The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Trader Joe's explanation of why they are dropping health insurance for part time employees

Thank you for writing to us. It's possible you have been misled, at least to some degree, by the headlines in some articles regarding our reasons for implementing the [Affordable Care Act] in January. We'd like to take this opportunity to clarify some facts.

For over 77% of our Crew Members there is absolutely no change to their healthcare coverage provided by Trader Joe's.

The ACA brings a new potential player into the arena for the acquisition of health care. Stated quite simply, the law is centered on providing low cost options to people who do not make a lot of money. Somewhat by definition, the law provides those people a pretty good deal for insurance ... a deal that can't be matched by us -- or any company. However, an individual employee (we call them Crew Member) is only able to receive the tax credit from the exchanges under the act if we do not offer them insurance under our company plan.

Perhaps an example will help. A Crew Member called in the other day and was quite unhappy that she was being dropped from our coverage unless she worked more hours. She is a single mom with one child who makes $18 per hour and works about 25 hours per week. We ran the numbers for her. She currently pays $166.50 per month for her coverage with Trader Joe's. Because of the tax credits under the ACA she can go to an exchange and purchase insurance that is almost identical to our plan for $69.59 per month. Accordingly, by going to the exchange she will save $1,175 each year ... and that is before counting the $500 we will give her in January.

While we understand her fear of change, at her income level this is a big benefit that we will help her achieve.

Clearly, there are others who will go to the exchanges and will be required to pay more. That is usually because they have other income and typically a spouse who had a job with no benefits and they do not qualify for the subsidies under the ACA.

One example of that we had yesterday was the male Crew Member who worked an average of 20 hours per week but had a spouse who is a contract consultant who makes more than $200,000 per year. The Crew Member worked for the medical benefits and unfortunately for them they are likely to have to pay more because of their real income. We understand how important healthcare coverage is to our Crew Members and we are pleased to be able to provide and support this program.

We do hope this information helps, and we appreciate your interest in Trader Joe's.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Yeah I don't think Trader Joe's is being a bad guy in all of this. They seem to actually be working with the people to make sure they have health insurance. Its a far cry from the pathetic Papa John's excuse that he'd have to charge 10 more cents for every pizza.

 

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Yeah I don't think Trader Joe's is being a bad guy in all of this. They seem to actually be working with the people to make sure they have health insurance. Its a far cry from the pathetic Papa John's excuse that he'd have to charge 10 more cents for every pizza.

Except for the part timer who's spouse (can't say wife these days) makes $200K. They're going to pay through the nose.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Just heard a piece on NPR where someone (missed who) suggested that the Republicans were going to set "delay of the PPACA" as the price of the debt ceiling increase. I can't even begin to count the ways that this is monumentally stupid, but it's not even consistent. If you really believe that:

1. The PPACA is horrible and will lead to all kinds of bad things
2. It's the Democrats' fault and they'll be punished at the polls once people see all the bad things happening

then why on earth would you want to let the Democrats off the hook by delaying the law and giving Obama more time to get things implemented? Logically (I know, I know, we're talking about House Republicans, here), they should want the entire PPACA implemented ASAP so voters can get good and ferverous over it by the time the 2014 (and especially 2016) elections roll around.

 

[Rover]

Just heard a piece on NPR where someone (missed who) suggested that the Republicans were going to set "delay of the PPACA" as the price of the debt ceiling increase. I can't even begin to count the ways that this is monumentally stupid, but it's not even consistent. If you really believe that:

1. The PPACA is horrible and will lead to all kinds of bad things
2. It's the Democrats' fault and they'll be punished at the polls once people see all the bad things happening

then why on earth would you want to let the Democrats off the hook by delaying the law and giving Obama more time to get things implemented? Logically (I know, I know, we're talking about House Republicans, here), they should want the entire PPACA implemented ASAP so voters can get good and ferverous over it by the time the 2014 (and especially 2016) elections roll around.

