Skip to comments.IRS: Obamacare doesn’t require you [employers] to offer ‘affordable’ family coverage
Posted on 02/12/2013 9:13:45 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
After a barrage of guidance, the IRS finally published its proposed regs on the Affordable Care Acts Employer Shared Responsibility provision, along with a practical Q&A with real-life examples for employers. Heres help making sense of it all.
At this point, virtually every organization knows that all large employers those with 50 or more full-time employees must provide all full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) with health insurance or pay a shared-responsibility penalty.
Obamacare considers individuals who work at least 30 hours each week to be an FTE,
However, many employers will be surprised by at least one clarification the IRS offered regarding the shared-responsibility regs.
No guarantee for spouses, dependents
The clarification: While large employers are required to offer family coverage under the health reform law, they arent required to make it affordable, and they wont be penalized if employees cant afford the family coverage.
According to the IRS rules, the meaning of affordable hinges entirely on the healthcare costs for the employees or self-only coverage.
Many employers had been under the assumption that the requirement to provide affordable coverage naturally extended to employees spouses and dependents...
(Excerpt) Read more at hrbenefitsalert.com ...
just trying to get as many people dropped and into fedgov exchanges.
This will be a wake up call for many. I basically see it as allowing Insurance Companies the power to tax. No wonder Insurance stocks have gone up.
Seems to me that they have less than 50 employees. Self = 1.
The way I understand this is whatever “self insured” would cost the employee, the insurance companies can charge that much for dependents. IOW, nobody can afford it.
To all those people who still worship this guy, welcome to VA medical care. And I hate that because it means my treatment is going to get worse.
The IRS says that there is no requirement in “The Affordable Care Act” for family health insurance to be affordable. If that isn’t Orwellian, I don’t know what is!
“If you like your plan, you can keep it!” (Except for any of your family whom you won’t be able to afford to cover)
Here are two other important points of clarification in the proposed rule:
Companies that have a common owner (or are related) are generally combined together to determine whether they employ at least 50 full-time employees or a combination of full- and part-time workers that equals that amount, and
The final shared-responsibility rule will include an anti-abuse provision to keep companies from using temporary staffing agencies for the express purpose of evading their obligations under the health reform law.
So, this makes it 1,500 worker-hours/week, rather than "50 or more FT workers". Can't just cut hours to less than 30, and hire other part timers to take up the load, as some places had already started doing.
How do you prove that you’re not using a temporary staffing agency to evade 0bamaCare? If the IRS says you are good luck arguing with them. Sounds like the end of temporary staffing agencies.
The street con known as “three card monte” should be renamed “three card Barry”.............
>”We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”<
You have to pass a Kidney Stone before you can see what the hell hurt so much.
You’d have to prove a negative, and you can’t. IRS says it; their “judge” upholds it.
I’d hate to see temp agencies go; they were my bread & butter when in college during the 73-75 Recession; and again, under Carter.
I got a good, steady (and nearly recession-proof) job again the summer following Reagan’s inauguration. I changed employers once after that in order to get out of California...AFTER getting a solid (and better) offer in Oregon, where I stayed until I retired.
I’d think that they’d at least try to be glorified recruiters first if it is the worst case. At best, staffing agencies would end up being more attentive to the people seeking work (than they already are) versus the agency’s clients.
I wouldn’t count them out immediately but they would have a harder time helping employers with those kind of requests.
True. But passed kidney stones are in the past.
ZeroCare is still mostly in the future. That means it can change your behavior as an economic actor. Such changes, depending on your role in the economy, can multiply the pain on many people many-fold!
Not that the Sheeple don't deserve it.
Yeah, so would a lot of people.
Ringside announcer: "And 0bama delivers another body blow to the economy. That had to hurt, fight fans, I don't see how this can go on much longer. This fight should be stopped, no economy can take this much punishment without permanent injury, folks."
Stay healthy, folks!
Yes, companies could hire more full time personnel for their personnel dept. Oh, wait, that means another 0bamaCare policy. Well, they'll have to suck it up one way or the other ... for the good of the state.
“So, this makes it 1,500 worker-hours/week, rather than “50 or more FT workers”. Can’t just cut hours to less than 30, and hire other part timers to take up the load, as some places had already started doing.”
Yeah, my school suspected the IRS would try something like this which is why we cut everyone back to 29 hours. Or at least that’s what shows up on the sheet. ;)
That or increase automation where it can be added - should there be no other way around the law.
You are quoting ApplegateRanch so I’ll ping him to your post.
That assumes that businesses haven’t already done all they can to increase efficiency and production. The bottom line is businesses will have to expend more money and effort to comply with 0bamaCare. The costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers as it always is and this is an increase in costs that does nothing to improve the product or service.
Stats of the Week:
322 - new full-time equivalent workers requested by IRS for ACA compliance
$0 - funding from HHS for 2013 IRS “new worker” (FTE) request.
856 - full-time employees for which IRS received funding in 2012.
42 - provisions in ACA that will add to or amend tax code
10,000 - decrease in IRS employees over last two years.
$424 million - IRS enforcement revenue expected by 2015
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.