More waivers for Big Biz Healthcare

[ILOVEDNY]

So once again, Obummer ****s small Biz and the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/health/policy/10waiver.html?_r=1
As Obama administration officials put into place some of the new rules that go into effect under the federal health care law, they are issuing more waivers to try to prevent some insurers and employers from dropping coverage and also promising to modify other rules because many of the existing policies would not meet new standards.

Among the waivers recently granted were for employers like Darden Restaurants, which operates the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants, for 34,000 of its workers. Federal officials have granted 111 waivers to employers, insurers and union plans, who are responsible for covering about 1.2 million people.

Last month, federal officials granted dozens of one-year waivers that were aimed at sparing certain employers, including McDonald’s, insurers and unions who offer plans that sharply limit the coverage they provide. These limited-benefit plans, also known as “minimeds,” fail to comply with new rules phasing out limits on how much policies will provide in medical care each year.


So it's too expensive for Big Biz. Unions and Fed. employees.
But small businesses like mine pay up or get fined.

[NBuffaloResident]

So once again, Obummer ****s small Biz and the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/health/policy/10waiver.html?_r=1
As Obama administration officials put into place some of the new rules that go into effect under the federal health care law, they are issuing more waivers to try to prevent some insurers and employers from dropping coverage and also promising to modify other rules because many of the existing policies would not meet new standards.

Among the waivers recently granted were for employers like Darden Restaurants, which operates the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants, for 34,000 of its workers. Federal officials have granted 111 waivers to employers, insurers and union plans, who are responsible for covering about 1.2 million people.

Last month, federal officials granted dozens of one-year waivers that were aimed at sparing certain employers, including McDonald’s, insurers and unions who offer plans that sharply limit the coverage they provide. These limited-benefit plans, also known as “minimeds,” fail to comply with new rules phasing out limits on how much policies will provide in medical care each year.


So it's too expensive for Big Biz. Unions and Fed. employees.
But small businesses like mine pay up or get fined.

Small businesses are not going to get fined for not offering health insurance, but are already being given a tax break for doing so.

In the words of Joe Wilson:

"YOU LIE!!"

[ILOVEDNY]

Small businesses are not going to get fined for not offering health insurance, but are already being given a tax break for doing so.

In the words of Joe Wilson:

"YOU LIE!!"

Ha ha ha ha ha.
You're still funny.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12066

How will ObamaCare affect a small business owner who's married with two kids?

For one thing, he and his business will pay higher health premiums beginning this year.

He and his employees will have to purchase unlimited lifetime coverage and unlimited annual coverage (this requirement phases in between now and 2014). The Obama administration estimates that these mandates alone could increase premiums for some businesses by 7 percent.

He and his employees will have to purchase coverage for dependent children without any waiting periods for pre-existing conditions. Another mandate will require them to purchase coverage for dependents up to age 26. One private estimate puts the cost of this "slacker" mandate an average of 2 percent, but our small-business owner's premiums may rise even more. Perversely, the cost may force him to drop dependent coverage entirely.

The Obama administration is quick to note that beginning in 2010, one third of small businesses may be able to get a tax credit that covers up to 35 percent of their health-benefits. But that credit is not a long-term solution to rising costs; it disappears after 6 years, and often sooner. It will also discourage hiring, because hiring too many workers will reduce or eliminate the credit.

By 2013, all businesses will have to fill out an IRS Form 1099 every time they purchase more than $600 worth of stuff from a vendor. If our small-business owner owns a trucking company, he will have to ask gas stations for their tax ID numbers. If the gas stations don't cooperate, he will have to withhold money (i.e., send it to the IRS) for gas expenses. This will be the biggest nightmare in the bill for small businesses. Ironically, it will also hit many doctors, journalists, and others who supported ObamaCare, but run their own small business on the side.

If our small-business owner and his wife make over $250,000, they'll pay the new, higher Medicare "payroll" tax of 3.8 percent, starting in 2013. (It's currently 2.9 percent).

But it's 2014 where things really get messy. That's when the government will require everyone to purchase even more yet-unspecified types of coverage, which will cause premiums to rise even more.

ObamaCare has created enormous uncertainty. Our small-business owner doesn't have any idea what ObamaCare's mandates will cost him in 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014. Or what additional benefits he will have to provide. Or what kind of insurance options will be available by then. All he knows is that these things will cost him more — possibly a lot more — and that he's going to be spending lots of time and money, for the foreseeable future, on tax accountants and attorneys.

