This is a placeholder text
Group text
by fawndallas on 28 June 2012 - 20:06
Sadly, I have read the Bill (I have watched this closely, as I know the impacts to my family). There is nothing in it to stop companies from what mine is doing.
Health Insurance is a benefit provided. No company has to provide insurance for their employees. By providing Health Insurance for employees, companies do that to attract employees and to stay within what is "normal" within corporate America.
Now that the federal government mandates that all Americans must have Health Insurance, here is the natural evolution of the process (look into American corporate history to validate this).
BEFORE the LAW:
Company: I need good employees. If a potential or existing employee has the choice between my company and another (salary offered is the same), what can I do to sway the odds to my favor? I know, I will offer Health Insurance. Chances are the employee is not paying for their own, so this will make my company very attractive.
It cost too much to pay all of the premiums (can't impact profits), so I will offer to pay 80% of the employee's Health premiums. I have negotiated with a Health company to get a discount on the premiums, so my cost in this is less. Now I have an advantage.
AFTER the LAW:
Company: I need good employees. If a potential employee has the choice between my company and another, what can I do to sway the odds to my favor? Can I offer Health Insurance? Not really an advantage, the person already has private insurance, mandated by law. Why should I go to the expense and cut into my profits? Maybe a little more money? That is it. It will cost me less in the long run.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now lets do the numbers:
BEFORE the LAW:
Salary offered: $24,000
Total Health Insurance premium: $6000
Health Insurance paid by company (80%): $4800/year
Total offered to employee (including benefit): $28,800
Net to employee, after their 20% of the premium: $22,800
AFTER the LAW:
Salary offered: $25,000 (more money than the other company)
Total Health Insurance premium: $7000 (now employee pays individual insurance, no group or "averages" discount)
Health Insurance paid by company (80%): $0/year
Total offered to employee: $25,000
Net to employee, after their personal Health Insurance premiums: $18,000
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry. Tell me again, how we, as Americans, win? That said, I still do not see a better alternative that actually has a chance to win in the upcoming election. Everyone has their opinion; I am not getting into my political opinions. Sometimes I do wish that Texas government would remember that we, of only 5 states, have the option to succeed (sp?) from the Union.
Health Insurance is a benefit provided. No company has to provide insurance for their employees. By providing Health Insurance for employees, companies do that to attract employees and to stay within what is "normal" within corporate America.
Now that the federal government mandates that all Americans must have Health Insurance, here is the natural evolution of the process (look into American corporate history to validate this).
BEFORE the LAW:
Company: I need good employees. If a potential or existing employee has the choice between my company and another (salary offered is the same), what can I do to sway the odds to my favor? I know, I will offer Health Insurance. Chances are the employee is not paying for their own, so this will make my company very attractive.
It cost too much to pay all of the premiums (can't impact profits), so I will offer to pay 80% of the employee's Health premiums. I have negotiated with a Health company to get a discount on the premiums, so my cost in this is less. Now I have an advantage.
AFTER the LAW:
Company: I need good employees. If a potential employee has the choice between my company and another, what can I do to sway the odds to my favor? Can I offer Health Insurance? Not really an advantage, the person already has private insurance, mandated by law. Why should I go to the expense and cut into my profits? Maybe a little more money? That is it. It will cost me less in the long run.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now lets do the numbers:
BEFORE the LAW:
Salary offered: $24,000
Total Health Insurance premium: $6000
Health Insurance paid by company (80%): $4800/year
Total offered to employee (including benefit): $28,800
Net to employee, after their 20% of the premium: $22,800
AFTER the LAW:
Salary offered: $25,000 (more money than the other company)
Total Health Insurance premium: $7000 (now employee pays individual insurance, no group or "averages" discount)
Health Insurance paid by company (80%): $0/year
Total offered to employee: $25,000
Net to employee, after their personal Health Insurance premiums: $18,000
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry. Tell me again, how we, as Americans, win? That said, I still do not see a better alternative that actually has a chance to win in the upcoming election. Everyone has their opinion; I am not getting into my political opinions. Sometimes I do wish that Texas government would remember that we, of only 5 states, have the option to succeed (sp?) from the Union.
by GSD Admin on 28 June 2012 - 20:06
Fawn,
If the company has more than 50 employees it would cost the company a huge fine to not offer health insurance, did you really read all 1,000 pages of this bill?
You say your husband and son have pre-existing conditions, what happens if your company closes or you lose your job? They wouldn't be covered without this law.
I don't see many companies changing a thing.
If the company has more than 50 employees it would cost the company a huge fine to not offer health insurance, did you really read all 1,000 pages of this bill?
You say your husband and son have pre-existing conditions, what happens if your company closes or you lose your job? They wouldn't be covered without this law.
I don't see many companies changing a thing.
by Keith Grossman on 28 June 2012 - 20:06
"...did you really read all 1,000 pages of this bill?"
No.
No.
by joanro on 28 June 2012 - 20:06
Kieth, since you must be unaware and can only comprehend a small portion of what you read, auto insurance coverage is not the same in every state. Also, to clarify for your limited reading comprehension, I said you can't move to a different STATE(that means a state within the United States) to get away from federal mandates. Also, to clarify for your pinheaded blind spot, I said "allowed" the jobs to be sent to other countries. In other words, to make it easier for you to understand, the gov made it more profitable for those businesses to move manufacturing to other counties, causing the economy in this country to turn to shit.....except for "you people" who subsidize the unfortunate jobless population.
by Keith Grossman on 28 June 2012 - 20:06
Trying to explain something to an idiot is like trying to teach a pig to dance; it's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
You lost; get over it.
