The Health Care Law.

[ChikeeMomma]

Not off topic. It's one of the main problems is people don't care what it cost if the insurance companies have to pay for it. But try to find a doctor that will say you only need to see a midwife.




                                                                          

Should mention, too, since there are stigmas involved with midwives that I saw midwives who delivered in a hospital. Not that there's anything wrong with homebirths, many people automatically assume I delivered at home.

 

[Stephanie739]

So did you see the answer.
It's hard to believe that some that defend the law have no idea what's in it.
Many part time employees that have company insurance will lose it.
Maybe we should do like Greece and outlaw part time.

I think I understand the law pretty well Dennis. By cutting some workers to part time (ask some to volunteer!) the employer can get out of the mandate if they are close to the 50 full time threshold. The tallying of part time hours only makes it so a company who hires 100 part time workers will have a lowered "full time" threshold of 31.

Which businesses of this size do not already offer insurance benefits to their employees, just curious. I can't think of any...I guess they are out there, but I bet they are the minority.

 

[Stephanie739]

If Obama was trying to look out for people with out insurance and help them get treated at hospitals why would he fine people for not having insurance? They would have more money not being fined and not having insurance than being fined and not having insurance.

The reason for the mandate is the prohibition of preexisting condition clauses and denial due to health. People have to remain insured even while healthy (thus the tax) to avoid thoroughly bankrupting the system. Otherwise they will only join an exchange when they are sick.

 

[Stephanie739]

actually, it says "part-time employees who are working full-time hours" I've worked for a lot of employers who do this. Many states have laws that state if a part-time employee works full-time for a certain amount of time (6 months in some states) then they have to be given full-time status and benefits. So what employers do is hire a "part-time" employee, work them 40 hours for just short of the time limit and then either replace them with a new part-timer or cut their hours to nothing for a few weeks. Then it's back to full-time hours but still none of the benefits.
The wording is to keep employers from taking advantage of this type of loophole to avoid providing benefits.

Employers will be tallying total hours to determine their responsibility with the law Dainerra, so from the way I understand it, your scenario is very unlikely, maybe even impossible.

 

[Stephanie739]

So did you see the answer.
It's hard to believe that some that defend the law have no idea what's in it.
Many part time employees that have company insurance will lose it.
Maybe we should do like Greece and outlaw part time.

Part time employees can purchase through the exchanges.

 

[Stephanie739]

It's hard to believe that some that defend the law have no idea what's in it.

Its funny how some who are so opposed to the law have no idea what is in it.

 

[Stephanie739]

I bet it will work like auto insurance. The state will probably construct a plan accessible to everyone via an assigned risk program (less desirable policies are evenly distributed among the companies - assigned risk) This way the state and companies can still be competitive on more favorable risks, thus encouraging healthy living habits for lower premiums in the standard market. I'll take a guess an assigned risk pool will likely be subsidized in some way. I would rather subsidies be on an individual as needed basis (financial status application) rather than subsidies direct to the insurance companies.

 

[mom'sfolly]

The bottom line is that the Affordable Care Act was found constitutional.

I think the real key is keeping down health care costs, in general. I think this country has too many specialists, and too much high tech testing. You don't need a CT scan every time your arm hurts. Your GP should be able to do general procedures without referring you to a specialist. Some doctors are better at this then others. My mom's doctor loves referrals. Mom has a mole that needs looking at...go see a dermatologist; mom has ingrown eyelashes...go see a opthamologist. In both cases, a good GP should be able to handle mole removal and pulling an eyelash. This doctor is gate keeper, not a medical practitioner. Many doctors are like this.

 

[Stephanie739]

It seems to me that the people who are going to experience the most difficulty with this law are the lower to middle income families, not companies. These uninsured families might be facing a new bill in the hundreds of dollars each month because of the individual mandate.

 

[chickened]

actually, it says "part-time employees who are working full-time hours" I've worked for a lot of employers who do this. Many states have laws that state if a part-time employee works full-time for a certain amount of time (6 months in some states) then they have to be given full-time status and benefits. So what employers do is hire a "part-time" employee, work them 40 hours for just short of the time limit and then either replace them with a new part-timer or cut their hours to nothing for a few weeks. Then it's back to full-time hours but still none of the benefits.
The wording is to keep employers from taking advantage of this type of loophole to avoid providing benefits.

The state of Oregon has been doing this for years. Go to their jobs page on the net and look at the amount of jobs that are full time 6 month positions. They avoid paying benefits and there is no union to join. They lay you off in 6 months and hire another. Almost all restaurants do this also and a lot of retail businesses.