What happens when companies start dropping health coverage???

• Mr. 300

  

  If companies take a look at how much money they are spending on healthcare for their employees, and decide they'll drop the coverage, pay the fine and save money.....what happens then??
  
  It is within their right based on this new law. These employees are then forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine. Hmmmmmmm
• LJ

  

  They are going to start 1099ing employees, not dropping health insurance benefits.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I see this as the path toward single-payer, government insurance.
  
  Obama is on tape pretty much saying you have to work toward that goal incrementally -- and what quicker way to accomplish that goal than make it economically hard for employers to maintain coverage.
  
  More and more companies simply pay fines and premiums skyrocket because they are being forced to take everyone AND provide everyone with services mandated by law. Eventually, premiums will be too high and subsidies so much that it will make more sense to simply have the government providing it all.
  
  There's no doubt in my mind that a government program is the endgame here.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  It will be called the Health Care Crisis of 2013. The solution will be a government owned and operated insurance provider.
• Mr. 300

  

  LJ wrote: They are going to start 1099ing employees, not dropping health insurance benefits.

  Not if they drop that part of the benefit package. They will only send 1099's if they provide healthcare to an employee. The companies can opt to not provide it, and pay an 8% penalty on their gross payroll.
• LJ

  

  Mr. 300 wrote:

  LJ wrote: They are going to start 1099ing employees, not dropping health insurance benefits.

  Not if they drop that part of the benefit package. They will only send 1099's if they provide healthcare to an employee. The companies can opt to not provide it, and pay an 8% penalty on their gross payroll.

  nooooo. They are going to make employees contractors and pay them on a 1099,making them technically not employees and not having to pay a fine.
• IggyPride00

  

  We can argue one way or the other about the merits of the health bill, but the reality is this would have started to happen whether this bill passed or not.
  
  The number of businesses offering benefits has dropped in recent years, as the yearly premium increases have been crippling for alot of small businesses.
  
  There was no government health bill, and premiums more than doubled the past decade. Studies show that with no health bill they would have doubled again the next decade. That is just not sustainable for businesses to keep shouldering the brunt of.
  
  Not to mention it eats up any potential for actual wage increases, because it is all going to support higher healthcare bills.
  
  This may or may not be the answer, but it is a start.
• Swamp Fox

  I just sat down with my broker yesterday, and Iggy Pride is absolutely correct. Businesses have already been cutting out their health care programs. A retirement program's largest responsibility is to attempt to hedge the inflationary nature of health care, both now, but particularly 5 to 10 years down the road. Today, we have more and more citizens who are or have already had their health care canceled by their employers. The Health Care Bill will not change that trend. The bill is designed to give health care to people who don't have it. If companies continue to eliminate health care, there will be a lot more people going on public assistance because it will probably be cheaper to live that way than to work.
• LJ

  

  Swamp Fox wrote: I just sat down with my broker yesterday, and Iggy Pride is absolutely correct. Businesses have already been cutting out their health care programs. A retirement program's largest responsibility is to attempt to hedge the inflationary nature of health care, both now, but particularly 5 to 10 years down the road. Today, we have more and more citizens who are or have already had their health care canceled by their employers. The Health Care Bill will not change that trend. The bill is designed to give health care to people who don't have it. If companies continue to eliminate health care, there will be a lot more people going on public assistance because it will probably be cheaper to live that way than to work.

  But with the fines that the gov't will be imposing, companies won't be just straight up dropping healthcare coverage. They are going to fire employees and rehire them as contractors and just pay other benefits up front as salary. You will see a balance between that and dropping employees benefits to whatever the biggest monetary benefit is for the company.
• Footwedge

  LJ wrote:

  Mr. 300 wrote:

  LJ wrote: They are going to start 1099ing employees, not dropping health insurance benefits.

  Not if they drop that part of the benefit package. They will only send 1099's if they provide healthcare to an employee. The companies can opt to not provide it, and pay an 8% penalty on their gross payroll.

  nooooo. They are going to make employees contractors and pay them on a 1099,making them technically not employees and not having to pay a fine.

  There are tight laws regarding 1099 "employees". Businesses run a slippery slope in circumventing labor laws by making them independent contractors.
  
  Specific criteria must be met before a company can hire on independents via contract.
  
  The Health Care bill does not change the labor laws.
• LJ

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  LJ wrote:

  Mr. 300 wrote:

  LJ wrote: They are going to start 1099ing employees, not dropping health insurance benefits.

  Not if they drop that part of the benefit package. They will only send 1099's if they provide healthcare to an employee. The companies can opt to not provide it, and pay an 8% penalty on their gross payroll.

  nooooo. They are going to make employees contractors and pay them on a 1099,making them technically not employees and not having to pay a fine.

  There are tight laws regarding 1099 "employees". Businesses run a slippery slope in circumventing labor laws by making them independent contractors.
  
  Specific criteria must be met before a company can hire on independents via contract.
  
  The Health Care bill does not change the labor laws.

  I have all 1099 employees, I know the laws. They are going to start hiring out on contract All they have to do is pay them by "piece work" and they are fine. You set them on 1 year contracts paying them a higher than usual amount for a specific period which would be the "project" they are on.
  
