Tag Archives: Obamacare

Strange But True: Elements Of Obamacare Cost Most Than Originally Expected

Posted on February 22, 2013 | Leave a comment

Imagine my shock when I heard that portions of Obamacare are running into financial difficulty:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration on Friday said it would stop enrolling new beneficiaries in a special $5 billion insurance program for people with pre-existing medical conditions, because of rising costs and limited funding.

The news comes a day after a top U.S. healthcare official told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the administration is grappling with financial difficulties but determined to keep the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) operating in 23 states and the District of Columbia through 2013.

PCIP was established in 2010 under President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law to provide coverage for sick people unable to find it in the private insurance market. The program is designed as a bridge to January 1, 2014, when legal restrictions barring discrimination over medical conditions come into force.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice on Friday saying it would suspend new enrollments beginning on Saturday to “help ensure that funds are available through 2013 to continuously cover people currently enrolled in PCIP.”

And what happens to government agencies that find they are short on money?  Why, they ration:

Gary Cohen, the HHS official responsible for overseeing implementation of Obama’s healthcare reforms, including PCIP, told the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday that the administration had begun to alter program benefits while grappling with funding restrictions.

It’s not very difficult to see where this whole thing is going to go.

Leave a comment

Posted in Government, Health Care, Politics: National

Tagged

Another Company Cuts Hours

Posted on January 9, 2013 | 8 comments

Yesterday I posted about an IT firm cutting hours as a result of the economic conditions ahead.

Hours were going to be cut.  Instead of a 5-day work week the schedule would now be built around a 4-day work week.

My suspicion is that the firm is targeting a work week that comes in under 30 hours a week.

Well, there is a company that is making no bones about it:

A fast-food chain is slashing employee hours so franchise owners don’t have to pay health benefits. Around 100 local Wendy’s workers have learned their hours are being cut. A spokesperson says a new health care law is to blame.

The penalty for failure to offer insurance is $2,000 per employee.  In this case, $200,000 is a lot of money:

The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 a week. Gary Burdette, Vice President of Operations for the local franchise, says the cuts are coming because the new Affordable Health Care Act requires employers to offer health insurance to employees working 32-38 hours a week. Under the current law they are not considered full time and that as a small business owner, he can’t afford to stay in operation and pay for everyone’s health insurance.

The irony, of course, is that fast food chains typically employ the younger worker.  Folks who might be entering the job market for the first time and are learning valuable work skills.   Skills that they may not otherwise acquire.  And the reason they are being impacted is a law that attempts to help provide medical care to the population.  Well, these kids are the healthiest segment OF that population.

 

8 Comments

Posted in Economics, Health Care, Politics: National

Tagged ,

Managing Hours Worked In 2013

Posted on January 8, 2013 | 2 comments

A buddy of mine works in IT.  The firm is a medium sized outfit; well over 50 employees.  Heading into the New Year they were pulled into a meeting.  The news?

Hours were going to be cut.  Instead of a 5-day work week the schedule would now be built around a 4-day work week.

Good news indeed if time is more valuable than dollars.  However, at some point, to most people, some number of hours are less important than dollars and so it is that we wake up each morning to go to work.  And apparently the folks at this company are a titch uncomfortable with the new schedule.

My immediate thought was that the employer was trying to dodge the new health care rules coming in 2014.  Further questioning seemed to confirm my suspicion.  And what rules are those?

Many businesses plan to bring on more part-time workers next year, trim the hours of full-time employees or curtail hiring because of the new health care law, human resource firms say.

…

Under the Affordable Care Act, businesses that employ at least 50 full-time workers — or the equivalent, including part-time workers — must offer health insurance to staffers who work at least 30 hours a week. Employers that don’t provide coverage must pay a $2,000-per-worker penalty, excluding the first 30 employees.

The so-called employer mandate to offer health coverage doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2014. But to determine whether employees work enough hours on average to receive benefits, employers must track their schedules for three to 12 months prior to 2014 — meaning many are restructuring payrolls now or will do so early next year.

About a quarter of businesses surveyed by consulting firm Mercer don’t offer health coverage to employees who work at least 30 hours a week. Half of them plan to make changes so fewer employees work that many hours.

