Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ReagansShinyHair

I wonder what the law says about employers having to provide health insurance for employees. My employer provides single or family policies, and pays 80% of the cost. Is that still legal? Can they force me to pay 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? 100%? What does it mean to “provide health care?”


2 posted on 03/23/2010 2:10:00 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (Flame away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Onelifetogive

As with your employer, McDonald’s, and all employers, the personnel costs are a fixed percentage of the overall business plan. Health care is a personnel cost, just like salaries, unemployment compensation, social security, and any other “benefit” an employee gets.

Health care has just moved from a “benefit” which is bestowed by discretion of the employer, to a “mandatory cost” like social security and unemployment or workmen’s comp. It will all go into the package of determining the personnel “bottom line,” which will drive how many employees the company has, and what their rate of compensation will be.

My guess is that companies are going to cut staff, hold or cut pay, or some combination thereof. It will not be pretty. And that’s assuming the company decides in the first place to continue operations in the United States at it’s current model, outsource, or completely discontinue operations here entirely.


11 posted on 03/23/2010 2:16:55 PM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Onelifetogive

Jury is still out because Madam Sillybus will make the final determination but as an employer, it is my understanding that the plan I offer my employees will be evaluated to determine appropriate level of coverage. Plan we now have which is tailored to the needs of my employees has no coverage for HIV, a limited amount for chemotherapy, no maternity, no mental health benefits and no wellness coverage. Very large deductible because it basically is to cover hospital costs. Employees pay flat monthly amount into an HSA and I pay 50% of premium. Have already been advised in phone call with my agent that this plan will probably be disallowed as it doesn’t cover enough. If that happens, I won’t have insurance for anyone but my family members. Sad but a fact of life. At least they will have a paycheck.


17 posted on 03/23/2010 2:24:14 PM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Onelifetogive
I wonder what the law says about employers having to provide health insurance for employees. My employer provides single or family policies, and pays 80% of the cost. Is that still legal? Can they force me to pay 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? 100%? What does it mean to “provide health care?”

Once the "government insurance exchanges" are set up, your employer is likely to cancel your group coverage entirely. You'll then have to buy your own coverage at whatever price the government approves, or pay a fine and wait to get insurance until you need it.

At least, that's what I've been able to glean from the bill. Nobody, even the traitors that voted for it, knows exactly how the mechanisms will work.

Welcome to Amerika.


Live Free or Die

35 posted on 03/23/2010 2:40:27 PM PDT by TonyInOhio (“Civilizations die from suicide, not from murder.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Onelifetogive
I wonder what the law says about employers having to provide health insurance for employees.

I read a summary yesterday -- I'm not sure it was accurate, or my memory was accurate:

A business with more than 50 full-time employees must provide health insurance that covers at least 60% of medical costs. Part-time employees are included "pro-rata", so two half-time employees are the equivalent of one full-time employee.

I'm not sure if part-time employees have to be covered. If they do, then this would increase the cost per part-time employee, and it would be cheaper to only hire full-time employees (good-bye to after-school jobs).

41 posted on 03/23/2010 2:43:07 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Onelifetogive
The health care bill just raised the cost of having an employee. This means that if the employer has a choice between hiring a new employee or buying a labor-saving device that will allow him to produce more with existing employees, he's going to buy the machine.

It will also create an advantage for outsourcing more service/software/engineering jobs overseas.

60 posted on 03/23/2010 3:08:05 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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