And he's going to be much less likely to take on new commitments like expanding or hiring new workers.

[PickOranges]

I thought the same thing.. McDonalds offering healthcare?? -- maybe full time managers after 1 yr but always upper management.. Thier co-pay is probably $1000.

Most companies in the service industry don't offer squat.

Tell us about your plan Mr. I love NY I like to hear this one!!

[NBuffaloResident]

Ha ha ha ha ha.
You're still funny.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12066

How will ObamaCare affect a small business owner who's married with two kids?

For one thing, he and his business will pay higher health premiums beginning this year.

He and his employees will have to purchase unlimited lifetime coverage and unlimited annual coverage (this requirement phases in between now and 2014). The Obama administration estimates that these mandates alone could increase premiums for some businesses by 7 percent.

He and his employees will have to purchase coverage for dependent children without any waiting periods for pre-existing conditions. Another mandate will require them to purchase coverage for dependents up to age 26. One private estimate puts the cost of this "slacker" mandate an average of 2 percent, but our small-business owner's premiums may rise even more. Perversely, the cost may force him to drop dependent coverage entirely.

The Obama administration is quick to note that beginning in 2010, one third of small businesses may be able to get a tax credit that covers up to 35 percent of their health-benefits. But that credit is not a long-term solution to rising costs; it disappears after 6 years, and often sooner. It will also discourage hiring, because hiring too many workers will reduce or eliminate the credit.

By 2013, all businesses will have to fill out an IRS Form 1099 every time they purchase more than $600 worth of stuff from a vendor. If our small-business owner owns a trucking company, he will have to ask gas stations for their tax ID numbers. If the gas stations don't cooperate, he will have to withhold money (i.e., send it to the IRS) for gas expenses. This will be the biggest nightmare in the bill for small businesses. Ironically, it will also hit many doctors, journalists, and others who supported ObamaCare, but run their own small business on the side.

If our small-business owner and his wife make over $250,000, they'll pay the new, higher Medicare "payroll" tax of 3.8 percent, starting in 2013. (It's currently 2.9 percent).

But it's 2014 where things really get messy. That's when the government will require everyone to purchase even more yet-unspecified types of coverage, which will cause premiums to rise even more.

ObamaCare has created enormous uncertainty. Our small-business owner doesn't have any idea what ObamaCare's mandates will cost him in 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014. Or what additional benefits he will have to provide. Or what kind of insurance options will be available by then. All he knows is that these things will cost him more — possibly a lot more — and that he's going to be spending lots of time and money, for the foreseeable future, on tax accountants and attorneys.

And he's going to be much less likely to take on new commitments like expanding or hiring new workers.

I'm sorry. I missed where the health care reform law fines small business owners for not providing health insurance to employees.

I do see you mentioned they do get a tax break for offering health insurance though. Thanks for admitting that at least.

[FMD]

you as a person are fined for not having health insurance.

to cover a family of 4, costs over $15000 a year. The problem lies in the cost of care. period.

til you retards figure out that the COST OF CARE IS THE PROBLEM the cost of everything else will continue to bankrupt us.

btw, most bankruptcies are due to medical bills of those who HAVE health insurance.

[mikenold]

There will be much more to come regarding this debacle. The law is already found flawed and these exemptions will temporarily fix this one huge issue. But, in the words of Nancy "I am smarter than you" Pelosi. Now that the bill is passed we can find out what is in it! :confused::eek::mad:

We will see many more issues and hopefully a repeal soon.

[NBuffaloResident]

you as a person are fined for not having health insurance.

to cover a family of 4, costs over $15000 a year. The problem lies in the cost of care. period.

til you retards figure out that the COST OF CARE IS THE PROBLEM the cost of everything else will continue to bankrupt us.

btw, most bankruptcies are due to medical bills of those who HAVE health insurance.

Yes, you as a person are fined for not having insurance. And, after the law is fully in place, there would be no reason to not carry health insurance. After the tax credits to get insurance, the public exchange, etc.

Yes, cost is the main problem. And, the only real fix for that is single payer. However, the electorate of this country allowed themselves to be lied to, and they fell for the lie, of "DEATH PANELS!!!" which killed the single payer.

And yes, most bankruptcies were from people with insurance. Actually people who HAD insurance, and were dropped when they became sick. This practice known as "rescission" is not illegal. Insurers are now made to pay out for care.

Another thing in the current law which will at least help in controlling costs, after the law has fully taken affect, is mandatory minimums set for overheard costs, which by and large, are the primary cause of high costs of care.