Elections have consequences.  There are no solutions, only trade-offs.  And the trade off for this health care bill?

The health care law will particularly affect companies with 40 to 45 workers that plan to expand and hire. Many are holding off so they don’t cross the 50-employee threshold, says Christine Ippolito, principal at Compass Workforce Solutions, a human resource consulting firm in Melville, N.Y.

…

Others already over the 50-employee threshold plan to add more part-time workers or cut the hours of full-timers, says Rob Wilson, head of Employco, a human resource outsourcing firm. Many, he says, will hire more temporary workers, whom they won’t have to cover.

Nearly half of retailers, restaurants and hotels will be affected by the law, according to Mercer. They employ large numbers of part-time and seasonal employees, including many who work about 30 hours a week.

Since such low-wage workers are widely available, it often hasn’t been cost-effective or necessary for employers to offer them coverage. Providing them benefits could be costly because employees must pay no more than 9.5% of their wages in insurance premiums, forcing employers to contribute significantly more than they do for higher-wage workers.

“I think you may see employees with fewer hours as a consequence,” says Neil Trautwein, vice president of the National Retail Federation.

Thirty-one percent of franchisees surveyed recently by the International Franchise Association said they plan to pare staff to get under the 50-employee threshold.

This is a direct response to the legislation that was pushed by the President.  This isn’t a long-term consequence to a policy shift.  Rather, the slow down in hiring, the shift to more part time workers is a rational response to an agenda pushed by Obama.

 

2 Comments

Posted in Economics, Economy

Tagged ,

Elections Have Consequences

Posted on November 26, 2012 | 7 comments

It’s simple, really.  When there is an incentive to save money, there should be no surprise that incentives will drive behavior.  Consider Community College of Allegheny County:

To Community College of Allegheny County’s president, Alex Johnson, cutting hours for some 400 temporary part-time workers to avoid providing health insurance coverage for them under the impending Affordable Health Care Act is purely a cost-saving measure at a time the college faces a funding reduction.

But to some of the employees affected, including 200 adjunct faculty members, the decision smacks of an attempt to circumvent the national health care legislation that goes into effect in January 2014.

“It’s kind of a double whammy for us because we are facing a legal requirement [under the new law] to get health care and if the college is reducing our hours, we don’t have the money to pay for it,” said Adam Davis, an adjunct professor who has taught biology at CCAC since 2005.

Temporary part-time employees received an email notice from Mr. Johnson on Tuesday informing them that the new health care act defines full-time employees as those working 30 hours or more per week.

As a result, the college as of Dec. 31 will reduce temporary part-time employee hours to 25 per week. For adjuncts, the workload limit will be reduced from 12 to 10 credits per semester.

The decision affects only temporary part-time employees and not permanent part-time employees who already are eligible to participate in the college’s health care plan.

My hope is that the folks impacted voted for Obama; you should reap the rewards of the decisions you make.

But that’s not all:

Darden Restaurants Inc. — parent of the Red Lobster, Olive Garden and Capital Grille eateries in Colorado and elsewhere — is cutting back hours of workers at some of its locations in an apparent effort to reduce insurance costs related to the new health-care reform law.

The Orlando, Fla., Sentinel newspaper reports that the Orlando-based company (NYSE: DRI) “has stopped offering full-time schedules to many hourly workers in at least a few” of its locations.

The Sentinel quotes the company as saying it plans to limit employees at some restaurants in four unidentified markets to 28 hours a week. Darden said the move is intended “to help us address the cost implications health care reform will have on our business.”

Under the federal Affordable Care Act, the health-reform law that some call Obamacare, companies with at least 50 employees must provide health insurance, starting in 2014, to all those who work at least 30 hours a week. Those that don’t will pay a penalty.

I suspect that this will play out across America more and more.  As the ramifications of electing Obama continue to see the light of day, more and more we are going to see this reaction by business.  Fewer people hired, higher ratios hired as part time employees, more efforts to drive productivity by more and more automation.

It really is important to understand that there really aren’t solutions; only tradeoffs.

Want healthcare?  Lose jobs.  Sacrifice growth, accept higher unemployment.

