[tomder55]

According to a survey conducted by Deloit ;9% of employers in the country plan on dropping health care benefits for their employees once Obamacare is implemented .Another 10% are not sure if they will continue to provide it.

The companies, though, said a lot will depend on how future provisions of the law unfold, since most of the key parts are scheduled to take effect in 2014. One in three respondents said they could stop offering coverage if the law requires them to provide more generous benefits than they do now, if a tax on high-cost plans takes effect in 2018 as scheduled or if they decide it would be cheaper for them to pay the penalty for not providing insurance.

Nearly one in 10 employers to drop health coverage - Washington Times

But we all know this was the not so secret agenda behind Obamacare... make it prohibitive for many employers to cover the cost of the benefit ;and offer them an out with a cheaper fine (oops I mean tax) ;and have the formerly covered employees join the exchanges .

So much for the lie... 'if you like your own insurance ,you can keep it'.

[excon]

Hello tom:

I don't know.. As an employer, if I could DROP paying benefits to my employees and blame Obama for it, I would...

I wonder if it's going to add to their bottom lines... Nahhh.

excon

[Fr_Chuck]

And how many work places that offer insurance actually have people sign up. In my last place, they offered insurance, for a family the cost was 700 dollars a month, good price compared to trying to buy it other places, but if you make 12 bucks a hour, you can't spend almost 1/2 of your take home pay for your insurance

[tomder55]

My company covers most of the cost for all employees . I expect they will be one that will have to recalculate as I'm pretty sure it will cost them less if they pay the penalty .
Ex ;the cost of benefits is a big factor in both the bottom line and often is a factor on hiring decisions and wage decisions . Perhaps your business is less than 50 employees ,and these rules don't apply. My company employs 500+ .

[excon]

Perhaps your business is less than 50 employees ,and these rules don't apply.

Hello again, tom:

What rules are you talking about? NO employer is REQUIRED to supply benefits to his employees.

I say again, if an employer is able to STOP paying for benefits for his employees and BLAME Obama for it, there's LOTS of them who are going to do it.

excon

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

What rules are you talking about? NO employer is REQUIRED to supply benefits to his employees.

I say again, if an employer is able to STOP paying for benefits for his employees and BLAME Obama for it, there's LOTS of them who are going to do it.

Excon

Obviously you didn't read the link provided

While small business don't face fines for failing to offer coverage, companies with 50 or more full time employees face a penalty starting at $2,000 per worker.

[paraclete]

Such an illusion, such a dillusion, pay the right wages, get the medical costs under control by making the doctors responsible to the patients, why should insurance be so exxpensive? Because there is a profit in it

[tomder55]

It is so expensive because the system was rigged by the government to stifle competition and choice.

[NeedKarma]

It is so expensive because the system was rigged by the government to stifle competition and choice.

Wasn't it always like that? What did 8 years of Republican rule do for opening up competition and lowering health care costs?

[tomder55]

There was no 8 years of Republican rule. The time that Republicans had anything close to a majority required to make such a change in the system was between the 2002 midterms ,and the 2006 Dem takeover of the House ;a 4 year window.
But even then they never had a veto proof Senate like the Dems had in 2009/10 .
Between 2001/2 ;the Dems had a majority in the Senate because they convinced Sen.Jim Jeffords to jump the aisle and switch parties.

[Fr_Chuck]

I can't wait for it personally and let some of you help pay my premium. I am not old enough for Medicare and have health problems.

If I could even get coverage ( denied by most private) the cost of just for me for private insurance is around 900. So from the hype, they will not be able to charge me more than a young person now ? So either the young person will have to start paying a lot more, or it will be great for me.

[tomder55]

Yeah there has been a lot of this generational theft going on in this country .

[smearcase]

Virginia's AG has an interesting opinion on obamacare law.
If states refuse to set up exchanges (approx. 14 have started the process so far), Feds will do so--is that the planned route to a single payer system?
Va. attorney general argues for do-nothing policy against federal health-care law - The Washington Post

[tomder55]

It is no secret that is the goal . I also think that the President ,if we are unfortunate enough to see a 2nd Obama term would do what he can by EO fiat to accelerate the move to single payer.

[paraclete]

Can't understand what your objection is, Tom, efficiency is as important as ideology.

You are saying there is fallout but it will take much longer to determine where fallout might actually happen. Your employers might unbundle those salary packages and pay a little more giving the employees the option to arrange their own insurance. Think of it as emancipation

[talaniman]

One of the fallouts of ACA is about to happen already. Insurance companies are rebating the money they didn't use for medical payouts back to customers before they pay bonuses. Lots of crying CEO's

Now that's fall out we can believe in.

[paraclete]

Don't quite know how that works Tal but you see it as positive so it must be

[talaniman]

Millions could receive insurance rebates in 2012, despite industry opposition | Fox News

Of course the insurance companies don't like it as they would rather reward CEO's with bonuses.

Texas Slow To Review Health Insurance Rate Hikes : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

But so far the Texas Department of Insurance hasn't completed any reviews. Officially, they're all pending.

In the meantime, the insurance companies can raise the rates anyway. An insurer called Celtic, for example, has raised rates on three policies in Texas by 20 percent.

The rate review provision is a popular piece of the health law. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 66 percent of the public has a favorable view of the policy. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

The Texas insurance department got a $1 million grant from the federal government to work on rate review.

This is typical in the states that have conservative legislatures and govenors that collude with the insurance companies to maximize the extraction of profits from the public, while minmizing the services.

Yes this is a positive for common people, but the insurance industry profits too, just not as much or as fast as they would like.

[paraclete]

This is typical in the states that have conservative legislatures and govenors that collude with the insurance companies to maximize the extraction of profits from the public, while minmizing the services.

Yes this is a positive for common people, but the insurance industry profits too, just not as much or as fast as they would like.

A somwhat unusual concept Tal, we use regulation to prevent profiteering in areas of public policy

[talaniman]

That's exactly what this is Clete, regulation to prevent what insurance companies, and big pharmacuticals companies have been doing for decades.

Ripping the public off.