How Obamacare is affecting businesses

[Perchoutofwater]

Well you can't argue with facts. Obamacare was responsible for our unemployment rate.

 

You people are nuts.

 

Actually it could be part of the problem. I believe companies with less than 40 employees are exempt. If you have 38 or 39 employees how likely are you to want to hire more. You might be able to increase production by 10% or profits by 10% if you added 4 employees, but because of Obamacare rather than seeing an increase in profits, you see an increase in labor costs because now you have to insure all your employees. Instead of increasing profits by 10% you more than likely will be losing 10% due to the extra cost.

 

ETA: the 40+ projects than I know were canceled by Obamacare were all medical facilities and were cancelled as a direct result of Obamacare. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of non medical expansions cancelled due to obamacare to be much higher as expansion could put them over the threshold mentioned in the scenario above.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Perchoutofwater

[Yukon Cornelius]

"21.1 million of the 27 million small businesses in the United States are “non-employer firms,” which have no workers other than the owner."

 

Actually it could be part of the problem. I believe companies with less than 40 employees are exempt. If you have 38 or 39 employees how likely are you to want to hire more. You might be able to increase production by 10% or profits by 10% if you added 4 employees, but because of Obamacare rather than seeing an increase in profits, you see an increase in labor costs because now you have to insure all your employees. Instead of increasing profits by 10% you more than likely will be losing 10% due to the extra cost.

 

ETA: the 40+ projects than I know were canceled by Obamacare were all medical facilities and were cancelled as a direct result of Obamacare. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of non medical expansions cancelled due to obamacare to be much higher as expansion could put them over the threshold mentioned in the scenario above.

hey i got to use that twice today...

[SEC=UGA]

One more time, in case you missed it. Do you agree that employment / employers should have nothing whatsoever to do with their employees health care?

 

No, I feel employers should be able to offer healthcare to their employees if they want. I feel employers should be able to not offer HC to their employees.

 

I don't think that if an employer offers HC that he should have to offer it to the rest of the employees family. The laws covering what an employer must and must not do if they offer HC to their employees are crazy.

[evil_gop_liars]

"21.1 million of the 27 million small businesses in the United States are “non-employer firms,” which have no workers other than the owner."

 

 

hey i got to use that twice today...

 

[Perchoutofwater]

"21.1 million of the 27 million small businesses in the United States are “non-employer firms,” which have no workers other than the owner."

 

 

hey i got to use that twice today...

 

And you know as well as I do that the way the government defines a small business is f'd up. Over half of the businesses most people would consider small businesses the government does not. Hardly any construction companies doing commercial work can be considered small businesses under the governments definition.

[SEC=UGA]

"21.1 million of the 27 million small businesses in the United States are “non-employer firms,” which have no workers other than the owner."

 

 

hey i got to use that twice today...

 

What's yer point? Many of those small businesses are contractors that work for larger employers (it is beneficial tax-wise to use subs.)

 

For example, when I worked for Cushman and Wakefield in brokerage, I was classified as a subcontractor, not an employee. It saved them an ass load of money to structure my employment in this manner.

 

Currently, I employ subcontractors quite often.

[bpwallace49]

No, I feel employers should be able to offer healthcare to their employees if they want. I feel employers should be able to not offer HC to their employees.

 

I don't think that if an employer offers HC that he should have to offer it to the rest of the employees family. The laws covering what an employer must and must not do if they offer HC to their employees are crazy.

 

 

You can also state in your company policy that if you choose to accept family care that the extra over and above a single person's insurance is borne by the employee. Unless Georgia requires that you have fully PAY for their insurance there is a hugh difference between OFFERING family insurance and PAYING for employee insurance. If you do choose to then that is alllll on you.

 

BTW, I dont know what kinda of f-ed up insurance laws you may or may not have in GA, but in Illinois it doesnt matter for your rates if you have 1 kid or 18 kids. The family rate for the insurance is the same. My compnay insurance does not "add 200 bucks per kid" on top of family coverage.