If you voted for Obama, this is on you.  This is what you wanted, this is what you explicitly put into motion.

We warned you.

 

7 Comments

Posted in Economics, Health Care, Liberty, Politics: National

Tagged , , , ,

Basic High School Math Fail

Posted on August 1, 2012 | 11 comments

Again, I’m reading a bunch of stuff for an upcoming post and I see this:

Lucia Harkenreader’s check landed in her mailbox last week: a rebate of $456.15 from her health insurance company, with a letter dryly explaining that the money came courtesy of the federal health care law.

…

For Ms. Harkenreader, 53, who is putting a son through college, the rebate helps soothe the frustration she feels toward her insurer, Golden Rule, which is owned by UnitedHealthcare.

“It seems like the health insurance companies really just don’t have any consideration for the cost out here,” said Ms. Harkenreader, who pays about $480 a month for a high-deductible plan, up from $400 last year. “What costs have gone up to justify that rise in premium? I’d love to know. Did you give your people a raise? I guess your light bill went up?”

How is it possible that she can ask “What costs have gone up?” as she clutches a $456.00 check?  How can she ask “What costs have gone up?” as insurance companies are required to “insure” people who knock on the door with a broken arm?

People wonder why this country is in trouble.

11 Comments

Posted in Health Care, Idiots on Parade, Politics: National

Tagged , ,

Obamacare’s Taxes And The Impact On Jobs

Posted on July 29, 2012 | Leave a comment

Romney says that he knows why jobs come and why jobs go.  Obama doesn’t.

Barack Obama feels a sense of charity.  And he thinks that government should act on that charity.

Are there people who get sick or hurt and can’t afford their care?  Well, by golly, the government should step in and perform that charity.

But when he realizes that people respond in rational ways, he becomes confused and then angry.  “Why won’t people just DO the right thing?  Why won’t they accept the added burden of Barack’s charity and continue to hire?”

An Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer says it’s scrapping plans to open five new plants in the coming years because of a looming tax tied to President Obama’s health care overhaul law.

Cook Medical claims the tax on medical devices, set to take effect next year, will cost the company roughly $20 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities over the next five years.

“This is the equivalent of about a plant a year that we’re not going to be able to build,” a company spokesman told FoxNews.com.

He said the original plan was to build factories in “hard-pressed” Midwestern communities, each employing up to 300 people. But those factories cost roughly the same amount as the projected cost of the new tax.

“In reality, we’re not looking at the U.S. to build factories anymore as long as this tax is in place. We can’t, to be competitive,” he said.

This is why companies move jobs overseas.  The government forces the price of labor to the point that such labor isn’t competitive.

By the way, to answer the question above, “Why won’t they accept the added burden of Barack’s charity and continue to hire?”  I suspect that he would say that they are greedy.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics, Government, Health Care, Politics: National

Tagged , , , ,

The Cost Of Health Insurance

Posted on July 8, 2012 | 2 comments

I am reading the morning’s internet today.  As usual these days, I’ve come across a lot of health insurance stuff.  And it got me to thinking.  If we’re now going to allow individuals to wait until they get sick to purchase health insurance, and force companies to sell insurance to folks with pre-existing conditions AND make it illegal to adjust premiums based on an individual’s health risk, there is only one thing that can happen.

The price will go up.

So, I’m gonna try and track the cost.

Right now, the laziest and best historical example I have is from a September 2009 post where I was discussing the healthcare debate:

Ah, here’s one.  $5000 deductible, Office visits are free after the deductible.  0% coinsurance.  149 a month.  Oh yeah, and you can have an HSA.

Another:  $5000 deductible, $15 office visits and 0% coinsurance.  $229 a month.

One more:  $1250 deductible, office visits are not covered and the coinsurance is 20%.  $253 a month.

I was quoting from ehealthinsurance  The above example is for a 52 year  old man in Greensboro, NC who doesn’t smoke.

Let’s see what that costs today.

$5,000 deductible, 0% coinsurance, Office visits are free after deductible:

$132.00 per month.

Before Obamacare is implemented, the price of insurance has gone DOWN $17 a month.  However, it seems to be on a policy by policy basis.  The $1,250 – 20% – No Dr. visits plan?

