Workers at auto dealership come face to face with Obamacare trade-offs

[Greenbeard]

If you choose to believe that all of these stories of people facing higher premium fow lower coverages are just misunderstandings and the business or insured just don't understand how their bottom lines are being affected, so be it.

What I'm trying to do here is apply facts, logical thought, and critical reasoning to this story. The one simply "choosing to believe" something in lieu of using any of those things is you.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Yep . . . healthcare for all is a bad idea. And people working in car dealerships over the last 20-years have never had to change their company sponsored health care policy . . . sometimes on a yearly basis, so the dealership could curb costs for themselves . . . and dealership employees never had to increase the amount of money going towards their share. It was all good with decade long price freezes.

Well, not really, at least not at any of the dealerships I worked at.

 

[sangha]

Why do you disregard the 12K of deductibles? Does not fit the narrative.

Does something have to be destructive financially to be a bad deal?

Why can't folks be honest and admit there are both winners and losers with this law.

Why? Because $12K in deductibles is not an expense unless they actually use it.

Why can't folks be honest and admit that there are enough holes in this story to float an aircraft carrier through it?

 

[CRUE CAB]

They are talking about losing our care next year. I refuse to sign up for Obama care. I will do everything to not pay the fine either. Get sick, do just like the scummers did before and show up at the emergency room.

 

[sangha]

That's far more then the 8% that Obama's government and the expers have stated would be unaffordable. But, you know best.

Then they aren't required to buy insurance, in which case the expense would be 0% of their income

Problem solved!!

 

[buck]

Then they aren't required to buy insurance, in which case the expense would be 0% of their income

Problem solved!!

Not quite true - woudln't expect much else from you - they would then pay a fine so it would still be some percentage of their income.

But... Democrats great solution is to force people from good insurance to the lines of the uninsured. If only Obama had been honest about that during the debate on the bill... What do you think the chances of it passing would have been?

 

[sangha]

Not quite true - woudln't expect much else from you - they would then pay a fine so it would still be some percentage of their income.

But... Democrats great solution is to force people from good insurance to the lines of the uninsured. If only Obama had been honest about that during the debate on the bill... What do you think the chances of it passing would have been?

No, since $10k out of $110K is 9%, they qualify as a hardship exemption which means they are not required to buy insurance and they won't be subject to the penalty

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument

 

[soot]

A person making more than $110k per year with 5 kids can afford $10K/yr for insurance without devastating his finances, assuming he doesn't have a nasty cocaine habit or something similar.

That's an absolutely idiotic thing to say.

I can think of any number of ways that such a family would be looking at putting their house on the market to accommodate an additional $10,000 a year in expenses.

But hey, as long as you get your subsidy it's all good!

 

[sangha]

That's an absolutely idiotic thing to say.

I can think of any number of ways that such a family would be looking at putting their house on the market to accommodate an additional $10,000 a year in expenses.

But hey, as long as you get your subsidy it's all good!

It's not an "additional" $10k/yr in expenses. That's the total for his premium. His previous expense was not $0

It's an additional $77/week - an additional $4K/yr

 

[ludin]

You should speak for yourself because your comment shows you don't understand the facts.

If you qualify for a subsidy, you don't have to buy your policy through your job. You can buy through the exchange and be subsidized.

WRONG and so wrong. if your work offers insurance and you decline to take it and you sign up for the exchange you do not get a subsidy at all. you must pay
the full amount.

that is why it violates the equal protection clause. it discriminates against people that have jobs that offer insurance plans. while other people get access to public funds you do not.

 

[sangha]

WRONG and so wrong. if your work offers insurance and you decline to take it and you sign up for the exchange you do not get a subsidy at all. you must pay
the full amount.

That is a lie

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

See Sec 1512

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by inserting after
section 18A (as added by section 1513) the following:

``SEC. 18B. <<NOTE: 29 USC 218B.>> NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.