You lost; get over it.
by joanro on 28 June 2012 - 20:06
Yes, your right, kieth, your an idiot but a pig is a lot easier to teach to dance than trying to get you to understand that not every one in this country likes having it turned into a socialist state.
by GSD Admin on 28 June 2012 - 20:06
When someone pays for something that is not socialism. It is capitalism. This insurance is not free. Have you read the bill?
by fawndallas on 28 June 2012 - 21:06
Mine has. For our next benefit round, we have to take a wellness exam. If we do not, our premiums go up. So far, we have have not heard what happens if we fail the exam. Technically, the company still offers Health Insurance, so no fine.
Yes, I did read it all (part for my family and part for my job {I legally cannot say anymore}).
Lets give my scenrio a different twist. Remember, companies are in it for the profits. The new corporate America motto is "do more for less.".
AFTER the LAW:
Company: I need good employees. If a potential employee has the choice between my company and another, what can I do to sway the odds to my favor? Can I offer Health Insurance? Not really an advantage, the person is required to have private insurance so I am not so great. Health Insurance does help me by hopefully keeping the employee well; less sick days, more productivity.
Premiums continue to rise each year and keep cutting into profits. I am required by law to offer something though. No one says that the employee has to take what I offer though. I, as a company, can have it both ways. I can offer something, just to cover the extream.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now lets do the numbers:
BEFORE the LAW:
Salary offered: $24,000
Total Health Insurance premium: $6000
Health Insurance paid by company (80%): $4800/year
Total offered to employee (including benefit): $28,800
Net to employee, after their 20% of the premium: $22,800
AFTER the LAW:
Salary offered: $24,000 (same as the the other company)
Total Health Insurance premium: $6000 (after all, I am a "group; so group discount.)
Here is some more discount; if the employee is in a lower risk group (based on required wellness exam) 5%: $300
Total Health Insurance premium: $5700
Health Insurance premium paid by company (80%): $4560/year
Total offered to employee: $28,560
Net to employee, after their personal Health Insurance premiums: $22,860.
~~~~~~~~~~
Wait! Employee is in a high risk group. Health Insurance provider has taken back the $300 and increased the premium do to the individual risk that is now known as we see the results of the wellness exam. Lets say the increase is 1% of the original premium. (this is exactly how my new 2013 premiums will be)
Total Health Insurance premium: $6060
This is not my, as a company, fault. I will pass that increase to the employee. They should have taken better care of themselves (nothing in the bill to protect this way of thinking).
Net to employee, after their personal Health Insurance premiums: $22,500. This does not take into account the increase in general medical (none extream) cost now that the employee has to keep their premiums low.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
Yes, I did read it all (part for my family and part for my job {I legally cannot say anymore}).
Lets give my scenrio a different twist. Remember, companies are in it for the profits. The new corporate America motto is "do more for less.".
AFTER the LAW:
Company: I need good employees. If a potential employee has the choice between my company and another, what can I do to sway the odds to my favor? Can I offer Health Insurance? Not really an advantage, the person is required to have private insurance so I am not so great. Health Insurance does help me by hopefully keeping the employee well; less sick days, more productivity.
Premiums continue to rise each year and keep cutting into profits. I am required by law to offer something though. No one says that the employee has to take what I offer though. I, as a company, can have it both ways. I can offer something, just to cover the extream.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now lets do the numbers:
BEFORE the LAW:
Salary offered: $24,000
Total Health Insurance premium: $6000
Health Insurance paid by company (80%): $4800/year
Total offered to employee (including benefit): $28,800
Net to employee, after their 20% of the premium: $22,800
AFTER the LAW:
Salary offered: $24,000 (same as the the other company)
Total Health Insurance premium: $6000 (after all, I am a "group; so group discount.)
Here is some more discount; if the employee is in a lower risk group (based on required wellness exam) 5%: $300
Total Health Insurance premium: $5700
Health Insurance premium paid by company (80%): $4560/year
Total offered to employee: $28,560
Net to employee, after their personal Health Insurance premiums: $22,860.
~~~~~~~~~~
Wait! Employee is in a high risk group. Health Insurance provider has taken back the $300 and increased the premium do to the individual risk that is now known as we see the results of the wellness exam. Lets say the increase is 1% of the original premium. (this is exactly how my new 2013 premiums will be)
Total Health Insurance premium: $6060
This is not my, as a company, fault. I will pass that increase to the employee. They should have taken better care of themselves (nothing in the bill to protect this way of thinking).
Net to employee, after their personal Health Insurance premiums: $22,500. This does not take into account the increase in general medical (none extream) cost now that the employee has to keep their premiums low.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
by fawndallas on 28 June 2012 - 21:06
It's not to say the law is bad; it is how it is going to be used. The law only goes so far and it really does nothing to protect the individual. Yes, it helps to insure that our tax dollars stop going to the dead beats.... It is not going to lower our taxes though. So you and I still get the same net pay check each time.
What is the government going to use this new found money for? Please do not fall for it will go to schools or highways. As a nation, we are heavly in debt. If we are lucky, and the money is not wasted, the money will go to paying off the nation's debt. Again, how does that help you and I?
What is the government going to use this new found money for? Please do not fall for it will go to schools or highways. As a nation, we are heavly in debt. If we are lucky, and the money is not wasted, the money will go to paying off the nation's debt. Again, how does that help you and I?
by JON ERIC on 28 June 2012 - 22:06
Today's Decision was a Huge gain for the Least Fortunate among us,However,it is essentially just one small step towards a Single Payer System for Health Care in the US.
Only then,will there be complete coverage for all Citizens.......
Only then,will there be complete coverage for all Citizens.......
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top