Stop being a traitor to the cause !

Opposition to the PPACA kinda reminds me of opposition to gay marriage, which also was supposed to lead to the end of civilization as we know it, or at least to people marrying their pets. When it actually started being legalized, and not only did the world continue to exist but it changed very little for most people, the doomsayers looked pretty dumb. If you want a non-political example, Y2K certainly qualifies.

So, if Obamacare gets up and running and cannibalism doesn't result, I'm not sure what the right is going to do for an encore.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Just heard a piece on NPR where someone (missed who) suggested that the Republicans were going to set "delay of the PPACA" as the price of the debt ceiling increase. I can't even begin to count the ways that this is monumentally stupid.

are you moonlighting by writing for the WSJ editorial page?

Perhaps the only war strategizing more inept than President Obama's on Syria are GOP plans for the budget hostilities this autumn....Republicans must threaten to crash their Zeros into the aircraft carrier of ObamaCare. Their demand is that the House pair the "must pass" CR or the debt limit with defunding the health-care bill. Kamikaze missions rarely turn out well, least of all for the pilots....

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

They're going to pay through the nose.

Does Obamacare cover surgery to fix that?

 

[unofan]

Except for the part timer who's spouse (can't say wife these days) makes $200K. They're going to pay through the nose.

Dude... they make 200k. I think they can afford their own insurance.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Dude... they make 200k. I think they can afford their own insurance.

Ya know, it's the government's job to make sure people aren't earning too much money...

 

[Rover]

Ya know, it's the government's job to make sure people aren't earning too much money...

Those poor rich people. If they want to trade their wealth with the rest of ours I'd be happy to take on that burden! I mean, how hard can it be to contribute what say Paris Hilton does to the world?

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Interesting article about the GOP and healthcare....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/campaign/322223-gop-is-losing-the-health-care-debate

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Ya know, it's the government's job to make sure people aren't earning too much money...

Unless, of course, the people work for the government. Then it's okay. Notice how members of Congress and their staffs are now exempt from PPACA, even though the law explicitly says they are supposed to be subject to it?

Every year the NYPost runs a story about "the kings of overtime," people who make more in a year in overtime than they make in base pay. naturally the pension formula also covers all the overtime too. As a result, each year you also read about a few people who retire with a pension in excess of 100% of their final base pay.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Those poor rich people. If they want to trade their wealth with the rest of ours I'd be happy to take on that burden! I mean, how hard can it be to contribute what say Paris Hilton does to the world?

Jealousy suits you well.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Except for the part timer who's spouse (can't say wife these days) makes $200K. They're going to pay through the nose.

Or the guy could probably just ask to go full time if benefits were that important to them.

Unless, of course, the people work for the government. Then it's okay. Notice how members of Congress and their staffs are now exempt from PPACA, even though the law explicitly says they are supposed to be subject to it?

Or not http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Fishy's mantra: when ya got nuttin' resort to lyin'

I love how Vitter/Grassley etc are getting burned on this. If you are so opposed to the fed subsidies for insurance, give up your own contribution then. How come knucks' never walk the walk? Best one was when the press asked leading libertarian lunatic Rand Paul that, and he blubbered something about playing by whatever the rule is. A real "profile in courage" isn't he?

 

[unofan]

Fishy's mantra: when ya got nuttin' resort to lyin'

I love how Vitter/Grassley etc are getting burned on this. If you are so opposed to the fed subsidies for insurance, give up your own contribution then. How come knucks' never walk the walk? Best one was when the press asked leading libertarian lunatic Rand Paul that, and he blubbered something about playing by whatever the rule is. A real "profile in courage" isn't he?

Meh. It's a stupid line of questioning, like asking Buffett why he didn't voluntarily pay higher taxes while pushing for the Buffet Rule. I hate the dh, but would certainly use it if I were an American league manager.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Not sure if this is an "unintended consequence" or not.