[ILOVEDNY]

I'm sorry. I missed where the health care reform law fines small business owners for not providing health insurance to employees.

I do see you mentioned they do get a tax break for offering health insurance though. Thanks for admitting that at least.

If our small-business owner has 50 or more employees — or fewer full-time employees and lots of part-timers — he faces the prospect of tens of thousands of dollars in penalties under ObamaCare's employer mandate if he does not provide "adequate" coverage to his workers.

The worst part is that these penalties will be triggered by factors that are unpredictable, unobservable, and totally beyond the control of our small-business owner. He could get hit with those penalties simply because a worker's spouse loses or changes jobs. Or if a worker's spouse moves out or dies. Or if an employee's parents move in.

This creates so much uncertainty that a small-business owner with 55 employees may have to fire six of them just to eliminate that potential liability.

[NBuffaloResident]

If our small-business owner has 50 or more employees — or fewer full-time employees and lots of part-timers — he faces the prospect of tens of thousands of dollars in penalties under ObamaCare's employer mandate if he does not provide "adequate" coverage to his workers.

The worst part is that these penalties will be triggered by factors that are unpredictable, unobservable, and totally beyond the control of our small-business owner. He could get hit with those penalties simply because a worker's spouse loses or changes jobs. Or if a worker's spouse moves out or dies. Or if an employee's parents move in.

This creates so much uncertainty that a small-business owner with 55 employees may have to fire six of them just to eliminate that potential liability.

I highly doubt you can call a business that employs more than 50 people a "small business"...

[Dougles]

I highly doubt you can call a business that employs more than 50 people a "small business"...

Most technology companies list 1-99 users as small, 100 to 499 as medium, 500 to 1499 as large and 1500+ as enterprise.

Of the 192 accounts I handle... about 25% fit in the 1-10 employee, 30% fit in the 11-49 range, 40% fit in the 50-100 range, 5% have over 100 workers.

[NBuffaloResident]

Most technology companies list 1-99 users as small, 100 to 499 as medium, 500 to 1499 as large and 1500+ as enterprise.

Of the 192 accounts I handle... about 25% fit in the 1-10 employee, 30% fit in the 11-49 range, 40% fit in the 50-100 range, 5% have over 100 workers.

So, it would seem, if we use your demographics, the majority of small businesses wont even see the "penalty"...

But, I have to ask, how many above 50 offer health insurance? And, wouldn't you think, that it would be the right thing to do?

[Dougles]

So, it would seem, if we use your demographics, the majority of small businesses wont even see the "penalty"...

But, I have to ask, how many above 50 offer health insurance? And, wouldn't you think, that it would be the right thing to do?


45% are above the 50 person limit, I can't say exactly how many have 50 to 54 though, but I would guess it's a few.

Of most of those 45%, they offer HI for the majority of their employees... but not all. For the people who spend hours a day scanning paper, many of which are temp or hourly employees they don't have HI.

I know one company with 65 people, of which only 25 get HI. The rest don't because they are hourly employees and may work 50 hours one week and 30 hours the next... or none at all.

[NBuffaloResident]

45% are above the 50 person limit, I can't say exactly how many have 50 to 54 though, but I would guess it's a few.

Of most of those 45%, they offer HI for the majority of their employees... but not all. For the people who spend hours a day scanning paper, many of which are temp or hourly employees they don't have HI.

I know one company with 65 people, of which only 25 get HI. The rest don't because they are hourly employees and may work 50 hours one week and 30 hours the next... or none at all.

So, in fact, few small businesses will actually get hit with any kind of penalty, if we were to use your demographics, correct?

BTW, Temp employees (Also known as 1099's) don't get benefits at all, and are not effected by this particular penalty. 1099's are self-employed, and will be able to purchase insurance on their own, or will be provided through their temp agency (To wit they count as employees).

[Dougles]

So, in fact, few small businesses will actually get hit with any kind of penalty, if we were to use your demographics, correct?

BTW, Temp employees (Also known as 1099's) don't get benefits at all, and are not effected by this particular penalty. 1099's are self-employed, and will be able to purchase insurance on their own, or will be provided through their temp agency (To wit they count as employees).

45% is a small number??

WOW, you need some perspective there!

[mikenold]

When Congress makes a law, can the president just issue waivers to anyone that he thinks should not be covered by said law???

Obama Admin granted 111 waivers from Obamacare
Written by CAA Politics on November 15, 2010, 02:14 PM

Granted to employers, insurers, and union plans -- 1.2 million people covered.