``(a) In General.-- <<NOTE: Deadline.>> In accordance with
regulations promulgated by the Secretary, an employer to which this Act
applies, shall provide to each employee at the time of hiring (or with
respect to current employees, not later than March 1, 2013), written
notice--
``(1) informing the employee of the existence of an
Exchange, including a description of the services provided by
such Exchange, and the manner in which the employee may contact
the Exchange to request assistance;
``(2) if the employer plan's share of the total allowed
costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60
percent of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a
premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and a cost sharing reduction under section 1402 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if the employee
purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange;

Sec 1411 also states that people whose employers offer a health plan can also purchase subsidized plans through the exchange

 

[eohrnberger]

A person making more than $110k per year with 5 kids can afford $10K/yr for insurance without devastating his finances, assuming he doesn't have a nasty cocaine habit or something similar.

I find it hilarious how easily you spend other people's money. Seems like this falls very much in character, famous Margaret Thatcher quote applicable.

Why do you disregard the 12K of deductibles? Does not fit the narrative.

Does something have to be destructive financially to be a bad deal?

Why can't folks be honest and admit there are both winners and losers with this law.

And I'd add that it's the government that is picking the winners and the losers. Not really what it does well, and also not really what government's role should be IMHO.

 

[ludin]

That is a lie

no it isn't i have the paperwork and the websites to prove it. the thing that you showed is not typical and those plans are invalid under the law so they will be canceled which is why they get a subsidy. if you company pays more than that which mine does you do not qualify for a subsidy. you can go to any website for the exchange put in that your company
offers you a health plan and it will tell you that you will not qualify for an exchange.

you can believe what you want i have proof that i do not get a subisdy and won't get a subsidy and neither will anyone else that has a job who pays above that threshold.

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-job-based-health-insurance/

interesting the governments own website says you are wrong as well.

You won't be able to get lower costs if your job-based coverage is considered affordable and meets minimum value.

DOH

And I'd add that it's the government that is picking the winners and the losers. Not really what it does well, and also not really what government's role should be IMHO.

which is exactly why it breaks the equal protection clause.

 

[sangha]

no it isn't i have the paperwork and the websites to prove it.

And I have the direct link to the law and a citation to the section which proves you wrong. You have posted nothing but your ignorant claim, which has nothing to back it up

the thing that you showed is not typical and those plans are invalid under the law so they will be canceled which is why they get a subsidy.

Nothing in ACA prohibits the selling of plans which do not cover the Essential Health Benefits listed in ACA

if you company pays more than that which mine does you do not qualify for a subsidy.

If your company pays more 60% of the costs of the plan, then you do not qualify for a subsidy. The employer in the article we are discussing does not pay 60% of the costs, therefore the employee DOES qualify for a subsidy

you can go to any website for the exchange put in that your company
offers you a health plan and it will tell you that you will not qualify for an exchange.

you can believe what you want i have proof that i do not get a subisdy and won't get a subsidy and neither will anyone else that has a job who pays above that threshold.

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-job-based-health-insurance/

interesting the governments own website says you are wrong as well.

You won't be able to get lower costs if your job-based coverage is considered affordable and meets minimum value.

The employee we are discussing does not have job based coverage that is considered affordable and so they are eligible for subsidies through the exchange. In fact, this employer doesn't offer any coverage

You are wrong

DOH

 

[MaggieD]

You call a $10K policy with 12K deductible a bargain. I would not want you as a purchasing or HR manager!

My insurance premium was $10,200 -- just for ME -- for a $5,200 deductible. I understood this guy was covering his entire family...himself, his wife and his three kids.

However, having said that, I mis-read the OP about his cost. It actually went down. (An earlier poster pointed my error out to me.)

 

[ludin]

The employee we are discussing does not have job based coverage that is considered affordable and so they are eligible for subsidies through the exchange. In fact, this employer doesn't offer any coverage

You are wrong

Healthcare.gov says otherwise but continue your ignorance of what is in the law. you have ignored everything else this law has done to people so this is no different.

from healthcare.gov website.

be aware that you may not qualify for lower costs on your monthly premiums and out-of-pocket costs, even if your income would qualify you otherwise.