  Say you have a 48 person company and you get new business and need 8 new people to handle that. You hire them as independant contractors, pay them a set amount for the "project" for a set amount of time, and avoid paying health insurance and a penalty.
• majorspark

  

  I have always though that employers should not be in the health insurance business. They should do what they do best, manufacturing a good or providing a service to their customers.
  
  The Federal Government intervention in the economy caused it. Employer benefit plans proliferated in the 1940's. Government imposed wage freezes on employers during WWII accelerated the spread of employer provided health care. Employers unable by law to attract workers by paying more, instead were allowed to improve their benefit packages by adding health care.
  
  The intention by many in Washington is to use this change to gain power as the primary insurer. That is their goal. They have openly admitted it including Obama. I disagree that a single payer system run by the Federal government is the answer. This can be handled in the free market by the individual himself. Just like each individual handles their auto insurance, employees and employers alike should be expected to purchase their own policies. These policies should cover catastrophic health issues not every trip to the doctors office for a sore throat bringing some free market competition into the doctors office.
  
  The money that is spent by employers to insure them should be transferred into their wages as a pay increase. The US average in 2006 for employees actually enrolled in a employer based health plan was 18.4% of payroll. For example if I pay my employee $20/hr he gets $3.68/hr raise. He then could use this to help him purchase a health care plan available to him in the free market.
  
  I realize the percentage of wages will vary between employees. The percentage I used is from the link below. A 2006 US Average.
  
  http://www.newamerica.net/files/Employer%20Burden%20-%20issue%20brief.pdf
• Footwedge

  LJ wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  LJ wrote:

  Mr. 300 wrote:

  LJ wrote: They are going to start 1099ing employees, not dropping health insurance benefits.

  Not if they drop that part of the benefit package. They will only send 1099's if they provide healthcare to an employee. The companies can opt to not provide it, and pay an 8% penalty on their gross payroll.

  nooooo. They are going to make employees contractors and pay them on a 1099,making them technically not employees and not having to pay a fine.

  There are tight laws regarding 1099 "employees". Businesses run a slippery slope in circumventing labor laws by making them independent contractors.
  
  Specific criteria must be met before a company can hire on independents via contract.
  
  The Health Care bill does not change the labor laws.

  I have all 1099 employees, I know the laws. They are going to start hiring out on contract All they have to do is pay them by "piece work" and they are fine. You set them on 1 year contracts paying them a higher than usual amount for a specific period which would be the "project" they are on.
  
  Say you have a 48 person company and you get new business and need 8 new people to handle that. You hire them as independant contractors, pay them a set amount for the "project" for a set amount of time, and avoid paying health insurance and a penalty.

  I'm no expert on the subject at all. Don't claim to be. I believe that each state has their own laws on this issue.
  
  I know that back in the 80's, I worked as a 1099er for a company selling straight commission. Management made it clear...that inspite of being an independent contractor, they expected 100% of our time focused on selling their products.
  
  Well, in the laste 80's, they got in some trouble with the government. Don't know if it was on the Federal or the State level. Then they switched gears and told us that we could only spend 90% of our time selling their products, and that we had to "pick up" a separate company to sell for...but the product line we chose, could not compete with their's.
  
  They were located in Pennsylvania.
• Footwedge

  majorspark wrote: I have always though that employers should not be in the health insurance business. They should do what they do best, manufacturing a good or providing a service to their customers.
  
  The Federal Government intervention in the economy caused it. Employer benefit plans proliferated in the 1940's. Government imposed wage freezes on employers during WWII accelerated the spread of employer provided health care. Employers unable by law to attract workers by paying more, instead were allowed to improve their benefit packages by adding health care.
  
  The intention by many in Washington is to use this change to gain power as the primary insurer. That is their goal. They have openly admitted it including Obama. I disagree that a single payer system run by the Federal government is the answer. This can be handled in the free market by the individual himself. Just like each individual handles their auto insurance, employees and employers alike should be expected to purchase their own policies. These policies should cover catastrophic health issues not every trip to the doctors office for a sore throat bringing some free market competition into the doctors office.
  
  The money that is spent by employers to insure them should be transferred into their wages as a pay increase. The US average in 2006 for employees actually enrolled in a employer based health plan was 18.4% of payroll. For example if I pay my employee $20/hr he gets $3.68/hr raise. He then could use this to help him purchase a health care plan available to him in the free market.
  
  I realize the percentage of wages will vary between employees. The percentage I used is from the link below. A 2006 US Average.
  
  http://www.newamerica.net/files/Employer%20Burden%20-%20issue%20brief.pdf

  I don't recall Obama claiming he is for a single payer system. From the little I've read, the "socialized" part of this bill encompasses only 4% of the population. I'm going by memory here, so if I'm wrong, let me know.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge wrote: I don't recall Obama claiming he is for a single payer system. From the little I've read, the "socialized" part of this bill encompasses only 4% of the population. I'm going by memory here, so if I'm wrong, let me know.

  
  
• LJ

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  LJ wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  LJ wrote:

  Mr. 300 wrote:

  LJ wrote: They are going to start 1099ing employees, not dropping health insurance benefits.

