Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone have part time hours cut due to employer not wanting to fund increasing health care costs? Sad situation. Less income and no company health insurance.
I've heard more about companies cutting insurance options for part-time workers so they can get on the exchange rather than have insurance through the company.
Anyone have part time hours cut due to employer not wanting to fund increasing health care costs? Sad situation. Less income and no company health insurance.
my company has discussed cutting part time employees to less than 30 hours (to 29, basically), but I'm fairly certain part time employees are provided health insurance through the company, so I'm not sure that's true.
> I've heard more about companies cutting insurance options for part-time workers so they can > get on the exchange rather than have insurance through the company.
This appears to be a correct story...however I read that these were mostly companies with really minimal health care plans, that could not come anywhere near the requirements for a company-offered plan. (Under ACA there must be a minimal level of benefits).
It is not clear to me whether losing a bad plan, and then being obliged to buy a better one with a subsidy, is a good or bad thing.
I've heard more about companies cutting insurance options for part-time workers so they can get on the exchange rather than have insurance through the company.
I don't see an issue with this at all personally....
my company has discussed cutting part time employees to less than 30 hours (to 29, basically), but I'm fairly certain part time employees are provided health insurance through the company, so I'm not sure that's true.
I believe 30 hours is the number where employers are required to provide health benefits. If they keep it under 30 they can avoid it. Local governments like Long Beach CA and Dearborne MI are doing this. They can't handle the costs associated with full health care benefits.
My wife has recently had her hours cut below 30 but I'm not sure if it's because of ACA or just a slow economy. We have our own health insurance policy but, both of us being retirement age and with the very low penalties for non-signup to ACA, I expect our premiums to dramatically rise for at at least a few years until more people are forced by larger penalties to sign up. It may the perfect storm for us.
Its a pretty scary thing. To be living from paycheck to paycheck, having your hours cut AND now being required to buy health insurance. A double whammy for some. Imagine, living on your own, making roughly $24,000 a year. Barely scraping by and now you have to make a decision; do I continue to eat a semi affordable nutritious meal every day or take the hit, eat ramen noodles and buy health insurance? Having health insurance is a good thing, but when you make the decision to forgo food because you are being forced to spend that money on health insurance, what a tough unfair decision to make.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.