 

Again . . . unless you are doing the whole insurance thing wrong? Who is your carrier?

[SEC=UGA]

 

You can also state in your company policy that if you choose to accept family care that the extra over and above a single person's insurance is borne by the employee. Unless Georgia requires that you have fully PAY for their insurance there is a hugh difference between OFFERING family insurance and PAYING for employee insurance. If you do choose to then that is alllll on you.

 

BTW, I dont know what kinda of f-ed up insurance laws you may or may not have in GA, but in Illinois it doesnt matter for your rates if you have 1 kid or 18 kids. The family rate for the insurance is the same. My compnay insurance does not "add 200 bucks per kid" on top of family coverage.

 

Again . . . unless you are doing the whole insurance thing wrong? Who is your carrier?

 

Dude, you mean to tell me that there is not a difference in cost between a wife and husband and a family of 4? I'll tell you right now your full of it.

 

I have had groups through BC/BS of GA, Humana, and Pinnacle. Each one of these has a different rate for Employee, Employee and Spouse, and Family. There is no difference between 2 and three kids in the family plan, but (in my case) when you go from Employee and spouse to Family it adds about 300 a month.

 

So, back to my original point, which you don't seem to be grasping... If I have akid drop off and the policy reverts to an employee and spouse policy I save money. By that kid not having to drop off under the new laws/regulations, what the fu(k ever you want to call it, it costs me money.

[Pope Flick]

Holy christ...

 

Say my insurance in year 1 is 10K. That 10K is to cover 10 employees and their families. The burden for the employee and his/ner spouse is 800, the kid adds 200 to that. Well, in year 2 little johnny, susie, omar and monique turned 23 and were out of school, my insurance premiums should have dropped by 800. Making my new Insurance cost 9,200. But, due to Obamacare little johnny, susie, omar and monique were not dropped and thus impacted my bottom line to the tune of 800. Not only that, but now they can stay on until they are 26. So, it's 800 this year, 800 next year, 800 the next year and 800 the next year. Grand total, this law has cost me $3,200.

 

What I am saying has NOTHING to do with any increase by my insuarnce company and has EVERYTHING to do with a law that requires me to keep people on my insurance who should have dropped off.

 

 

Health care costs go up every year. In fact, today CNN posts an article about how the costs this year aren't going up as much in year's past. You are claiming a problem at your place that isn't reflected by in the rest of the country. I wonder why that is?

[SEC=UGA]

Health care costs go up every year. In fact, today CNN posts an article about how the costs this year aren't going up as much in year's past. You are claiming a problem at your place that isn't reflected by in the rest of the country. I wonder why that is?

 

It most certainly has increased costs to employers who pick up any portion of the insurance burden for their employees.

 

Even if rates do not increase, the simple fact that you continue to have a "child" of an employee, who would have dropped off, on your insurance increases the cost to the employer.

 

According to their own statistics the Dept of Health and Human services acknowledges that due to the new HC law 1 million more"children" are riding on their parent's company sponsored insurance programs. While the parents pay a % of this, the companies do as well. There is a cost to business involved in these 1 million + "children" who are now insured on their company's insurance.

[Clubfoothead]

So the employers should not be forced to offer insurance and the federal government should not offer it either?

 

So how does one pay for healthcare again?

[Pope Flick]

It most certainly has increased costs to employers who pick up any portion of the insurance burden for their employees.

 

Even if rates do not increase, the simple fact that you continue to have a "child" of an employee, who would have dropped off, on your insurance increases the cost to the employer.

 

According to their own statistics the Dept of Health and Human services acknowledges that due to the new HC law 1 million more"children" are riding on their parent's company sponsored insurance programs. While the parents pay a % of this, the companies do as well. There is a cost to business involved in these 1 million + "children" who are now insured on their company's insurance.

 

 

I guess you misunderstood my question: this problem that rates going up higher than usual as you are claiming appear to run counter to what's happening nationally - that rates are rising, but at a lower rate then seen in the past 15 years. That sucks for you and I'm wondering why you have such a special case...