Companies are starting to change how they offer coverage. Rather than buy the insurance themselves on behalf of their employees, they are giving employees a set sum of money and then letting the employees shop for health insurance on a private (i.e., not state-run) exchange. This is very similar to how federal employees can select their provider.

Walgreen Co. is set to become one of the largest employers yet to make sweeping changes to company-backed health programs. On Wednesday, the drugstore giant disclosed a plan to provide payments to eligible employees for the subsidized purchase of insurance starting in 2014. The plan will affect roughly 160,000 employees, and will require them to shop for coverage on a private health-insurance marketplace. Aside from rising health-care costs, the company cited compliance-related expenses associated with the new law as a reason for the switch.

Walgreen is the latest in a growing list of companies making changes to their benefits. International Business Machines Corp. and Time Warner Inc. both said in recent weeks they will move thousands of retirees from their own company-administered plans to private exchanges. Sears Holdings Corp. and Darden Restaurants Inc. said last year they would send employees to a private exchange.

 

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Or the guy could probably just ask to go full time if benefits were that important to them.



Or not http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/

What was SUPPOSED to happen was that Congre$$ and their staffers were to pay the full cost of their insurance on the exchanges. However, OPM, citing some obscure something, decided that the Treasury will pay roughly 75% of their benefit costs (which is about what the Treasury currently pays under FEHBA). Mind you, there is no authority in PPACA for OPM to do this, but they dood it anyway.

 

[Rover]

What was SUPPOSED to happen was that Congre$$ and their staffers were to pay the full cost of their insurance on the exchanges. However, OPM, citing some obscure something, decided that the Treasury will pay roughly 75% of their benefit costs (which is about what the Treasury currently pays under FEHBA). Mind you, there is no authority in PPACA for OPM to do this, but they dood it anyway.

Sorry but this is a gross distortion of the facts. What was supposed to happen is staffers were required to take part in the exchanges. In no place were they supposed to pay for it all out of pocket. In fact that wasn't decided at all. What the OPM did was decide that the feds would cover the same amount (75%) of the price of health insurance on the exchange as they did when they were insuring the employees themselves. Furthermore, this is something that private employers are also doing.

joey, I know you're upset about how conservatism seems to be a dying ideology, but when you start resorting to making stuff up to oppose laws you don't like, you expose yourself to ridicule by sarcastic lefties who love doing stuff like this. The best part of this debate is that the Republicans themselves don't want any part of it, with the exception of David "Diapers" Vitter who apparently likes to dress up in Huggies and get spanked by prostitutes, a fact the Senate Dems have brought up in an amendment that states anyone caught soliciting prostitutes loses their federal contribution! Good stuff.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Or not http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/

Either that article is deliberately mendacious, relyinng on tortured technical sophistries, or it was written earlier than the news cycle from which I derived my information, or it is just plain wrong.

From Reuters:

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the "Obamacare" health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama's blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.

When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.

But it soon became apparent the provision contained no language that allowed federal contributions toward their health plans that cover about 75 percent of the premium costs [emphasis added]

Now, under PPACA, people with the income levels of Congressional staffers and members of Congress who are required to purchase insurance on exchanges are not eligible for any subsidy when they purchase insurance on the exchanges. Yet members of Congress and their staffers get 75% of their premium costs covered?

This is straightforward simple English: if you have income of $xxx,xxx, and are required to purchase insurance on exchanges, and do NOT work for Congress, you get 0% subsidy. If you have identical income of $xxx,xxx, and are required to purchase insurance on exchanges and DO work for Congress, you get 75% subsidy.

If the Republicans had any principles, they'd be trumpeting this news as loudly as they could. Yet all we hear from them is silence. Typical career politicians.

If the Democrats had any principles, they'd be embarrassed: they claim to be the party of the "common folk" yet they get a sweetheart deal not available to anyone else who is required to purchase insurance on exchanges.

Bah to both parties here.