Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-24-2013, 08:59 AM
 
27,214 posts, read 46,767,070 times
Reputation: 15667

Advertisements

Companies With 50 Employees in 2013 Will Need to Provide Insurance - WSJ.com

The basics that companies need to know:

—Employers who averaged 50 or more full-time employees or 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees during 2013 will be subject to the employer mandate.

—A full-time employee is one who is employed (work and paid leave and vacation) an average of at least 30 hours a week, or 130 hours in a month. Seasonal employees may be counted as full-time.

—A full-time equivalent refers to a combination of employees, each of whom individually is not a full-time employee. Part-time or part-time seasonal workers can be lumped together to count as full-time equivalent.

—To calculate the number of full-time equivalents in a given month, add all the hours worked, but not more than 120 hours of service for any employee, and divide the total by 120.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2013, 11:27 AM
 
Location: The Triad
34,092 posts, read 83,010,632 times
Reputation: 43666
All because the HI provider companies have better lobbyists.

The sooner we separate employment status from healthcare... the better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 11:53 AM
 
Location: California
37,138 posts, read 42,234,436 times
Reputation: 35020
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
All because the HI provider companies have better lobbyists.

The sooner we separate employment status from healthcare... the better.
True. The cost drive employers to do a lot of things that don't help the bottom line. More full time and less part time or job sharing brings stability that is hard to quantify by the bean counters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Fuquay-Varina
4,003 posts, read 10,844,217 times
Reputation: 3303
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
All because the HI provider companies have better lobbyists.

The sooner we separate employment status from healthcare... the better.
Agreed. It should never have been intertwined to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,863,405 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee View Post
Companies With 50 Employees in 2013 Will Need to Provide Insurance - WSJ.com

The basics that companies need to know:

—Employers who averaged 50 or more full-time employees or 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees during 2013 will be subject to the employer mandate.

—A full-time employee is one who is employed (work and paid leave and vacation) an average of at least 30 hours a week, or 130 hours in a month. Seasonal employees may be counted as full-time.

—A full-time equivalent refers to a combination of employees, each of whom individually is not a full-time employee. Part-time or part-time seasonal workers can be lumped together to count as full-time equivalent.

—To calculate the number of full-time equivalents in a given month, add all the hours worked, but not more than 120 hours of service for any employee, and divide the total by 120.
What Health Care Bill?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,177,123 times
Reputation: 21743
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee View Post
The basics that companies need to know:
You left out quite a bit.

You forgot the Same-Same Rule.

Everyone gets the same plan. Instead of before, when you had a plan tailored for part-time employees so they could afford it, and then another plan for hourly and then a different plant for salaried employees and managers, and then still another plan for the higher ups....you can't do that any more.

Also, the employee's contribution to the plan cannot exceed 9.5% of the employee's disposable household income.

For 2014, that will be 9.5% of the employee's W-2 Wages for 2013, but after that, it will be 9.5% of your income, your spouse's income and the income of your children living with you.

Basically...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
All because the HI provider companies have better lobbyists.
And you evidence to support such a blatantly false claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
The sooner we separate employment status from healthcare... the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacredgrooves View Post
Agreed. It should never have been intertwined to begin with.
Well, who got tied into employment?

You cannot claim health insurance companies did that, because none existed at that time.

Lobbying....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 03:32 PM
 
217 posts, read 360,989 times
Reputation: 67
If they need you longer than 30h, you're fired and re-hired as a contractor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 07:18 PM
 
1,148 posts, read 1,683,711 times
Reputation: 1327
Since the Dems are hell bent on being dictators, maybe all the Obama voters should be the ones working 30 hours a week and take the pay cut. I like working 54 hours a week because I like the $$$$. Since Obama voters hate money, maybe you guys should take the pay cut. How about it libs???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2013, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,800 posts, read 6,570,627 times
Reputation: 3151
It took a mere eighteen pages of bureaucratic gobbledygook to define full-time and part-time employees; this ruling is certainly another reason for employers not to hire anybody, which won't help boost employment---talk about an incentive-destroying mandate, which describes the entire 2,700 page bill and the 13,500 pages of regulations (so far) accompanying it!

And yes, severing employment from healthcare is a must, even though this President wants no part of it and wants to control it; his asinine proposal of raising from 7.5% to 10.0% the threshold of medical expenses that as a percentage of one's yearly salary that a person can decuct is also idiotic and counterproductive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:01 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top