[SEC=UGA]

So the employers should not be forced to offer insurance and the federal government should not offer it either?

 

So how does one pay for healthcare again?

 

YOu open your wallet and write a check to the insurance company of your choice. Much the same way you do with your car, house, boat, etc...

[Clubfoothead]

YOu open your wallet and write a check to the insurance company of your choice. Much the same way you do with your car, house, boat, etc...

 

And if you don't have $1,400.00 a month for health insurance?

[Yukon Cornelius]

YOu open your wallet and write a check to the insurance company of your choice. Much the same way you do with your car, house, boat, etc...

[bpwallace49]

Dude, you mean to tell me that there is not a difference in cost between a wife and husband and a family of 4? I'll tell you right now your full of it.

 

I have had groups through BC/BS of GA, Humana, and Pinnacle. Each one of these has a different rate for Employee, Employee and Spouse, and Family. There is no difference between 2 and three kids in the family plan, but (in my case) when you go from Employee and spouse to Family it adds about 300 a month.

 

So, back to my original point, which you don't seem to be grasping... If I have akid drop off and the policy reverts to an employee and spouse policy I save money. By that kid not having to drop off under the new laws/regulations, what the fu(k ever you want to call it, it costs me money.

 

And you clearly didnt read my post where I state that it doesnt matter if you have 1 versus 18 kids (pssst . . they all involve kids) If you suddenly had a huge increase of kids back on insurance, then you ALSO reaped the benefits of not having them on prior, correct? I guess you just have a massive amount of college age kids back on insurance that were off last year? So you are pissed that even though your insurance costs went DOWN when they came off and you spent less on your benefits, you are now pissed that your rates have returned to where they were a few years ago? ( sounds like a direct representation of the Bush tax cuts )

 

And if YOU choose to eat the extra coverage for employee plus spouse versus family coverage that is your choice. I know my company mandates that if you choose higher levels of coverage then the company will pay less of the premium and the employee pays more. Perhaps that is an option you should look at. I just checked our renewal again. We had 6 "young adults" added back to the group. But each of those employees already had family coverage so it didnt matter for the overall. I will note that the difference between employee + spouse and family is only 190 bucks more a month for me, and we sure as hell dont pick that whole amount up ourselves.

 

My agent made it a POINT of saying that by adding more healthy people with no claims to the group, that was a direct influence on suppressing renewal rates. While you are looking at the short term, I am sure that if you were used to 10% + increases in the past, a flat rate would mitigate your monthly outlay when accrued over a year depending on the size of your group, no?

 

God bless you for paying 100% of all benefits.

[bpwallace49]

It most certainly has increased costs to employers who pick up any portion of the insurance burden for their employees.

 

Even if rates do not increase, the simple fact that you continue to have a "child" of an employee, who would have dropped off, on your insurance increases the cost to the employer.

 

According to their own statistics the Dept of Health and Human services acknowledges that due to the new HC law 1 million more"children" are riding on their parent's company sponsored insurance programs. While the parents pay a % of this, the companies do as well. There is a cost to business involved in these 1 million + "children" who are now insured on their company's insurance.

 

And that cost to the business is mitigated over time by having a bigger and relatively healthier group by adding young healthy adults which keeps premiums down on a year to year basis?

[SEC=UGA]

Due to what I am outlining one of two things are going to happen:

Companies will pull their employer provided health plans

Companies will get exemptions from the law

 

Tell me this, if this new law does not increase costs to employers then why have so many sought exemptions?

[Ursa Majoris]

Dude, you mean to tell me that there is not a difference in cost between a wife and husband and a family of 4? I'll tell you right now your full of it.

We are altering our health care plan for 2012 so yesterday I was talking with the HR Benefits director and she told me flat out that spousal insurance is considerably more expensive than any number of kids. This was in response to my question as to why Employee + Spouse was more expensive than Employee + Kids. I drew the conclusion that kids (it doesn't matter here how many you have, the cost is the same) aren't as expensive as a wife. Obviously Employee + Spouse + Kids costs more but it really wasn't all that much, relatively speaking.

