Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
>the very people who voted for it are EXEMPTED from it
It went like this
- Congress voted to require members AND staff to buy policies on the exchanges
- they realized this would cost members more (no big deal, they are generally well-off) and also staff (which matters a lot, because these people are generally not well paid)
- there was a policy change to allow the government to CONTINUE contributing toward health care costs for members and staff. In other words, JUST LIKE MOST PEOPLE who work for a big company.
Group plans, by definition and current laws state that employers must pay at least 50% of the premium in order to be a qualified group plan. That has not, nor will it, change with the ACA.
Why "bummer"??? These changes are a GOOD thing for health care.
I agree. They are good changes. Calling the President "Obummer" reflects more on the caller than the president.
but, what law(s) say employer pays min 50% of a group plan?
also, anything stopping company XYZ from saying "we will offer you a health plan come Jan 1 2014. if you elect the plan your salary will be reduced".
I don't know of any law that mandates what the employer pays you, other than minimum wage.
In fact many analysts think that because healthcare premiums are untaxed, that is one of the reasons that salaries have been as stagnant as they have the last many decades -- instead of giving you additional salary wages (which are taxable to the employer) they gave more and more health benefits (which aren't taxable).
If your employer reduces your salary to offset the insurance premium - it suggests that the employees have little leverage/bargaining power. (i.e unskilled or easily replaced)
> what law(s) say employer pays min 50% of a group plan?
I don't know the answer to that, but my impression is that this is how it has been for some time. I suspect this is a requirement in order for the money spent for health care to be tax deductible for the employer. There is also a requirement that the plan be broadly available (that is, an employer can't get deductions for a plan that only covers top executives).
>also, anything stopping company XYZ from saying "we will offer you a health plan come Jan 1 2014. if you elect the plan your salary will be reduced".
No, because that is how it is at present. If you work for a company that offers health care they typically require an employee contribution. So electing a plan means your salary is reduced.
Typically a company will REQUIRE you to elect a health plan if offered, unless you have coverage under some other plan (say, a spouse's).
Group plans, by definition and current laws state that employers must pay at least 50% of the premium in order to be a qualified group plan. That has not, nor will it, change with the ACA.
Why "bummer"??? These changes are a GOOD thing for health care.
It links healthcare to employment, and assumes that you work full-time for a large employer.
Think again...so now we won't have choice of hospitals or doctors for treatment. And didn't IBM just drop retirees from healthcare. If it was such a good thing, how come the very people who voted for it are EXEMPTED from it. And they wouldn't vote for it if they were required to use it. There would be no exemptions if this was good for all.
I agree everyone should be mandated to use the ACA
I agree everyone should be mandated to use the ACA
My employer is exempted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.