<table align="left"> <tbody> <tr> <td> </td></tr></tbody></table>As Obama administration officials put into place some of the new rules that go into effect under the federal health care law, they are issuing more waivers to try to prevent some insurers and employers from dropping coverage and also promising to modify other rules because many of the existing policies would not meet new standards.

Last month, federal officials granted dozens of one-year waivers that were aimed at sparing certain employers, including McDonald’s, insurers and unions who offer plans that sharply limit the coverage they provide. These limited-benefit plans, also known as “minimeds,” fail to comply with new rules phasing out limits on how much policies will provide in medical care each year.

Concerned about the potential disruption that would be created by enforcing the new rules, the administration has granted dozens of additional waivers and also made clear that it would modify other rules affecting these policies. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services issued more guidance, saying it would use a different method of calculating spending for these plans so they would be able to meet new regulations dictating how insurers should use the premium dollars they collect. [...]

Among the waivers recently granted were for employers like Darden Restaurants, which operates the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants, for 34,000 of its workers. Federal officials have granted 111 waivers to employers, insurers and union plans, who are responsible for covering about 1.2 million people.

Darden said the waiver would allow it to offer employees access to affordable coverage as the health care law is started.

I always thought that no one is above the law??? ;)

[mikenold]

Who are the other big winners??? The unions, OF COURSE!


McDonald's, Olive Garden, Red Lobster and Jack in the Box are among the large, headline-garnering employers who received the temporary waivers. But perhaps the most politically noteworthy beneficiaries of the HHS waiver program: Big Labor.
The Service Employees Benefit Fund, which insures a total of 12,000 SEIU health care workers in upstate New York, secured its Obamacare exemption in October. The Local 25 SEIU Welfare Fund in Chicago also nabbed a waiver for 31,000 of its enrollees. SEIU, of course, was one of Obamacare's loudest and biggest spending proponents. The waivers come on top of the massive sweetheart deal that SEIU and other unions cut with the Obama administration to exempt them from the health care mandate's onerous "Cadillac tax" on high-cost health care plans until 2018.
Other unions who won protection from Obamacare:

-- United Food and Commercial Workers Allied Trade Health and Welfare Trust Fund
-- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union No. 915
-- Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
-- Employees Security Fund
-- Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
-- United Food and Commercial Workers Local 227
-- United Food and Commercial Workers Local 455 (Maximus)
-- United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1262
-- Musicians Health Fund Local 802
-- Hospitality Benefit Fund Local 17
-- Transport Workers Union
-- United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund
-- International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (AFL-CIO)Mbr< -- Plus two organizations that appear to be chapters of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA)

Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/11/malkin-dude-wheres-my-obamacare-waiver.php#ixzz15YgekYzs

[mikenold]

Even supporters and those that voted for it are now apparently wanting out!!!


Indeed, some prominent government officials who lobbied hardest for Obamacare are now also joining waiver-mania -- including liberal Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who has been pushing for an individual mandate exemption for his state of Oregon, and Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is pushing to waive Obamacare's burdensome 1099 reporting requirements of small businesses.


Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/11/malkin-dude-wheres-my-obamacare-waiver.php#ixzz15YhODgUH

[NBuffaloResident]

45% is a small number??

WOW, you need some perspective there!

45% of you customers will NOT get hit with a penalty. Of the 45% that exist above 50 employees mark already offer health insurance. The super-majority in fact, will not. The remainder, who will get penalties, are for a limited set of employees, or would not be covered under those penalties (They employ 1099'ers).

[Dougles]

45% of you customers will NOT get hit with a penalty. Of the 45% that exist above 50 employees mark already offer health insurance. The super-majority in fact, will not. The remainder, who will get penalties, are for a limited set of employees, or would not be covered under those penalties (They employ 1099'ers).

You need some perpective... if 45% of companies (which is more like 70% of workers) get hit with a fine... and you think it's not a big deal...

[PickOranges]

The only waiver I am looking for is one from the "Death Panel"

[NBuffaloResident]

You need some perpective... if 45% of companies (which is more like 70% of workers) get hit with a fine... and you think it's not a big deal...

No, no, no. 45% of the companies who would be subject to the requirement will NOT get hit with a fine, per your data. This is because you said a large majority of the 46% already provide health insurance. And, many of the ones that don't provide all employees insurance is because they have a large 1099 workforce, which does not come under the requirement.