 

Also, wasn't health care reform trying to solve the original problem number of uninsured in the country aka ER freeloaders (oops, sorry, downtrodden constitutional patriots)? Adding the under-26s to your costs did resolve that problem, you must admit.

[Ursa Majoris]

No, I feel employers should be able to offer healthcare to their employees if they want. I feel employers should be able to not offer HC to their employees.

 

I don't think that if an employer offers HC that he should have to offer it to the rest of the employees family. The laws covering what an employer must and must not do if they offer HC to their employees are crazy.

I still don't see why you wouldn't want to get rid of the health care and all the admin overhead that goes with it and just fork over the equivalent in cash. You could eliminate half your HR department plus not have to worry about next year's premiums (which in large measure you can't control).

 

At this point I've gotta say you're grimly hanging on to the employer-funded health care argument out of right wing principle, not logic.

[Big Country]

We are altering our health care plan for 2012 so yesterday I was talking with the HR Benefits director and she told me flat out that spousal insurance is considerably more expensive than any number of kids. This was in response to my question as to why Employee + Spouse was more expensive than Employee + Kids. I drew the conclusion that kids (it doesn't matter here how many you have, the cost is the same) aren't as expensive as a wife. Obviously Employee + Spouse + Kids costs more but it really wasn't all that much, relatively speaking.

 

Also, wasn't health care reform trying to solve the original problem number of uninsured in the country aka ER freeloaders (oops, sorry, downtrodden constitutional patriots)? Adding the under-26s to your costs did resolve that problem, you must admit.

 

 

It's cause wimmins have their special Chargerz docs and get pregnant. Child bearing age women are probably the most expensive class of person to an insurance company (this excludes terminally ill folks, etc.), where as children are generally much more healthy and need to go to the doctor a lot less (unless you take them in every time they have a cold), that is why you see a much bigger jump from employee only to employee+ spouse than you see in employee to employee+kids or from employee+spouse to employee+family

[Ursa Majoris]

It's cause wimmins have their special Chargerz docs and get pregnant. Child bearing age women are probably the most expensive class of person to an insurance company (this excludes terminally ill folks, etc.), where as children are generally much more healthy and need to go to the doctor a lot less (unless you take them in every time they have a cold), that is why you see a much bigger jump from employee only to employee+ spouse than you see in employee to employee+kids or from employee+spouse to employee+family

Yep. Also according to our HR director, my company is a "baby making machine" though we also have the benefit of being a quite healthy bunch in general, so our costs haven't risen as much as many other companies regardless of our high maternity / paternity rate.

[Big Country]

Yep. Also according to our HR director, my company is a "baby making machine" though we also have the benefit of being a quite healthy bunch in general, so our costs haven't risen as much as many other companies regardless of our high maternity / paternity rate.

 

 

Baby making machine... I like that. My small work group is like that... it is me and 16 women... I had my boy last December. One lady just adopted a child, another just had a baby and another is due in February.

[SEC=UGA]

I still don't see why you wouldn't want to get rid of the health care and all the admin overhead that goes with it and just fork over the equivalent in cash. You could eliminate half your HR department plus not have to worry about next year's premiums (which in large measure you can't control).

 

At this point I've gotta say you're grimly hanging on to the employer-funded health care argument out of right wing principle, not logic.

 

Not a whole bunch of admin overhead that goes with it, I don't have extra people handling solely the HC.

 

If I were to pay the people the extra sum for HC in their wage it would cost me more due to payroll taxes.

 

I'm not hanging onto the employer funded HC principle, I think individuals should buy it themselves. But, since employers have used it, much like we do, as a benefit to attract better workers, it is going to be tough to root out.

[WaterMan]

If the job creators are sitting on most of the money, why not let it trickle down in form of better healthcare?