Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Health Insurance
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2013, 06:39 PM
 
3,609 posts, read 7,919,691 times
Reputation: 9180

Advertisements

OK short story

>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.

Link to the story

No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress

> why IS it that...unions... requested and received waivers

This was in the news recently. The unions requested a delay in implementation of some policies. They were refused.

Link to the story

W.H. rejects labor

You know, railing against something because you really hate it is one thing, inventing facts to support your opinion is quite another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2013, 08:57 PM
 
Location: GoJoe
713 posts, read 1,461,147 times
Reputation: 322
good or bad is a diff debate. i believe its bad.

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".

Last edited by Home_Kid; 09-23-2013 at 09:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2013, 09:36 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
24,100 posts, read 32,460,014 times
Reputation: 68309
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2013, 09:39 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
24,100 posts, read 32,460,014 times
Reputation: 68309
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
Where exactly are you reading your information? That is not true at all.

My guess? Fox "News".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 06:26 AM
 
Location: The Woodlands
805 posts, read 1,871,895 times
Reputation: 1077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Home_Kid View Post
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 believe there is anything stopping a company from saying that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 08:17 AM
 
3,763 posts, read 12,547,056 times
Reputation: 6855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Home_Kid View Post
good or bad is a diff debate. i believe its bad.

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)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 08:20 AM
 
3,609 posts, read 7,919,691 times
Reputation: 9180
> 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).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
37,461 posts, read 61,379,739 times
Reputation: 30409
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
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.

Everyone else is left out.

So there is a bummer in the soup.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 08:43 AM
 
Location: in the miseries
3,577 posts, read 4,508,929 times
Reputation: 4416
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebbe View Post
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
37,461 posts, read 61,379,739 times
Reputation: 30409
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmyhoss View Post
I agree everyone should be mandated to use the ACA
My employer is exempted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Health Insurance
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top