meant to imply you can just use whatever you wanted. I meant that you're not required to stay on your parent's plan. If you qualify for other forms of insurance you can choose to take those instead of your parent's plan. But you still have to meet the requirements for them, so if you can get "affordable" insurance through your employer, you wouldn't qualify for subsidies. Though you could still get a plan on the Exchange without a subsidy if you really, really wanted to.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Nope; the non-profit option was bargained away as part of this year's tax deal. Well gently caress  I missed this apparently, though it would explain why I haven't been able to dig up any details on the non-profit plan. I'll try to get the OP updated with this info soon.PC LOAD LETTER posted:I don't know the actual part of the law that applies or the details on how much less they're getting paid exactly. There seems to be conflicting stories from the media on just what is to blame exactly and I can't figure out which are correct. Some stories blame the PPACA and some mention its due to deficit cutting measures but it does seem to be a real thing. My understanding is that almost no one knows exactly how things will work out (media story estimates range from a ~20-33% cut in revenue which I've been told is about right but that is a big spread...) but they know they'll be getting less money from that patient base and eventually from the private insurance base too over time. This is something that I was told by several different billers that I deal with and/or have in my family who work in various different private practice and bigger hospitals. Ahh, now I know what you're talking about. This has to do with the Medicare SGR. The SGR formula was a formula created in the late 90's to help slow the growth of Medicare costs; but someone didn't check their math and now the formula results in cuts to Medicare every year. Congress avoids this by passing a law saying "we're going to ignore the SGR for the next 3 months, 9 months, 2 years, whatever" rather than growing a pair and just writing the god drat thing out of the law. They've been passing these patchwork avoidance laws (usually referred to as a "Doc Fix" in the media) for about a decade now. The latest one avoided cuts to physicians, but "deficit hawks" pushed for paying for it by allowing a portion of the hospital cuts to occur over the next decade. Here's an article about it: http://www.mdnews.com/news/2013_01/doc-fix-extended-through-2013.aspx It doesn't have to do with PPACA directly, except that they could have fixed the SGR as part of the law but didn't.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 12:56
|
|