[Dougles]

No, no, no. 45% of the companies who would be subject to the requirement will NOT get hit with a fine, per your data. This is because you said a large majority of the 46% already provide health insurance. And, many of the ones that don't provide all employees insurance is because they have a large 1099 workforce, which does not come under the requirement.

No, the majority of those 45% that have over 50 workers (on the books workers, not contract workers) do provide HI, but not to every employee. Those 45% of companies will have to pay a fine for every employee that doesn't have HI, or they will be forced to move them to contract workers...


Not to mention the whole 1099 for all purchases over $600 will be a HUGE extra cost for ALL of the companies I deal with!

[NBuffaloResident]

45% are above the 50 person limit, I can't say exactly how many have 50 to 54 though, but I would guess it's a few.

Of most of those 45%, they offer HI for the majority of their employees... but not all. For the people who spend hours a day scanning paper, many of which are temp or hourly employees they don't have HI.

I know one company with 65 people, of which only 25 get HI. The rest don't because they are hourly employees and may work 50 hours one week and 30 hours the next... or none at all.

Your post:


No, the majority of those 45% that have over 50 workers (on the books workers, not contract workers) do provide HI, but not to every employee. Those 45% of companies will have to pay a fine for every employee that doesn't have HI, or they will be forced to move them to contract workers...


Not to mention the whole 1099 for all purchases over $600 will be a HUGE extra cost for ALL of the companies I deal with!

They don't provide health insurance to part-time or temp workers.

The temp workers do not fall under the requirement, so those employees are exempt.

How many workers would you say, on average, are part-timers? In raw numbers?

Because, if they have many part-timers, and few full-timers, they are most likely gaming the current system anyways, which states all full time employees are required to have a certain level of benefits (Vacation/Sick time, etc).

They could shrink the number of part-timers, and replace 2 part timers with a full timer, provide benefits, and be all set.

I'm not sure about your claim of 1099's being a huge cost... It doesn't cost me anything by time to do my 1099's, and I require them from all of my clients who meet the $600 per year guideline anyways.

[Dougles]

Your post:



They don't provide health insurance to part-time or temp workers.

The temp workers do not fall under the requirement, so those employees are exempt.

How many workers would you say, on average, are part-timers? In raw numbers?

Because, if they have many part-timers, and few full-timers, they are most likely gaming the current system anyways, which states all full time employees are required to have a certain level of benefits (Vacation/Sick time, etc).

They could shrink the number of part-timers, and replace 2 part timers with a full timer, provide benefits, and be all set.

I'm not sure about your claim of 1099's being a huge cost... It doesn't cost me anything by time to do my 1099's, and I require them from all of my clients who meet the $600 per year guideline anyways.


I don't have exact numbers on part time workers, but it's a small % of the overall workforce for most fo these companies.

Most of my accounts deal with 100's of end users that buy $600 or more. I'd bet between the 190+ they'd be looking at close to 8000 1099's they'll have to fill out... and that's .0001% of the whole market in the US.

You go online and buy a PC from CDW and you'll have to fill out a 1099 if it's for business use... and CDW will have to make sure they keep it on file for a few years.

[NBuffaloResident]

I don't have exact numbers on part time workers, but it's a small % of the overall workforce for most fo these companies.


So, the part timers are a tiny portion of the workforce for those companies. So, the penalties, if any, are minimal. Correct?



Most of my accounts deal with 100's of end users that buy $600 or more. I'd bet between the 190+ they'd be looking at close to 8000 1099's they'll have to fill out... and that's .0001% of the whole market in the US.

You go online and buy a PC from CDW and you'll have to fill out a 1099 if it's for business use... and CDW will have to make sure they keep it on file for a few years.

And, it's very easy to add a prog in SAP, PeopleSoft, or any other core financial software to generate, and mail to vendors, a 1099 at year-end close.

The costs are minimal. Hell, I can even write it for your vendors should you like for everything from MAS90-MAS200, SAP, or PeopleSoft. If they are using a "unsual" core financials, I'd most likely be able to do it as well. QuickBooks (Which is used by the vast majority of SMB's, myself included) already has the update in the software ;)

It doesn't even cost money, since you don't have to post it, you can email it, and post if the vendor says they didn't get it. Or, you can set up a web portal so the vendors can go and grab it. It's what my company has already done. The project cost less than $5K, and that was for a 40K employee company, with thousands of vendors.

If anything, this new requirement will give SMB's who do development work (Web and software) a much-needed injection of work :)

[Dougles]

So, the part timers are a tiny portion of the workforce for those companies. So, the penalties, if any, are minimal. Correct?

