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.
For the past few pages, you've claimed ACA is the reason employers are choosing to cut other benefits.
How is that not blaming the ACA for decisions employers make on their own?
Like I said before, you should try to comprehend what I write. I said that if you absurdly fine employers for not providing an optional benefit, then they're going to need to get the money in order to pay that fine or provide that optional benefit from somewhere... and it is likely to be from other benefits.
Maybe for you, money grows on trees. But for the rest of us in this world, it doesn't. When our expenses go up, we need to get money from somewhere.
The cost of doing business as a result of the government's involvement has gone up significantly in the past few years. The people can't take money away from businesses and expect them to be able to sustain the same level of contribution to people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather
The government isn't trying to eliminate anything. Employers are CHOOSING to eliminating these benefits on their own. Claiming ACA is the reason for these choices is not accepting personal responsibility for their own decisions.
You just don't get it.
The government is effectively eliminating personal responsibility from people by making employers responsible for an individual's health insurance. If you can't understand that, then this conversation is going way over your head.
Employers took it on themselves over 60 years ago. Employer Health Insurance was a byproduct of wage freezes ordered by government, in an era when we needed more warm bodies in the workforce, due to pent up demand (post WWII) and lack of automation, so the stuff Americans like, was labor intensive to make.
Did 1950 employers forsee ACA requirements?
Actually, an executive order froze wages around 1943. You simply can't reliably supply the world with planes, tanks, and bombs while labor expenses skyrocket uncontrollably. So the problem was solved... Except today, we are witnessing health care costs rising just as much year over year.
Like I said before, you should try to comprehend what I write. I said that if you absurdly fine employers for not providing an optional benefit, then they're going to need to get the money in order to pay that fine or provide that optional benefit from somewhere... and it is likely to be from other benefits.
Maybe for you, money grows on trees. But for the rest of us in this world, it doesn't. When our expenses go up, we need to get money from somewhere.
The cost of doing business as a result of the government's involvement has gone up significantly in the past few years. The people can't take money away from businesses and expect them to be able to sustain the same level of contribution to people.
No one's TAKING anything from anyone, and no one NEEDS to get anything.
If employers don't want to pay the fine, they offer insurance. As a result, nothing's "taken" from them.
Employers cutting other benefits to either pay a fine or offer insurance is entirely at their discretion, and has nothing to do with the ACA. For the life of me I don't understand why you're being so thick about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
The government is effectively eliminating personal responsibility from people by making employers responsible for an individual's health insurance. If you can't understand that, then this conversation is going way over your head.
If employers don't want to provide health insurance, then they pay a fine. That's personal responsibility on the employer's part. The government isn't effectively doing anything in this regard.
Again, don't be so thick.
Last edited by 313Weather; 06-16-2014 at 11:01 PM..
Actually government is becoming the middle man more and more. The ACA in future may end employer insurance coverage altogether. In 2012 the employer contribution to health coverage AVERAGED 13K + per employee. For years people griped about pensions also and wanted flexibility and control,same as the rich; so they got it. Now government is talking retirement plans for low income.
Some states allow corporations to use series LLCs. This model will allow a corporation to create multiple branches of the LLC. While the parent LLC owns all of the branches, the branches are still treated as separate entities. This model disables government for penalizing these corporations. Most corporations are falling in line with the new healthcare laws because they are unaware of series LLCs since it is still a relatively new model (only permitted in 13 states). I suppose that we can expect to see corporations relocating to series LLC states. Or more lobbying to get their states to pass a law for series LLCs.
For example, Stellar Auto Parts could create unlimited branches to compensate for their number of employees. So, if the employee limit to fall within the healthcare law is 50, they can do that as many times as needed in order to cover their bases. The brand will still be Stellar Auto Parts but their branches will be "Stellar Auto Parts 1, Stellar Auto Parts 2, Stellar Auto Parts 3 and so on" to continue without altering their benefits package while still being compliant with the new healthcare laws.
Corporations will always find a way around laws.
Last edited by kallenfranchise; 06-16-2014 at 11:08 PM..
On the flip side of this far to many employees remain in positions they shouldn't out of fear of losing health benefits. This often shows up with older employees but also other high users such as families and or say someone's whose spouse or child suffers from a chronic or major illness.
We are not necessarily talking about older workers delaying retirement or some such to hang onto health benefits. Younger workers can and often do pass up chances to take other positions that will advance their career.
Anything that separates the link between employment and health insurance is a good thing. This isn't exactly a separation... but a move in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
The ACA took us in the wrong direction. It strengthened the relationship between employer and health insurance. Employers are now required by law to provide health insurance benefits to employees. That's absurd.
I like the way you think. My employer recently switched the basic (free) plan from an HMO to a high-deductible plan and offered to pay between a third and half of the deductible in the form of a payment to an HSA. For me, it was a no-brainer. I'm a healthy single woman in my 30s with no children. Until recently, I'd been paying up to the PPO so that I had the benefit of, gasp, choosing what doctor I wanted to visit when I wanted to visit them. But since I haven't been to see a doctor since 2006, I've been paying for, essentially, peace of mind. Now I've got all the benefits of a PPO without having to pay for one.
I made an extra effort to thank my employer's HR department for making the switch. Good job to them: they found a plan that saved them money and saves me money. Of course, I'd still rather have had higher pay and found insurance on a free and open market, but since that's never going to happen thanks to "ACA," I'll take what I can get.
Fine, if the employer raises salaries by the expected cost.
They won't.
And why should they, when that money can be divvied up amongst the shareholders (owners)?
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.
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.
My employer recently switched the basic (free) plan from an HMO to a high-deductible plan and offered to pay between a third and half of the deductible in the form of a payment to an HSA. For me, it was a no-brainer. I'm a healthy single woman in my 30s with no children. Until recently, I'd been paying up to the PPO so that I had the benefit of, gasp, choosing what doctor I wanted to visit when I wanted to visit them. But since I haven't been to see a doctor since 2006, I've been paying for, essentially, peace of mind. Now I've got all the benefits of a PPO without having to pay for one. 