A job-based health plan is considered “affordable” if the employee’s share of premiums for the lowest cost self-only coverage that meets the minimum value standard is less than 9.5% of their family’s income.

In other words, if your share of your premiums for a plan that covers only you (the employee)--not your family--is less than 9.5% of your family’s income, the plan is considered affordable.

A health plan meets the minimum value standard if it’s designed to pay at least 60% of the total cost of medical services for a standard population.

mine is an 80/20 plan so it is over the minimum.
for insurance just for myself is less than 9.5% of my income (my family plan does not count it only based on an individual policy).

from healthcare.gov
You may pay more than 9.5% of your income on premiums for spouse or family coverage from your employer. But affordability is determined only by the amount you’d pay for self-only coverage from your employer

therefore i do not qualify for a subsidy. you need to read more and understand what you are talking about because you don't.

basically if you have insurance with good coverage you get the premium increases but no discount because your employer provides good insurance.
what is worse is if your employer provides really good insurance >10k for a single person or 25k for a family (total premium) then you are considered to have a cadilac healthplan.
which means your premium - 10 or 25k you get a 40% tax on it that has to be paid.

you can't defend something that is indefensible. we punish companies for provided really good insurance for their employee's that is the stupidest thing i have ever seen.

yeah the reason this guy gets a subsidy is because his employer dropped his insurance policy. 80m more people are going to have that done come next year.

the rest of us working people that do keep our insurance don't qualify for a subsidy. this is a violation of the equal protection clause.

 

[buck]

No, since $10k out of $110K is 9%, they qualify as a hardship exemption which means they are not required to buy insurance and they won't be subject to the penalty

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument

It's about time that you finally got one right. Well Done!

Now, the whole moving people who have good insurance to either "junk" plans or no insurance at all due to increased costs... Good idea Obama! Is it any wonder support for Obamacare just keeps dropping?

Edit: After reading the above post, you are still wrong. Shucks.

 

[ludin]

Not quite true - woudln't expect much else from you - they would then pay a fine so it would still be some percentage of their income.

But... Democrats great solution is to force people from good insurance to the lines of the uninsured. If only Obama had been honest about that during the debate on the bill... What do you think the chances of it passing would have been?

the current fine for not having insurance is 9.5% tax on your income. it will increase every year up to like 12% or something.

 

[Rocketman]

It says he's paying $200 a week or close. Out-of-pocket only counts if you get sick. If you get sick? Really sick? You're grateful. Maybe that's the whole purpose of Obamacare. Say good-bye to the $1,000 deductibles that encourage everyone to use emergency rooms...

Most people I know only use the ER when their doctor's office is closed, that is the only time we use it, ya know those 1am kidney stones

 

[sangha]

Healthcare.gov says otherwise but continue your ignorance of what is in the law. you have ignored everything else this law has done to people so this is no different.

from healthcare.gov website.

be aware that you may not qualify for lower costs on your monthly premiums and out-of-pocket costs, even if your income would qualify you otherwise.

A job-based health plan is considered “affordable” if the employee’s share of premiums for the lowest cost self-only coverage that meets the minimum value standard is less than 9.5% of their family’s income.

In other words, if your share of your premiums for a plan that covers only you (the employee)--not your family--is less than 9.5% of your family’s income, the plan is considered affordable.

A health plan meets the minimum value standard if it’s designed to pay at least 60% of the total cost of medical services for a standard population.

mine is an 80/20 plan so it is over the minimum.
for insurance just for myself is less than 9.5% of my income (my family plan does not count it only based on an individual policy).

from healthcare.gov
You may pay more than 9.5% of your income on premiums for spouse or family coverage from your employer. But affordability is determined only by the amount you’d pay for self-only coverage from your employer

therefore i do not qualify for a subsidy. you need to read more and understand what you are talking about because you don't.

basically if you have insurance with good coverage you get the premium increases but no discount because your employer provides good insurance.
what is worse is if your employer provides really good insurance >10k for a single person or 25k for a family (total premium) then you are considered to have a cadilac healthplan.
which means your premium - 10 or 25k you get a 40% tax on it that has to be paid.

you can't defend something that is indefensible. we punish companies for provided really good insurance for their employee's that is the stupidest thing i have ever seen.