No, as many of the full timers don't get HI do to the low skill low pay jobs they have.

And, it's very easy to add a prog in SAP, PeopleSoft, or any other core financial software to generate, and mail to vendors, a 1099 at year-end close.

The costs are minimal. Hell, I can even write it for your vendors should you like for everything from MAS90-MAS200, SAP, or PeopleSoft. If they are using a "unsual" core financials, I'd most likely be able to do it as well. QuickBooks (Which is used by the vast majority of SMB's, myself included) already has the update in the software ;)

It doesn't even cost money, since you don't have to post it, you can email it, and post if the vendor says they didn't get it. Or, you can set up a web portal so the vendors can go and grab it. It's what my company has already done. The project cost less than $5K, and that was for a 40K employee company, with thousands of vendors.

If anything, this new requirement will give SMB's who do development work (Web and software) a much-needed injection of work :)


But you will have to have a person verifying the information is correct and that you recieved or sent it to every person... If it wasn't an added burden... why has Obama and Schumer already agreed that it needs to be removed?

[NBuffaloResident]

No, as many of the full timers don't get HI do to the low skill low pay jobs they have.


And, do you think that is the right thing to do?

I don't know of very many full-timers who work for 50+ employees who don't have health insurance as a benefit... Even for jobs like line worker, or fork driver...



But you will have to have a person verifying the information is correct and that you recieved or sent it to every person... If it wasn't an added burden... why has Obama and Schumer already agreed that it needs to be removed?

When you do B2B data transfers, you don't have someone looking at every document coming in. Are you insane?

Do you think a vendor who sells a million units a year manually verifies sales tax information? Or do they wait until there is an issue, or they spot check a sample for accuracy?

As to why they "think" it's needs to be removed, I have no idea. The idea that 1099's for every vendor over 600 bucks is easier than trying to figure out which vendors are "contractors" and which a "vendors".

Tell me: If I contract a company to provide software development for a new product of mine and it costs me $700, is that 1099 work, or is it a sale-use instance?

If you don't ask your accountant before answering, you're most likely wrong.

Under the new requirements, it wouldn't matter: You do a 1099 for all of them.

[Dougles]

And, do you think that is the right thing to do?

I don't know of very many full-timers who work for 50+ employees who don't have health insurance as a benefit... Even for jobs like line worker, or fork driver...





Were not talking about line workers or fork lifters, which need a Cert to drive them in every company i've heard of. Were talking about people filing things, filling scanners with paper and other meanial jobs...

Do you think a "cook" at McD's should have a HI plan that costs as much as they make a year?

[NBuffaloResident]

Were not talking about line workers or fork lifters, which need a Cert to drive them in every company i've heard of. Were talking about people filing things, filling scanners with paper and other meanial jobs...


Every job is menial when you look at it. And line workers do not require any certs, and every company I've ever seen had HI for their line workers, and all full time employees.



Do you think a "cook" at McD's should have a HI plan that costs as much as they make a year?

No, I think they should have a HI plan that costs less than what they make in a year. Even if that means raising their wages.

Remember, the menial worker is the one who makes the small businesses able to function. Without labor, there is no small business (Or even big business).

[Dougles]

Every job is menial when you look at it. And line workers do not require any certs, and every company I've ever seen had HI for their line workers, and all full time employees.
I was talking about the fork lift... but you knew that...



No, I think they should have a HI plan that costs less than what they make in a year. Even if that means raising their wages.

So you want to jack up costs for everyone?? Is that what your saying?? When the cost of business goes up, a business owner has two options, raise costs to their customers or lay off people to cut costs...

So by your own words you would rather have fewer people working at higher incomes, or have everyone else pay more out of pocket for the same goods...

Sorry, but i'd rather take the approach of lowering the HI costs so everyone can have it... I'd rather have everyone have access to great HI/HC than a small population having access to the best HI/HC, which by your comments above is what you want!

[NBuffaloResident]

I was talking about the fork lift... but you knew that...


Sure, the fork operator needs a training class. The floor sweepers, the maintenance guys, and all the other "menial workers" don't.



So you want to jack up costs for everyone?? Is that what your saying?? When the cost of business goes up, a business owner has two options, raise costs to their customers or lay off people to cut costs...


Sure. It's the price we should be paying. We claim we live in a civilized society, but our society is one where there is no problem seen not paying someone a fair wage for a fair day's work.



So by your own words you would rather have fewer people working at higher incomes, or have everyone else pay more out of pocket for the same goods...


If you understand anything about how capitalism works, you would know how it would work.



