Posted on 06/13/2013 12:02:28 PM PDT by Hojczyk
It's called the Affordable Care Act, but President Barack Obama's health care law may turn out to be unaffordable for many low-wage workers, including employees at big chain restaurants, retail stores and hotels.
That might seem strange since the law requires medium-sized and large employers to offer "affordable" coverage or face fines.
But what's reasonable? Because of a wrinkle in the law, companies can meet their legal obligations by offering policies that would be too expensive for many low-wage workers. For the employee, it's like a mirage — attractive but out of reach.
he company can get off the hook, say corporate consultants and policy experts, but the employee could still face a federal requirement to get health insurance.
Many are expected to remain uninsured, possibly risking fines. That's due to another provision: the law says workers with an offer of "affordable" workplace coverage aren't entitled to new tax credits for private insurance, which could be a better deal for those on the lower rungs of the middle class.
Some supporters of the law are disappointed. It smacks of today's Catch-22 insurance rules.
"Some people may not gain the benefit of affordable employer coverage," acknowledged Ron Pollack, president of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group leading efforts to get uninsured people signed up for coverage next year.
"It is an imperfection in the new law," Pollack added. "The new law is a big step in the right direction, but it is not perfect, and it will require future improvements."
The law is complicated, but essentially companies with 50 or more full-time workers are required to offer coverage that meets certain basic standards and costs no more than 9.5 percent of an employee's income.
Failure to do so means fines for the employer.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“he company can get off the hook, say corporate consultants and policy experts, but the employee could still face a federal requirement to get health insurance. “
I thought the law said if the employer offers it, you have to take it.
No one said you could afford it, just be required to get it.
Might be homeless, but you have insurance by God.
It was never meant to be affordable. It was meant to force productive people to pay the way for the non-productive democrat voters.
There will be enrollment centers in democrat cities to sign up democrat voters for free healthcare. They won’t pay a cent. Those eeevvvviiilllllll businesses will have to pay. Communists feel that businesses exploit their workers, and that this is just payback.
The law requires that they offer affordable coverage?
Is it true that it allows coverage with just all the mandated tests and preventive treatments but doesn't mandate actual treatments of illnesses, ?? The purpose of real insurance?
The low information voters are about to be bent over ... tried to warn them. Is going to be terrible when the IRS starts sending out the collection notices to this crowd.
What makes them think that “average-wage” employees are going to be able to afford it? Those who do not qualify for any freebies from the government?
you forgot something. Not going to tell you what ... I’ll just let you see it first hand when it comes to pass.
regret to inform you ... it will not be made that easy.
NO. The foundation was laid so that Obomacare would fail and screw things up enough as to force us into "Single Payer" aka Socialized Medicine.
Okay, am I the only one who thinks we should just stop electing people to the federal government and just go to a lottery system?
Even your average 'low-wage' worker could have figured this one out!
So a person making 40k has to be offered insurance for 3800 a year which seems like a fair sum yet at 300 or so per month pretty much useless. I can’t recall how many years ago family coverage was under $1,000 a month.
hahaha. Sure they will. Sure.
Yes, of course, this was the real reason for it, but the Lie was to help poor folks.
No one listened to the Indian chattering about “forked tongue” back in ‘08....
yep all we have to do is print more money.
Another wrinkle is that the employer only has to offer affordable coverage to the employee, not his/her family. And if they are offered coverage at work, I don’t think they are elgible for any subsidy for family coverage.
As individuals. I may have read somewhere the government frowns on that sort of behavior.
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.