As I have already pointed out to you, and you continue to ignore because it proves you wrong, the employer we are talking about does not provide any health coverage therefore the employee is eligible for subsidies through the exchange provided they meet the income requirements.

In addition, unless the employer covers 60% of the premium, people who can get insurance through their job are also eligible for subsidies through the exchange (provided they meet the income requirements) which is the exact opposite of what you claimed:

WRONG and so wrong. if your work offers insurance and you decline to take it and you sign up for the exchange you do not get a subsidy at all. you must pay
the full amount.

that is why it violates the equal protection clause. it discriminates against people that have jobs that offer insurance plans. while other people get access to public funds you do not.

You claimed that anyone who can get insurance through their job was ineligible for subsidies. That is a lie. In order to be ineligible for subsidies, the employer-based coverage must meet certain requirements (such as paying for 60% of the premium). IOW, people with employers that offer coverage can qualify for subsidies.

 

[sangha]

the current fine for not having insurance is 9.5% tax on your income. it will increase every year up to like 12% or something.

26 USC § 5000A - Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(e) Exemptions
No penalty shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to—
(1) Individuals who cannot afford coverage
(A) In general
Any applicable individual for any month if the applicable individual’s required contribution (determined on an annual basis) for coverage for the month exceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household income for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross income for any portion of the required contribution made through a salary reduction arrangement.

The hardship exemption is based on 8% of a family's income. The 9.5% rule is used to determine if the *employer* can be penalized

 

[MaggieD]

Most people I know only use the ER when their doctor's office is closed, that is the only time we use it, ya know those 1am kidney stones

I don't think that describes the "problem patients" -- those who use the ER like their 24/7 doctor's office. If it isn't costing you money? Why wait to talk to your doctor? Who, remember, if it really is an emergency, is going to refer you to the ER anyhow. Just scurry on over there. In our area, there are ERs that advertise: "Call for an appointment" WTF??

 

[joko104]

From MSNBC of all places. Looks like good news for the businesses future costs, but bad news for almost all of the workers. Including, at least two, that make just a little too much to qualify for a subsidy and will, I would bet, go without insurance now. BTW, the younger, "invincibles", that work there have, unsurprisingly, decided not to sign up for any insurance. Bad omen for Obamacare in general.

Workers at auto dealership come face to face with Obamacare trade-offs - Investigations

That is the MASSIVE LIE of ObamaCare - and how he basically fooled everyone. ObamaCare is NOT to provide healthcare to the poor. It is to justify denying healthcare to the poor, while at the same time it is MASSIVE federal welfare to corporations and the super rich.

Prior to ObamaCare, companies with more than a few employees were required to provide healthcare insurance to their employees. The ultimate shill of the super-rich, Obama, made is they no longer have to.

 

[Greenbeard]

Prior to ObamaCare, companies with more than a few employees were required to provide healthcare insurance to their employees. The ultimate shill of the super-rich, Obama, made is they no longer have to.

I think you're a little mixed up.

 

[buck]

That is the MASSIVE LIE of ObamaCare - and how he basically fooled everyone. ObamaCare is NOT to provide healthcare to the poor. It is to justify denying healthcare to the poor, while at the same time it is MASSIVE federal welfare to corporations and the super rich.

Prior to ObamaCare, companies with more than a few employees were required to provide healthcare insurance to their employees. The ultimate shill of the super-rich, Obama, made is they no longer have to.

Yeah.. I think you might be a bit wrong. It really is to take from most and give to some. In some cases taking from the "most" so much that they can no longer afford the insurance they used to pay for.