Sorry, but i'd rather take the approach of lowering the HI costs so everyone can have it... I'd rather have everyone have access to great HI/HC than a small population having access to the best HI/HC, which by your comments above is what you want!

The only way to lower HI costs for everyone is to ensure everyone is in the "Risk pool". And, in order to do that, there are two options:

* Single Payer plan
* Private insurance with individual mandates, and subsidies for those who can not afford it, and subsidies for businesses that choose to provide it.

Pick your option.

[Dougles]

The only way to lower HI costs for everyone is to ensure everyone is in the "Risk pool". And, in order to do that, there are two options:

* Single Payer plan
* Private insurance with individual mandates, and subsidies for those who can not afford it, and subsidies for businesses that choose to provide it.

Pick your option.

You have no idea what you are talking about! I've pointed out many times that by standardizing HI forms we'd cut the TOTAL HC costs by 5% and that's just the beginning... but you aren't interested in lokoing at real and better options... you just want to rush into a Europeon style system without giving it any thought!

As I've said before i'm all for a single payer system... that is RUN by a private group with a little govt oversight... as we've seen our govt can't run **** on budget... even govt off spins like the USPS can't!

[NBuffaloResident]

You have no idea what you are talking about! I've pointed out many times that by standardizing HI forms we'd cut the TOTAL HC costs by 5% and that's just the beginning... but you aren't interested in lokoing at real and better options... you just want to rush into a Europeon style system without giving it any thought!


5%? How, pray tell, do you think we could mandate standard HI forms? You're complaining about standardizing 1099 requirements across the board!

As long as profit is the driving motive for health insurance, costs will never go down, courtesy of the never ending question for profit for the sake of profit.

And the mandated private insurance is not a Euro thing. That's a GOP idea from 1994.



As I've said before i'm all for a single payer system... that is RUN by a private group with a little govt oversight... as we've seen our govt can't run **** on budget... even govt off spins like the USPS can't!

Really? Government can run anything on a budget? Well, I guess you just answered the question as to whether or not we can shave 58% of our defense budget...

[Dougles]

5%? How, pray tell, do you think we could mandate standard HI forms? You're complaining about standardizing 1099 requirements across the board!

As long as profit is the driving motive for health insurance, costs will never go down, courtesy of the never ending question for profit for the sake of profit.

And the mandated private insurance is not a Euro thing. That's a GOP idea from 1994.



Really? Government can run anything on a budget? Well, I guess you just answered the question as to whether or not we can shave 58% of our defense budget...


I'm talking about ONE billing form. Johns Hopkins released a finding that they accept 789 different HI companies... and have 789 different billing forms.

PWC showed that be making ONE billing for we could cut over 125BILLION from our HC costs a year...

And their is a difference between making one unified form that people are already using (which will lower costs) than adding a form that many if most SMB's don't use (which will add more costs).


Please i've been screaming on here to cut the defense budget... but to use some made up number like 58% isn't an answer. I know we could cut about $200B without seeing a decline in the defense of America.

[NBuffaloResident]

I'm talking about ONE billing form. Johns Hopkins released a finding that they accept 789 different HI companies... and have 789 different billing forms.

PWC showed that be making ONE billing for we could cut over 125BILLION from our HC costs a year...


We'd have a better rate of return by eliminating smoking, or obesity:http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158948.php



And their is a difference between making one unified form that people are already using (which will lower costs) than adding a form that many if most SMB's don't use (which will add more costs).


There is only one form that every provider currently uses: Medicare Reimbursement Form. Every practice management software out there can transfer data to Medicare.

In fact, most providers prefer working with Medicare, since they don't need to fight for care for their patients.

Another cost saver would be making doctor decisions on treatment be the rule:http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/05/14/health-insurance-administrative-costs-to-doctors-31-billion-per-year/

Would save 31 billion a year.

Government ran single payer would save us even more:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/health_plan.html

$286 billion a year.



Please i've been screaming on here to cut the defense budget... but to use some made up number like 58% isn't an answer. I know we could cut about $200B without seeing a decline in the defense of America.

It's not some "made up number". It's a matter of cutting every discretionary line item by it's percentage of discretionary spending.

[PickOranges]

Why does Douglas and NBuffaloResident like to spend their afternoons together?

[NBuffaloResident]

Why does Douglas and NBuffaloResident like to spend their afternoons together?

We work in offices right next to each other :p

[PickOranges]

We work in offices right next to each other :p

Well, if you both don't get back to work to make your sakes quota, both of you will be in the unemployment line together..

