The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

[unofan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

do you even read the links you post? NOTHING is "already happening" since not a single insurance exchange is yet operational.

"estimates" are not data.

And yet you continuously blame Obamacare for everything else that's wrong with the country. So which is it?

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

do you even read the links you post? NOTHING is "already happening" since not a single insurance exchange is yet operational.

"estimates" are not data.

FWIW, I can say that State of Washington's is going live Oct. 1.

Disclosure: I work for the IT company who is hosting their exchange. And there will be others coming on their heels.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

And yet you continuously blame Obamacare for everything else that's wrong with the country. So which is it?

So you're basically saying that no one boards up their windows or puts up sand bags when a hurricane is about to hit the area?

 

[Rover]

So you're basically saying that no one boards up their windows or puts up sand bags when a hurricane is about to hit the area?

Only liberals. Conservatives tend to think tax cuts for the rich will solve the problem.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Fact1: The World Will End when Obamacare is fully implemented.
Fact2: Decreasing taxes on job creators is the only stimulus you'll ever need.
Fact3: Jobs, jobs, jobs refers to Fact 1 and Fact 2.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

i'm sorry that I didn't read back but our company has the following issues with the law.
We are forced to pay a 63 dollar fee per employee to the govt. This amounts to a subsidy since our employees get nothing for it. The age 26 change will cost about 10 million dollars per year for us to implement. The company is actively considering reducing hours to under 30 for a number of employees in order that they will not have to pay for their costs. The cadillac provisions have resulted in some optional plans being dropped. Overall total additional cost to implement the program will be on the order of 100 million dollars.
I'm in favor of the law but it will cost quite a bit, at least for our company, to implement.

 

[unofan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

i'm sorry that I didn't read back but our company has the following issues with the law.
We are forced to pay a 63 dollar fee per employee to the govt. This amounts to a subsidy since our employees get nothing for it. The age 26 change will cost about 10 million dollars per year for us to implement. The company is actively considering reducing hours to under 30 for a number of employees in order that they will not have to pay for their costs. The cadillac provisions have resulted in some optional plans being dropped. Overall total additional cost to implement the program will be on the order of 100 million dollars.
I'm in favor of the law but it will cost quite a bit, at least for our company, to implement.

big scary numbers are big and scary.

I'm not going to worry about any of that without having some context. How many employees do you have? How much are you currently spending on health care? Why would good employees willingly accept a reduction in hours without leaving for greener pastures? Frankly, for the "covering children up to 26" thing to cost $10 million, I'm guessing you have at least 5 figures, if not 6, worth of employees. We're certainly not talking about a mom and pop small business.

$100 million spread over 10,000 workers is a decent chunk of change. $100 million over 100,000 workers, well, not so much.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

$100 million spread over 10,000 workers is a decent chunk of change. $100 million over 100,000 workers, well, not so much.

A $1,000/employee tax is not decent change? Because there's nothing a company could do with that money. It won't impact wages or capital investment to grow the company. No, it's just taken from that guaranteed pot of revenue that every company has. Your answer is just pure arrogance, but not the funny hockey sort, rather it's the sort that impacts people's lives.

"Any decent" company? Not every employee is in a position to barter the way some others are. The internal mail delivery people, the office admins, and the janitors, those are the lowest paid people in companies such as mine, those with the least power to bargain, and they'll be the first to see their hours reduced because any decent management team will do as their shareholders require and reduce all company costs as much as possible.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Frankly for the "covering children up to 26" thing to cost $10 million, I'm guessing you have at least 5 figures, if not 6, worth of employees. We're certainly not talking about a mom and pop small business.

$100 million spread over 10,000 workers is a decent chunk of change. $100 million over 100,000 workers, well, not so much.

His company is definitely a far cry from ma and pa, I can confirm that. If manurespeader wants to elaborate, I'll leave that up to him.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

His company is definitely a far cry from ma and pa, I can confirm that. If manurespeader wants to elaborate, I'll leave that up to him.

Using his numbers, there are 158,730 full-time employees in the company.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

There are about 160,000 people that work for the company, world wide. Many are part time employees. there are about 65,000 total in the US.
The employees that complain about a reduction in hours can easily be replaced by someone who does not complain. Although this is being considered, I think other companies are more likely to reduce hours than our company is.

Other issues we have. The individual mandate. The company estimates that many employees who currently opt out of coverage will opt in. this will cost the company about 14 million.
Pay or play. The proposed regulations are very complex and when finalized may impose HR information system changes that will be costly to build. There is no estimate of these costs as of yet. And since much of the regulations are unsettled, it puts the company in the position of not being able to react in time and being assessed penalties in innocent situations.

the 100 million figure is inclusive of normal medical inflation and the end of the ERRP program. These costs are going to continue to inflate. Also regarding the Cadillac clause. The time will come and not that far off, that all plans will be subject to the clause as medical inflation is running around 10% but the clause only inflates at the cpi.

Personally, the quality of the health plans now offered is dog **** as it is. There are few doctors in the plan and many do not take the provider as they have a reputation of contesting every claim. I consider the benefit the minimum that a quality employer would offer. I pay quite a bit out of pocket for services.
And whether you are a big company or a small one, 100 million is a lot and could be used certainly in other ways. As I said, I'm in favor of the law but it comes at a price.