$292.00 a month.

Now, how expensive in insurance for a 30 year man in the same ZIP?

The plan that offers $5,000 – 0% -No charge after deductible?

$62.24

The plan with the lowest deductible that is the cheapest looks like this:

$2,500 – 30% – $40 office visits:

$99.40 a month.

First, insurance isn’t that expensive today.  I may not be very happy with a plan that offers a deductible as high as $5,000, but remember, we’re crafting a policy that protects against the #1 liberal complain, medical care shouldn’t force someone into bankruptcy.  And a brake at 5k will do just that.

Let’s watch the policies in Greensboro’s 27403 ZIP code.

2 Comments

Posted in Health Care

Tagged ,

Romney On Obamacare: It’s A Tax

Posted on July 6, 2012 | 7 comments

There was a big decision last week.  The Supreme Court ruled that the AMA was constitutional under the ability of congress to tax.  Republicans, and I, jumped on this to claim that Obama broke his pledge to raise taxes.

Initially, Romney claimed that the AMA, Obamacare, was not a tax but rather a penalty:

In an appearance on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown,” Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom was asked whether Romney agreed with last week’s Supreme Court ruling.

“The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax,” Fehrnstrom said.

When pressed by host Chuck Todd about whether Romney supported calling the financial burden placed on Americans who choose not to buy health care “a penalty or a fee or a fine” rather than a tax, Fehrnstrom replied: “That’s correct.”

However, governor Romney has changed his tune, to one that sounds more true:

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney attempted to clarify his campaign’s position on the individual mandate, calling the provision a “tax” days after his top adviser said otherwise.

“The Supreme Court has spoken and while I agreed with the dissent, that’s taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said that it’s a tax and therefore it is a tax,” said Romney in an interview aired Wednesday on “CBS This Evening.”

This happens to be what I think.  Obama never meant this to be a tax.  He adamantly denied it was a tax.  It never would have passed had it been a tax.  It clearly was meant to be a mandate under the commerce clause.  However, that is not how the supreme court saw it.  To them, the mandate is a tax, therefore, legally, it’s a tax.

 

7 Comments

Posted in Government, Health Care, Politics: National

Tagged , , , ,

Did I Mention That Obama Is A Liar – When A Tax Isn’t A Tax

Posted on June 29, 2012 | 33 comments

Last night, in bitter disappointment, I posted that our President lied to us when he claimed that Obamacare wasn’t a tax.  Scott Erb and Nickgb called shenanigans.  The claim is that when Obama was claiming that his law wasn’t a tax, he believed it.  Only later did it turn out that he would be wrong and the court would strike down the law based on the commerce clause and uphold it under congresses ability to tax.

Certainly valid points.  But what is Obama’s administration saying now?

The White House and the Obama campaign today insisted that the individual mandate in the president’s health care bill is a “penalty,” not a tax, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold the law under Congress’ taxing power.

“For those who can afford health insurance but choose to remain uninsured, forcing the rest of us to pay for their care, a penalty is administered as part of the Affordable Care Act,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One today.

“You can call it what you want. If you read the opinion, it is not a broad-based tax,” he said, stressing that the “penalty” would affect 1 percent of the population, based on CBO estimates. “It’s a penalty because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?”

Obama isn’t going to call this a tax.  It IS a tax, that’s the law.  As he sends his administration and his campaign out saying that it isn’t it does two things:

  1. That Obama knew this was a tax when he was working to pass this law.  The words know and the words then certainly are beginning to sound the same.
  2. That he’s lying now.

It’s settled.  This new law is a tax hike, rumor has it it’s the biggest tax hike in history.  In that lens , Obama is going to have to answer to that.

33 Comments

Posted in Government, Health Care, Politics: National, Welfare

Tagged , ,

What Makes America America

Posted on June 29, 2012 | 7 comments

I have often thought that makes America unique in the history of the world is not her physical boundaries.  It’s not the vast expanse of land mass bordering two oceans.  It’s not the natural resources.

It’s the people that have cherished the concept of Liberty that have made America what she is.

Continue reading →

7 Comments

Posted in Government, Health Care, Liberty, Politics: National

Tagged , , ,