  Not if they drop that part of the benefit package. They will only send 1099's if they provide healthcare to an employee. The companies can opt to not provide it, and pay an 8% penalty on their gross payroll.

  nooooo. They are going to make employees contractors and pay them on a 1099,making them technically not employees and not having to pay a fine.

  There are tight laws regarding 1099 "employees". Businesses run a slippery slope in circumventing labor laws by making them independent contractors.
  
  Specific criteria must be met before a company can hire on independents via contract.
  
  The Health Care bill does not change the labor laws.

  I have all 1099 employees, I know the laws. They are going to start hiring out on contract All they have to do is pay them by "piece work" and they are fine. You set them on 1 year contracts paying them a higher than usual amount for a specific period which would be the "project" they are on.
  
  Say you have a 48 person company and you get new business and need 8 new people to handle that. You hire them as independant contractors, pay them a set amount for the "project" for a set amount of time, and avoid paying health insurance and a penalty.

  I'm no expert on the subject at all. Don't claim to be. I believe that each state has their own laws on this issue.
  
  I know that back in the 80's, I worked as a 1099er for a company selling straight commission. Management made it clear...that inspite of being an independent contractor, they expected 100% of our time focused on selling their products.
  
  Well, in the laste 80's, they got in some trouble with the government. Don't know if it was on the Federal or the State level. Then they switched gears and told us that we could only spend 90% of our time selling their products, and that we had to "pick up" a separate company to sell for...but the product line we chose, could not compete with their's.
  
  They were located in Pennsylvania.

  yeah, you can't show financial control. Of course, in different sectors that is easier than others. If I hire a 1099 accountant for a full time project they are more likely to focus 100% on me.
• Bigdogg

  I was already close to dropping this benefit for my employees before the health care bill. My company's premiums increased 100% over the past ten years. All this while I shopped it out every year and lowered coverage and participation. The health care insurance system was on critical condition and I believe this is a good first step. Despite all the noise about this, there are many things in this bill that have been recommended by both party's since the last attempt of health care reform.
• WebFire

  Mr. 300 wrote: If companies take a look at how much money they are spending on healthcare for their employees, and decide they'll drop the coverage, pay the fine and save money.....what happens then??
  
  It is within their right based on this new law. These employees are then forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine. Hmmmmmmm

  If these companies wanted to save money doing that, why do they offer it to begin with? They aren't forced to offer it at all right now.
• believer

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: I cant wait till my school district drops all of us.

  Will never happen. The NEA will knock on BHO's door.
• eersandbeers

  Writerbuckeye wrote: I see this as the path toward single-payer, government insurance.
  

  
  Exactly.
  
  
  This was the goal all along. The government claims you can keep your coverage, which the lefties immediately swallow, and they are setting up the framework to create a government run system.
• IggyPride00

  

  I see this as the path toward single-payer, government insurance.

  Believe it or not, there are alot in the business community that would welcome that if it meant freeing their companies balance sheets from health care costs. Profitability and competitiveness would fly to the moon if that cost wasn't on their books considering none of their foreign competitors have to deal with those costs because their home governments do.
  
  It won't be so great for the people, but don't think that companies outside of the healthcare sector aren't privately cheering on attempts for the government to shoulder more of the health care cost burden.
• Footwedge

  majorspark wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: I don't recall Obama claiming he is for a single payer system. From the little I've read, the "socialized" part of this bill encompasses only 4% of the population. I'm going by memory here, so if I'm wrong, let me know.

  
  

  Well, apparently that video was from 2003 and according to Politifact, Obama changed his position on single payer one year later...and has remained steadfast against it. I have never seen Obama promote single payer system without qualifyers..
  
  From politicofact...
  
  In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured." In a rundown of all the candidates' positions, the Associated Press summarized Obama's position as "Support, but 'probably not at this stage,' a single-payer government system."
  In his book The Audacity of Hope , published in October 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Obama described single-payer as the hope of the left, while those on the right wanted a market-based approach. "It's time we broke this impasse by acknowledging a few simple truths," Obama wrote, suggesting a system much like the one he supports today.
  In April 2007, a few months after he declared his candidacy for presidency, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health-care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system."
  At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform. "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.
  
  
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Footie, the second tuber shows clips from as recent as '07.
  
  He didn't just wake up one morning and magically changed his mind. Also, some of the biggest power-players in government (democrats) are pushing for single payer and have aligned themselves with single payer special interest groups.
  

  "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system,"

  I wonder which part he's meaning here? (lol)
• Footwedge

  Center....I agree that he has flip flopped on his position...maybe for political reasons. And certainly an argument can be made that beneathe it all he prefers a single payer system. But that is not what he has publicly stated, RECENTLY.
  
  I trust the reporting and the actual quotes of Obama from a neutral, political "fact check" organization.
  
  Spark showed youtubes answering my first question. The second question still remains unanswered. Is not HCR encompassing the socialization of only 4% of the country?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  LOL at trusting anything this liar says.
  
  He has given us NO reason to trust or believe him.
  
  None.
  
  No reason to call someone a fool because of their opinion- LJ