Oh, by the way.. I am in the office on the floor directly above yours.

[NBuffaloResident]

Well, if you both don't get back to work to make your sakes quota, both of you will be in the unemployment line together..

Oh, by the way.. I am in the office on the floor directly above yours.

OH SH--!!!!1!!ELEVEN!

:p

[ILOVEDNY]

Small businesses are not going to get fined for not offering health insurance,"YOU LIE!!"

Nice back and forth you and Dougie are having.
But shocking as it may be.
You were wrong.






Again.

[Mindcrime]

Without labor, there is no small business (Or even big business).

Some people tend to forget that it is labor that creates wealth, not billionaires.

[shortstuff]

In this Obamahealthcare mania, (just my thoughts only) as a small business owner this HI will invariably close down small businesses. Or it will take full time employees and make them part time or let go some of the staff. Business owners will figure out a way to beat this or shut down.

The fact that these larger companies, union organizations are receiving waivers is going to cause the system to break. So the smaller businesses essentially will subsidize the healthcare program. Just like the middle class paying the price.

We will see no longer, small businesses so what will be left is the McDonald's and then what. No one working so that they can't go to McDonald's and eat the ****~~then they will close down. This healthcare program will be our downfall for sure. I believe everyone should have coverage.

My thought would be a minimal coverage and people who do have money will beable to add to that policy according to their financial situation.

The Republicans are going to modify this plan. Good bad or indifferent, I think this is a bad idea.

Now I have heard that in this healthcare plan (possibly rumor I don't know) but anyways, that by 2012 in this plan~~~if you sell your house, 3.8% tax is added and will go directly to the Federal government to support the plan. Is that true? This will effect housing. Also I may have heard wrong on the news, but is it true that they will know longer beable to write off the taxes paid out on our houses to support the debt?

[NBuffaloResident]

Nice back and forth you and Dougie are having.
But shocking as it may be.
You were wrong.

Again.

Where was I wrong? Dougles proved my point for me, by offering his own demographics and data.

[Dougles]

Some people tend to forget that it is labor that creates wealth, not billionaires.

No it's INNOVATION that creates wealth! The greatest period of wealth expansion in the world wasn't because of union labor, it was because of innovation in the technology market...

But since union's and the WFP don't understand technology... you wouldn't either.

[Dougles]

Where was I wrong? Dougles proved my point for me, by offering his own demographics and data.

So your saying that your point was that 45% of SMB's would be hit with fines??? Then we agree!

[shortstuff]

So your saying that your point was that 45% of SMB's would be hit with fines??? Then we agree!

Solidarity, yes!

[mikenold]

More waivers!!!

Four States Get Waivers to Carry Out Health Law

By ROBERT PEAR (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/robert_pear/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: February 16, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Wednesday that it had granted broad waivers to four states allowing health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) companies to continue offering less generous benefits than they would otherwise be required to provide this year under the new federal health care law.

The states are Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, the administration told Congress.
Lawmakers said that many other states, insurers and employers needed similar exemptions from some of the law’s requirements and would seek waivers if they knew of the option.
Steven B. Larsen, a top federal insurance regulator, said the waivers would allow many consumers to keep the coverage they had, a goal often espoused by President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/health/policy/17health.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Sorry if you have seen this as there are at least 3 threads with the same info.

[run4it]

Did you read the rest of the article?

If you did, you'd know that a) the waivers are only temporary, and b) they are to allow people to keep insurance plans THEY ALREADY HAVE (which has already been a goal) and have been encouraged BY those states. The hope is to transition to fully compliant plans in the future.

But I'm sure I didn't need to tell you that, because you read the rest of the article, right? You just didn't post the other pertinent parts for the sake of brevity?


More waivers!!!

Four States Get Waivers to Carry Out Health Law

By ROBERT PEAR (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/robert_pear/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: February 16, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Wednesday that it had granted broad waivers to four states allowing health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) companies to continue offering less generous benefits than they would otherwise be required to provide this year under the new federal health care law.

The states are Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, the administration told Congress.
Lawmakers said that many other states, insurers and employers needed similar exemptions from some of the law’s requirements and would seek waivers if they knew of the option.
Steven B. Larsen, a top federal insurance regulator, said the waivers would allow many consumers to keep the coverage they had, a goal often espoused by President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/health/policy/17health.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Sorry if you have seen this as there are at least 3 threads with the same info.

[mikenold]

If everyone receives a waiver, is there still a health care law? ;)