 

[unofan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

A $1,000/employee tax is not decent change? Because there's nothing a company could do with that money. It won't impact wages or capital investment to grow the company. No, it's just taken from that guaranteed pot of revenue that every company has. Your answer is just pure arrogance, but not the funny hockey sort, rather it's the sort that impacts people's lives.

"Any decent" company? Not every employee is in a position to barter the way some others are. The internal mail delivery people, the office admins, and the janitors, those are the lowest paid people in companies such as mine, those with the least power to bargain, and they'll be the first to see their hours reduced because any decent management team will do as their shareholders require and reduce all company costs as much as possible.

If a company employs 100,000+ workers, its top end managerial compensation is probably on the order of $100 million between salaries, bonuses, stock options, benefits, golden parachutes, and the like. So yeah, I'm not going to cry if the new law means they have to spend it on the janitors and mailroom people rather than an extra country club membership for the executive vp of marketing.

No one said the new law would come without costs. But again, big scary numbers are big and scary. $100 million given the context provided is the equivalent of raising everyone's salary by $625 company wide or about $.30/hr (presuming a 40/hr workweek). Even if we limit it to just his company's U.S. workers, that'd be $1550 or about $.74/hr on average (again, presuming 40 hour workweeks).

This whole thing is kind of the point of the law, which is to increase the amount of people insured (since single payer is apparently off limits here).

 

[unofan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

because any decent management team will do as their shareholders require and reduce all company costs as much as possible.

I missed this nugget on my first readthrough. This has only been the case since the 80's, at least as the universally accepted maxim that it appears to be today. Prior to that, shareholder value was just one of the considerations for management; it certainly wasn't always the end all be all goal of every corporation out there. Gordon Gekko was the villain in "Wall Street," not the hero.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

No one said the new law would come without costs.

Definitely false.

 

[unofan]

Definitely false.

Not raising the deficit for the federal govt and not raising costs on some people (ie those without insurance and those companies skimping on their benefits) are two different things.

The former was stated. The latter was not.

 

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Not raising the deficit for the federal govt and not raising costs on some people (ie those without insurance and those companies skimping on their benefits) are two different things.

The former was stated. The latter was not.

Plus keep your current insurance and doctors.

UPS has told their employees that their spouses will no longer be covered by UPS's health insurance if they can be covered by their own employer's insurance. Supposedly will save UPS millions.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Not raising the deficit for the federal govt and not raising costs on some people (ie those without insurance and those companies skimping on their benefits) are two different things.

The former was stated. The latter was not.

By anyone, ever? Riiiight... Pass me some of that medical marijuana you're smoking.

Edit: a quick Google turned up this speech by Senator Obama:

"We'll start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family - and we'll do it by taking the following five steps to lower costs throughout our health care system." So every family's premiums are supposed to be "up to" $2500 less, and this savings is supposed to come from across the board cost reductions in the system.

"And we'll reward providers not just for the quantity of services they provide, but for the quality of outcomes for their patients. So you'll get better care, and we'll all save money in the long run." So each and every one of us us supposed to save money - in the long run. I wonder what timeframe he had in mind?

"Under my plan, the federal government will pay for part of these catastrophic cases, which means that your premiums will go down." Again, he's promising that premiums will go down across the board.

"So if you have insurance you like, you keep that insurance. If you have a doctor you like, you keep that doctor. The only thing that changes for you is that your health care costs will go down." So again, everyone who was paying premiums in 2008 was supposed to have seen those premiums come down, with no change in care whatsoever.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I seriously doubt that anyone's premium is going to go down.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

By anyone, ever? Riiiight... Pass me some of that medical marijuana you're smoking.

Edit: a quick Google turned up this speech by Senator Obama:

"We'll start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family - and we'll do it by taking the following five steps to lower costs throughout our health care system." So every family's premiums are supposed to be "up to" $2500 less, and this savings is supposed to come from across the board cost reductions in the system.

"And we'll reward providers not just for the quantity of services they provide, but for the quality of outcomes for their patients. So you'll get better care, and we'll all save money in the long run." So each and every one of us us supposed to save money - in the long run. I wonder what timeframe he had in mind?

"Under my plan, the federal government will pay for part of these catastrophic cases, which means that your premiums will go down." Again, he's promising that premiums will go down across the board.

"So if you have insurance you like, you keep that insurance. If you have a doctor you like, you keep that doctor. The only thing that changes for you is that your health care costs will go down." So again, everyone who was paying premiums in 2008 was supposed to have seen those premiums come down, with no change in care whatsoever.

Did we adopt his plan as it was written at the time of this speech, or was it changed along the way by Congress?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Did we adopt his plan as it was written at the time of this speech, or was it changed along the way by Congress?

At the time the bill was being debated by Congress, he was POTUS and his party controlled both branches of said Congress while holding very high approval numbers. He could have kicked some tails into place to get the votes he needed to make this thing look closer to his vision than most of us are ever able to dream, even if it did pass in a lame duck session with a future changing of the guard in the House.