Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IRS: Obamacare doesn’t require you [employers] to offer ‘affordable’ family coverage
Human Resources Bernefits Alert ^ | January 3, 2013 | Jared Bilski

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 Act’s “Employer Shared Responsibility” provision, along with a practical Q&A with real-life examples for employers. Here’s 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 aren’t required to make it affordable, and they won’t be penalized if employees can’t 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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Health/Medicine; Society
KEYWORDS: deathcare; democrats; employees; employers; fraud; nothealthcare; obama; obamacare; romneycare; socializedmedicine
We have to pass the bill to see what's in it.
1 posted on 02/12/2013 9:13:53 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

just trying to get as many people dropped and into fedgov exchanges.


2 posted on 02/12/2013 9:35:00 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


3 posted on 02/12/2013 9:50:31 PM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
And what about missionaries or aid workers who (1) haven't had much increase in income in 15 years, (2) can't suddenly increase their income for health insurance, (3) are not members of large organizations, (4) and file as self-employed ??

Seems to me that they have less than 50 employees. Self = 1.

4 posted on 02/12/2013 10:07:09 PM PST by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


5 posted on 02/12/2013 10:13:31 PM PST by Terry Mross (How long before America is gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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)


6 posted on 02/12/2013 10:27:22 PM PST by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
And then there's this gem at the end of the article:

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.

7 posted on 02/12/2013 10:57:23 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

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.


8 posted on 02/12/2013 11:31:32 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The street con known as “three card monte” should be renamed “three card Barry”.............


9 posted on 02/12/2013 11:46:58 PM PST by NeverForgetBataan (I am become Barry... destroyer of wealth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

>”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.


10 posted on 02/12/2013 11:55:25 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (I only Fear a Government that doesn't Fear me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

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.


11 posted on 02/13/2013 12:05:09 AM PST by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

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.


12 posted on 02/13/2013 12:06:57 AM PST by setha (It is past time for the United States to take back what the world took away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
You have to pass a Kidney Stone before you can see what the hell hurt so much.

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.

13 posted on 02/13/2013 12:09:58 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
I’d hate to see temp agencies go;

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."

14 posted on 02/13/2013 12:12:18 AM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
IRS Admits Obamacare’s Cost is $20,000 Per Family

Stay healthy, folks!

15 posted on 02/13/2013 12:14:29 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: setha
At best, staffing agencies would end up being more attentive to the people seeking work (than they already are) versus the agency’s clients.

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.

16 posted on 02/13/2013 12:17:56 AM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

“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. ;)


17 posted on 02/13/2013 1:51:37 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

That or increase automation where it can be added - should there be no other way around the law.


18 posted on 02/13/2013 11:49:39 AM PST by setha (It is past time for the United States to take back what the world took away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge; ApplegateRanch

You are quoting ApplegateRanch so I’ll ping him to your post.


19 posted on 02/13/2013 1:52:01 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: setha

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.


20 posted on 02/13/2013 1:55:16 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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

http://healthenews.cchfreedom.org/newsletter.php/55


21 posted on 02/13/2013 2:17:32 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: green pastures

bflr


22 posted on 02/13/2013 8:17:32 PM PST by green pastures (Cynicism-- it's not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson